PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave and Linux ????



Op....
12-19-2003, 07:35 AM
Hi everybody...

This is the moment for me ...
A friend told me " this is the best OS" for your job....
Lightwave and Linux .... "the dream" !!!
But , someone can told me if any developpements are in progress ???
Thanks a lot ...

;)p

Beamtracer
12-19-2003, 08:52 AM
I doubt if there is a full version of LW for Linux under development. It would be a good thing if there was.

If you used Linux you'd be able to run your AMD Opteron computers in full 64-bit mode, and not just 32-bit mode as it is with Windows.

Thalaxis
12-19-2003, 09:57 AM
The first 64-bit Windows for AMD64 is supposedly shipping in the
first half of '04, but we'll see. The beta's been out for a few
months now, which is a positive sign.

wiremuse
12-19-2003, 11:02 AM
It would certainly be nice as I've been swaying between dropping LW and going Maya just because I can't stand windows. It really depends on how LW8 Comes out.
Although I would really rather not. I'm not very comfortable with Maya as I am with LW or say XSI but XSI is far to expensive for me to have at home.

The renderer is all ready ported so network rendering under linux can be done and that is a great start.

I think the demand has really been building up especially for the market outside the U.S. where we're starting to see larger moves over to Linux.

If and when this happens I will buy everyone at Newtek some Guinness =)

Beamtracer
12-20-2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by neurostim
The renderer is all ready ported so network rendering under linux can be done and that is a great start. Although Screamernet is working on Linux, it would still be a substantial amount of work to get a full port of Lightwave to Linux. The renderer was relatively easy due to the commonality of the OpenGL code.


Originally posted by neurostim
It would certainly be nice as I've been swaying between dropping LW and going Maya just because I can't stand windows. There's always Mac OS X, and like Linux it's another flavor of UNIX. That would be better than dropping Lightwave.


Originally posted by neurostim
I think the demand has really been building up especially for the market outside the U.S. where we're starting to see larger moves over to Linux.

A lot of foreign governments are switching to Linux so they don't have to be tied to Microsoft.

The film industry is looking for UNIX based non-Windows operating systems. Some have moved to Linux (ILM). Some are going Mac OS X (Pixar, MeniThings).

There's already a 64-bit Linux available now for the AMD Opteron processor. The processor functions in all its 64-bit glory, instead of 32-bit mode with the current Windows.

However I believe that the Lightwave Screamernet for Linux is still only a 32-bit app. I don't think it would be too difficult to make this a 64-bit app. Maybe a new one will ship with Lightwave 8???


Originally posted by neurostim
If and when this happens I will buy everyone at Newtek some Guinness =) Ah, you must be Irish!!! ;)

Thalaxis
12-20-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Although Screamernet is working on Linux, it would still be a substantial amount of work to get a full port of Lightwave to Linux. The renderer was relatively easy due to the commonality of the OpenGL code.


So, you're saying that NewTek wrote their raytracer in OpenGL?

Beamtracer
12-20-2003, 06:57 PM
Maybe this quote expresses it better than I did...

Originally posted by Arnie Cachelin
"Porting the lwsn render engine is relatively easy, since it has very few platform dependencies. Building all the UI parts is a far bigger job."
Arnie Cachelin is a programmer who worked on the Screamernet Linux port. He now works for "the other company".

My point is there would be a substantial amount of work to get a fully working version of Lightwave for Linux. I think it would be a good idea, though.

alex68
12-21-2003, 01:27 PM
Just to clear some topics.

1- Linux is used by production houses just for one simple reason : MONEY!!. Just think how much you've to pay for 1000-2000... Windows-OS X licenses compared to few bucks for Linux.

1- With Linux you can develop your own applications without having to pay thousands $$ for using
libs...

3- Every animator, modeler, compositor should understand that THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES REGARDING THE
STABILITY OF THE PROGRAM USED, SPEED OF VISUALIZATION OF WINDOWS OBJECTS, RENDERING AND
OTHER SUBURBAN MYTHS. In some case (e.g.: XSI) the program could be even slower because of
the use of emulation libs (like WINALL).

My advice is to stay with Windows or OS X unless you have a 100--1000 render farm. In that case you could consider
to switch to Linux.

Enrico

Beamtracer
12-21-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by alex68
Linux is used by production houses just for one simple reason : MONEY!!. Just think how much you've to pay for 1000-2000... Windows-OS X licenses compared to few bucks for Linux. I think that only applies to Windows. I believe that if you buy an Apple X-serve render farm you only have to pay for one OS X license. I guess with Linux you don't have to pay for any if you don't buy it from a vendor.

