PDA

View Full Version : Old idea yes, but is it possible? Linux?



Brian Peterson
03-04-2003, 11:53 PM
Paul and crew,

After finishing this article heremicrosoft (http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.html#industry) and seeing a demo of winux recently, I'm wondering if sometime in the future Newtek is considering porting Toaster over to the Linux os? I believe you can render Lightwave files on Linux already. So why not work on Linux?

Andrew recently mentioned possibly eliminating the need for reliance on Direct show and if I understand what SSE is the toaster is now relying heavily on processor chip features and not os abilities...

Frankly I have no intention of moving beyond win 2000, so at least please support that in T3! I don't appreciate the back doors, I don't appreciate the spyware, I don't want to be forced to upgrade when they determine I should. I'm thinking that George Orwell was about 15 years early.

I know this is an old conversation, but having just read the afore mentioned article, my desire to get my major computer components as far away from windows as possible has percolated back to the surface.

Thanks.

Faraz
03-05-2003, 01:06 PM
I rather see NewTek continue to improve the Video Toaster then take time to port it to Linux. But I do hope I don't have to upgarde to Windows XP.

robewil
03-05-2003, 01:14 PM
I agree. I don't even consider Win XP as an upgrade. It looks like a cartoon and Microsoft tries to hide the tools to manage the system such as the device manager. I'll stick with 2000 as long as I can.

Paul Lara
03-05-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Brian Peterson
Frankly I have no intention of moving beyond win 2000, so at least please support that in T3!

Video Toaster [3] will be Win 2k compatible, Brian. :)

JReble
03-06-2003, 07:12 AM
And it better stay that way Paul or else!

Eric Pratt
03-10-2003, 12:39 PM
I know a guy who still swears by DOS

Jim Capillo
03-10-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Eric Pratt
I know a guy who still swears by DOS

C'mon Eric..... leave Ted alone ! ;) :D

eon5
11-29-2004, 07:35 AM
Is Newtek considering porting VT4 over to the Linux os ?

videoguy
11-29-2004, 02:41 PM
a port to linux is basically impossible since the VT relies heavily on Direct Show and Direct X since these( or any viable counterparts )do not exist in any flavor of linux . also since linux is stolen code from SCO i dont think it would be wise for newtek to support this treachery. the VT runs great on WINXP and i higly reocmend it since win2k does not trully support hyperthreading

ercaxus
12-19-2004, 10:27 PM
also since linux is stolen code from SCO i dont think it would be wise for newtek to support this treachery.

wow this is so cool. really? where when how? who proved it? what does it have to do w/ newtek? what treachery? lw linux render node? hellooo?

mgrusin
12-20-2004, 09:46 AM
I'm hoping there should have been a ;) after "treachery".

I have zero qualms about using Linux. Much less than using 'soft. :D

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041202-4431.html et. al.

-MG.

JReble
12-20-2004, 10:30 AM
Linux is about as stolen from SCO as Windows is stolen from Xerox and Apple. Nuff said.

rbartlett
12-20-2004, 10:34 AM
SDL may help smooth over the cracks in Linux for a common high protene video subsystem diet:

http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/21/sdl.html

I don't expect Andrew Cross will get away with simply running his MakeFile after FTP'ing the teams sources over to Linux !

The opportunity is there but needs someone to do it who'll do it alongside VT's progressive development. If VT-Linux came out with equal or less than the previous VT incarnation - then there would still be a whole bunch of protests. Most folks have already bought Windows or had it thrown in for $100 by the dealer. So it is only the hidden costs (Cost of ownership and long term risks) of Windows that will be being fought. If the swell moves to Linux in the meantime, it too will be a target. Even with all the security badges Linux/UNIX holds.

videoguy
12-20-2004, 03:02 PM
Can you guys provide a vaild reason for Newtek to waste their valuable development time on porting to linux because i dont see one

JReble
12-20-2004, 04:30 PM
I can't think of one. If yer gonna spend 6 grand + on an editing system, why the heck would you give a **** about a free operating system that won't support most of your accesory applications and any other number of programs you'll probably need to use.

robewil
12-20-2004, 04:58 PM
I can't think of one. If yer gonna spend 6 grand + on an editing system, why the heck would you give a **** about a free operating system that won't support most of your accesory applications and any other number of programs you'll probably need to use.I agree. Don't forget that VT[4] is also made up of Aura and Lightwave, which would subsequently have to be ported to Linux as well. Oh yeah! Many of us use Bob Tasa's plug-ins. Are we going to have to start bugging him to port to Linux too?

mgrusin
12-21-2004, 10:58 AM
No, (grumble), I don't want NT to divert their energy from more important things. I grudgingly accept the current state of affairs as something we'll have to deal with for a while.