Thalaxis
12-22-2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Maybe this quote expresses it better than I did...

My point is there would be a substantial amount of work to get a fully working version of Lightwave for Linux. I think it would be a good idea, though.

Yes, it does express it better than you did... probably because you
are unfamiliar with programming.

I think the level of effort for porting LightWave to Linux would be
less than most people think, since a lot of the UI dependent code
has been evolving into OpenGL; i.e. the UI itself, so it should be
less platform-centric than it used to be.

That is not to say that it would not be hard, though, and that
doesn't even include the cost (in terms of effort) of porting the
plugins and libraries and API's and so on, which no matter how
platform-neutral they are, will require at minimun rigorous testing,
which alone is a considerable effort.

Rickie
02-21-2005, 01:55 PM
I might be a bit niave here. But as I see it the advantage to using Linux in say renderfarms is cost not just saving licence fees but the cost associated with have ing to reboot nodes while rending (Windows loves its reboots). While I would love to dump windows (its not just LW that will have to port for me to do this.) the big thing is rendering. lets be honest rendering is maths and data nothing else. So maybe some one should take a version of linux strip what is not required to render. get rid of graphical interfaces etc just leave the stuff to set up the network and run the render. whack that on the render farm machines fire up the xp box to kick of the network render.

sorry I waffle a lot.

put simply make a linux distro just to run a linux lwsn node. after all the less overheads the render nodes have the faster the render. One of the big pros/cons of linux is you can change it to your hearts content. so why nost use that.

Its not a full Linux port but I could give what most seem to be after. and newtec can always change the libaraies in linux to get over plugin problems etc (every body cheats sometime)

Maths and data!
:o

Thalaxis
02-22-2005, 09:09 AM
I might be a bit niave here. But as I see it the advantage to using Linux in say renderfarms is cost not just saving licence fees but the cost associated with have ing to reboot nodes while rending

There's also the fact that had NewTek a Linux port of LW8, they could have released a 64-bit port
for Linux/AMD64 over a year ago, rather than waiting for MS to retool WOW32 and QA XP64 for
AMD64. :)

Captain Obvious
02-22-2005, 12:20 PM
1- Linux is used by production houses just for one simple reason : MONEY!!. Just think how much you've to pay for 1000-2000... Windows-OS X licenses compared to few bucks for Linux.

2- With Linux you can develop your own applications without having to pay thousands $$ for using
libs...

With Xserve, you get an unlimited OS X Server license, IIRC. You get a license for Mac OS X with every single Mac regardless, so the price is pretty much irrelevant.

As for developing... It's just as free for every platform. Hell, Apple's Xcode IDE is completely free, and you don't need to pay any royalties to anyone for using it.

Verlon
02-22-2005, 04:38 PM
Well, whenever a cool new plugin or tool comes along, I always see the Mac guys saying "When will the mac version be out?"

So I would wager that your plugins would not automatically port either. You use any plugins? I'd hate to give up F-Prime or some of the other clever little tools I have found to make my life a little easier.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Windows. I still miss my old Amiga OS sometimes. However, I can by windows software at Walmart and EVERYONE supports it (however reluctantly) because everyone uses it.

Captain Obvious
02-22-2005, 05:26 PM
As far as I've understood it, most plugins basically just require a recompilation for Mac, since they use LScripted user interface and such. With some of them more complex plugins, I guess they have to port the user interface and such, too... and file management stuff, probably... Not really that much work. Optimizations may take a little effort, though.

Besides, I think all of Worley's plugs are available for Mac... ;)

doimus
02-22-2005, 11:43 PM
Here's another vote for Linux port.
It really should be easy, since LW is already multiplatform and it's not tied to Windows interface.

I'm not an OS geek, but my experience with Linux (especially this latest distributions) have been extremely positive. It just IS a better OS, even from a casual-user point of view. Period.
Sadly, I'm tied to Windows because of the software I use.

Ofcourse, Linux itself is to blame for not having a something we could call a "standard version". As soon as someone develops a standardised distribution (probably commercial, as people tend to value commercial stuff more ;) ) I think things will start to move. It's pretty difficult to provide user support for 50 distributions of OS...
Nowell and SUSE are going ina right direction on the "standardisation" aspect, IMO.

Things we should ask orselves are:
If Linux and Windows cost the same and ran all the software, wich OS would we choose?

My answer would be Linux.

DiscreetFX
02-23-2005, 04:50 AM
Yes a Linux port of Lightwave 3D 8 and even VT[4] would be awesome!

:)

Thalaxis
02-23-2005, 07:56 AM
It just IS a better OS, even from a casual-user point of view.


That's exactly the one thing you're wrong about. Linux is not something that the casual user is
going to be at all comfortable with right now, unless it's pre-installed on their box, and even then
the most common applications that the casual user will want are either not up to par yet, or entirely
non-existent. The casual user is the ONLY view in which Linux comes up wanting, though... but
it's getting there.

I am, BTW, a Linux fan working in a Linux shop as a software developer, so I remain optimistic about
the prospect of Linux reaching a point where it will be able to compete for the casual user.

doimus
02-23-2005, 10:26 AM
That's exactly the one thing you're wrong about. Linux is not something that the casual user is
going to be at all comfortable with right now, unless it's pre-installed on their box, and even then
the most common applications that the casual user will want are either not up to par yet, or entirely
non-existent. The casual user is the ONLY view in which Linux comes up wanting, though... but
it's getting there.


When I said casual user, I didn't mean your average John Doe gamer/warez/careless user. I meant casual Lightwave user who doesn't wan't to be bothered too much about OS issues (AND security issues).

Well, except for multimedia (licensing issues) and games, everything else seems to be just right in current Linux distributions. It seems most problems with drivers have been ironed out, and there's plenty of "casual" software around.

Come to think of it, most of my "supporting" software is opensource/multiplatform right now on WinXP (OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox, NVu etc.).
Ofcourse, none of my "first-line" packages are available on Linux (LW, Rhino, Autocad) so it's basically up to big players in both Linux and applications world to coordinate themselves if it's anyhow possible, and I hope it'll soon be...

As a Windows user since version 3.1 I believe current Linux distributions have reached at least the level of Win2000 in terms of user-friendliness or stability or support. (Anybody remember the quirks of WinNT 4? :rolleyes: )
And even as I don't actually feel the need to change OS in near time (WinXP performs fine indeed) I believe in the right of choice, and multiple choices are always beter than monopoly.

Sometimes I kind of regret Microsoft joining household (DOS based) and pro (NT based) lines of Windows. Basically all the mayhem started then....

I'm talking about three firewalls, all the antivirus and anti-spyware software I have installed on my system/network, none of wich was there in year 2001 or before.

Thalaxis
02-23-2005, 10:46 AM
When I said casual user, I didn't mean your average John Doe gamer/warez/careless user. I meant casual Lightwave user who doesn't wan't to be bothered too much about OS issues (AND security issues).


Well, not very many people would put even a casual LW'er into the same category as "casual
user". :)



Well, except for multimedia (licensing issues) and games, everything else seems to be just right in current Linux distributions. It seems most problems with drivers have been ironed out, and there's plenty of "casual" software around.


Stability and features are no longer a problem, at least with the OS, that's definitely true.



Come to think of it, most of my "supporting" software is opensource/multiplatform right now on WinXP (OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox, NVu etc.).
Ofcourse, none of my "first-line" packages are available on Linux (LW, Rhino, Autocad) so it's basically up to big players in both Linux and applications world to coordinate themselves if it's anyhow possible, and I hope it'll soon be...


I'm hoping so also... right now though, the OpenOffice suite falls short for our work needs in a lot
of areas, which forces us to use MS Office quite a bit.



As a Windows user since version 3.1 I believe current Linux distributions have reached at least the level of Win2000 in terms of user-friendliness or stability or support. (Anybody remember the quirks of WinNT 4? :rolleyes: )


That was a big step forward in UI, and a big step backward otherwise. Very irritating, and a direct
result of MS' method that Electronic Farts is now imitating (work 80 hours a week and it will get
done on time!).



And even as I don't actually feel the need to change OS in near time (WinXP performs fine indeed) I believe in the right of choice, and multiple choices are always beter than monopoly.


Same here.



Sometimes I kind of regret Microsoft joining household (DOS based) and pro (NT based) lines of Windows. Basically all the mayhem started then....