But as a user (like millions) who has fought daily with MS operating systems since MS-DOS, and as someone with a computer science background who has seen how much better things -could- be, I think the current situation STINKS.

Market economics have locked all of us into using "the worlds most popular operating system" solely because it IS "the worlds most popular operating system". That definitely does not mean it's "the worlds BEST operating system".

Occasionally there are flashes of brilliance; the Amiga, BeOS, but they're all eventually squashed by Microsoft economics. All better mousetraps, gone. How's that for progress?

Furthermore, it's not even in their best business interest to make excellent software, it just needs to be "good enough". (Napoleon said something to the effect of: "if something could be either conspiracy or incompetence, it's most likely incompetence". But I'm still not entirely sure which one it is for Microsoft.)

For example, they have such complete market penetration, that their only viable business model is to re-sell the same product to the same people every few years. Does this mean that they're knowlingly making stuff with so many problems that people are dying to upgrade? Or are they just not that good at it?

Even if they DO make something that could last a while (Win2K for example), they have a policy of only supporting things for X years. After that, is it even safe to use their products, since they're not actively patching the holes? (Which are mostly there because they originally thought it was a GOOD idea for outside code to be able to run on your machine?) An expiration date is brilliant from a business standpoint, but it sucks for us. (And this will get worse - aside from the security update problem, if you like XP and want to keep using it, what is the activation process going to do in 10 years when you want to install it on a new machine?)

Mostly I'm sick of their AOL mentality. I was taught that an OS merely provides software with an abstraction from the hardware (so that the same software can run on a variety of hardware), and optionally provides a user interface. That's it. This can be, and has been done extremely well. How cool (and fast!) would it be to have a lean, mean, OS which lets the software above run at blistering speeds?

MS however, has moved more and more towards "being the only software you'll ever need" right out of the box. It is full of apps you don't want (and can't remove), remote control capabilities that are unnecessary and dangerous, and ties back to the parent company (MSN, WMP, DRM) that are only there for continuing-business reasons. There may be a good OS down in there trying to get out, but it's surrounded by a phenomenal amount of bloat. It sickens me that each CPU I buy is twice as fast as the last (this is extraordinary from a technology standpoint), but the OS is somehow SLOWER.

Bottom line: whatever their reason for existence is, "making excellent software" seems to be low on their priority list. It works well enough, and it's certainly better than nothing. But in the year 2004, with 50 years of CS under our belts, we should expect better. We should expect the Video Toaster of Operating Systems.


To be fair, some or all of these things affect every software company to some extent. Except one, which is the open-source movement. They don't have the resources, nor quite often a centralized vision, and sometimes they don't even have the skillz. But at least they're trying to make excellent software. And for this they should be supported.

Here's my Christmas wish: it may not happen soon, it may not happen ever, but I hope that a lot of people making small contributions will eventually build something grand, which can compete with MS on every level, and become an economically-viable platform for folks like Newtek to support. Mostly because I just want to use excellent software again!


Happy holidays! -MG "Mad Mike" Grusin.

edit: 500th post. :D

tonsofpcs
12-21-2004, 02:44 PM
I can't think of one. If yer gonna spend 6 grand + on an editing system, why the heck would you give a **** about a free operating system that won't support most of your accesory applications and any other number of programs you'll probably need to use.

Stability.

videoguy
12-21-2004, 03:56 PM
windows is perfectly stable for me My windows install hasnt crashed in oh I dont know forever linux is much less stable then windows in my experience

bradl
12-22-2004, 01:23 AM
I have not use linux (yet) but I had an SGI box running a version of UNIX and it ran 24/7 for over six years, was only occasionally rebooted every few months and only crashed twice in it's life. We worked it pretty hard on top of that. If Liniux could even approach performance like that I would be interested!

JReble
12-22-2004, 07:30 AM
I'm no champion for MS by any means, but we're talking about stability for an edit application that isn't even designed for Linux. I'd much rather deal with the current (and hopefully improving) stability of software designed for Windows than dealing with the completely questionable stability of newly designed software in the unlikely event a version was attempted for linux. Sure, VT on Linux is 100% stable when it is vaporware. The stability or instability of Linux isn't really at issue. Let them get one version of VT working properly. If they wasted time looking at a port to another OS at this time, they could expect to recover 1% of their investment. I'm fine just paying for the R&D on the version I'm using thank-you-very-much.