I'm talking about three firewalls, all the antivirus and anti-spyware software I have installed on my system/network, none of wich was there in year 2001 or before.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), that had nothing to do with MS other than
success. If Windows were as hard to find in the household as Linux or MacOS, there wouldn't
be nearly as much malware out there directed towards exploiting its vulnerabilities. Not that that
excuses them, of course. While a lot of them are the direct result of some design decisions that
look rather foolish in hindsight, a lot of them would also never have been discovered if Windows
only had the market share of, say, Lindows.

The thing is that if you hang that much bait out there, you should expect it to get bitten, which is a
lesson that it took MS nearly ten years to learn.

Captain Obvious
02-23-2005, 04:11 PM
The casual user is the ONLY view in which Linux comes up wanting, though... but it's getting there.
I'd use Linux if it had a proper user interface, and I'm hardly a casual user. I'm just annoyingly picky. ;)

doimus
02-24-2005, 04:14 AM
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), that had nothing to do with MS other than
success. If Windows were as hard to find in the household as Linux or MacOS, there wouldn't
be nearly as much malware out there directed towards exploiting its vulnerabilities. Not that that
excuses them, of course. While a lot of them are the direct result of some design decisions that
look rather foolish in hindsight, a lot of them would also never have been discovered if Windows
only had the market share of, say, Lindows.

The thing is that if you hang that much bait out there, you should expect it to get bitten, which is a
lesson that it took MS nearly ten years to learn.

I agree...
Isn't it amazing what hype and marketing can do to the image of a product or company. It's like Linux wil be geekish OS forever and AMD CPUs are always be overheating, no matter what the actual situation is. And there are hundreds more examples like this - in 3D world especially.

BTW, I use Windows on Intel, so I'm not a frustrated fanboy. ;)

mrunion
02-24-2005, 06:21 AM
I'd use Linux if it had a proper user interface, and I'm hardly a casual user. I'm just annoyingly picky. ;)

<opinion>
And what, in your opinion, has a proper interface? I'm curious because in my limited experience, Linux has the absolute MOST flexible interface of anything discussed here.

Surely you're not thinking Windows has a better interface! :) Gast!
</opinion>

Thalaxis
02-24-2005, 08:10 AM
I agree...
Isn't it amazing what hype and marketing can do to the image of a product or company. It's like Linux wil be geekish OS forever and AMD CPUs are always be overheating, no matter what the actual situation is. And there are hundreds more examples like this - in 3D world especially.


And it doesn't help that AMD and Linux don't exactly have the massive marketing of, say Apple and
Microsoft.



<opinion>
And what, in your opinion, has a proper interface? I'm curious because in my limited experience, Linux has the absolute MOST flexible interface of anything discussed here.

Surely you're not thinking Windows has a better interface! Gast!
</opinion>


Windows DOES have a better interface... for most users. IBM apparently used to employ some
very good UI designers back in the OS/2 days. :D

(If you didn't happen to use OS/2 2.x or later, you probably would not have noticed that the win95
UI was almost an exact replica of the OS/2 2.x UI. Back then MS and IBM were collaborating on
OS development.)

From the perspective of most users, flexibility is not an advantage. It's also not generally a
disadvantage, though -- most of the average users just won't notice its presence (or absence).

Captain Obvious
02-24-2005, 05:32 PM
<opinion>
And what, in your opinion, has a proper interface? I'm curious because in my limited experience, Linux has the absolute MOST flexible interface of anything discussed here.

Surely you're not thinking Windows has a better interface! :) Gast!
</opinion>
Mac OS, obviously. ;) Really, which is technically superior is not very relevant anymore. A computer with good hardware running a well-configured (Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, *BSD, UNIX, etc), will not crash. At least not enough for it to be a problem. There is absolutely nothing that makes any of the platforms naturally better or worse for 3D work. Unless you're running a server or something such, it really doesn't matter which you pick, from a technical point of view. That said, choice is always nice. ;)

doimus
02-25-2005, 04:09 AM
Mac OS, obviously. Really, which is technically superior is not very relevant anymore. A computer with good hardware running a well-configured (Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, *BSD, UNIX, etc), will not crash. At least not enough for it to be a problem. There is absolutely nothing that makes any of the platforms naturally better or worse for 3D work. Unless you're running a server or something such, it really doesn't matter which you pick, from a technical point of view. That said, choice is always nice.


I agree, regardin the stability all current OS are roughly equal. But there are some issues for 3D work, it's just most people don't notice their presence or absence, as Thalaxis said. Those are ofcourse all technical, not artistic issues...
One of those issues is memory management wich is very poor in 32bit Windows (that will hopefully change with XP64), and the total lack of configurability by the user. Windows basically installs and enables everything, no matter what's going to be the purpose of that particular installation. WinXP Pro is basically an overkill for render-farm machines, for example. Also, poor hard-drive management and infamous security issues as well.

We've done with OS stability issues - now it all comes down to optimization.
And speaking of that - imagine if we could run render-farms from these USB-cuties some day (without noisy hard drives) :D
Puppy Linux (http://www.goosee.com/puppy/)

Thalaxis
02-25-2005, 07:27 AM
One of those issues is memory management wich is very poor in 32bit Windows (that will hopefully change with XP64)


The problem isn't actually the MANAGEMENT... it's a rather inane CHOICE that MS made which
had no impact when memory was too expensive to consider putting over 2 GB in a non-server
system, but now it is just silly. Their server OS' quite happily allow processes to use 4 GB at a
time (36 bit addressing). It's probably a bit like their choice of keeping XP Home limited to one
processor, so that people who want two will pay more in order to be able to use them.



, and the total lack of configurability by the user. Windows basically installs and enables everything, no matter what's going to be the purpose of that particular installation. WinXP Pro is basically an overkill for render-farm machines, for example. Also, poor hard-drive management and infamous security issues as well.
We've done with OS stability issues - now it all comes down to optimization.


You CAN customize it... but that takes work. :)
It's actually good for the average user, because it makes installing XP very painless if you have an
internet connection, and only slightly inconvenient otherwise, since it takes a phone call.

Not that that makes it ideal for the "power user" though.

The default set of services, however, is overkill, since there's real analog to runlevels in Windows
that I know of, so you really have to know what you're doing in order to get rid of system services
that you know you won't need, but that get started by default in order to make life easier for the
non-technical user who really doesn't care, and already has far more power than they'll need for
years to come even with no optmization whatsoever.



And speaking of that - imagine if we could run render-farms from these USB-cuties some day (without noisy hard drives) :D
Puppy Linux (http://www.goosee.com/puppy/)

Especially with the new small form factor rigs showing up, some of which are designed to
take advantage of the low-power designs like Pentium-M and Turion :)

malinhess
04-22-2005, 01:12 PM
There's always Mac OS X, and like Linux it's another flavor of UNIX. That would be better than dropping Lightwave.

Why should anyone have to buy a Mac to get Lightwave to work on "Linux"? I can convert a PC machine to Linux without any expense. Doesn't make much sense going and buying a Mac for pretty much one program. Since the Mac OS is UNIX based, porting to Linux shouldn't be much of a task.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/X11/index.html

Personally, I think that Newtek would commit a grave error not porting it to Linux. More options for your user means more market share, more money and happy users. This option would cut costs for the end user and Newtek would reap the benefits. To limit possibilities is to limit your vision.

"Lightwave......Linux......limitless!"

Captain Obvious
04-23-2005, 06:58 AM
Since the Mac OS is UNIX based, porting to Linux shouldn't be much of a task.
Well... Aside from the renderer and such things that are more or less entirely self-contained, it could still be very hard. Lightwave for Mac most likely uses the Carbon API. Carbon does not exist for anything else, especially not Linux. So in order to port it, you would have to re-write most of the UI code anyway. The fact that Mac OS X is based on UNIX doesn't matter much, since Lightwave only use the parts of Mac OS X that are based on Mac OS 'Classic.'



Personally, I think that Newtek would commit a grave error not porting it to Linux. More options for your user means more market share, more money and happy users. This option would cut costs for the end user and Newtek would reap the benefits. To limit possibilities is to limit your vision.
Linux isn't all that big. Not yet anyhow. The total market share is probably about equal to Mac OS', however, the market share among "creative types" is probably much lower. I'm not convinced that porting Lightwave to Linux would be worth the effort. Applications like Maya started on a POSIX system, and would be a piece of cake to port to any *NIX, but Lightwave would take a lot more work...

Maruloko
04-26-2005, 07:08 PM
Well, Mepis Linux & Wine make it easy for me !

Gui works "as it can" only in "one view" port best.
Must really now LW before use it on Linux.
Layout is giving full power to create Hypervoxels scenes,
Viper is working really nice... Scene ed' "old school" only.
All important windows are available.
Open GL preview work great too. I didn't solve saving them, next time.
As i'm writing my LW8/Linux is rendering & posting my tga :)

More infos ASAP by Marc Bahuaud - Montpellier, France