PDA

View Full Version : NEED LW on Linux!



meshmaster
03-09-2004, 01:08 PM
and on 64 bit...
so that someday if I get enough bucks together we can get LW running on a few of these http://sgi.com/servers/altix/ as nodes in a screamernet renderfarm! It would be truely sad if the only 3d app that ran on it Maya, or even worse - only Blender!

diablo-d3
03-12-2004, 02:23 AM
I'm seriously doubting Newtek will release Lightwave for Linux at this time. They seem to think there isn't a market for it, yet everyone is jumping Window's ship for Linux. Even Macromedia, the last company I'd ever think would switch to Linux, has.

Mylenium
03-12-2004, 03:19 AM
Well, not to beat at Linux, but I think there are still at least 2 years to go before it's ready for a broader market. The problem isn't so much the core Linux itself, but there a dozens of different distributions. Each of them has minor differences (for instance Gnome and KDE) which would make it hard to have a interface LW that would work properly on every system. Quite likely you would have lots of trouble on the OpenGL front.... That's why even Maya is only certified for certain RedHat distributions. Once those issues are solved and a "United Linux" comes true, there may be a chance. Also there's again that plugin problem. A lot of them haven't even made it to the Mac so adding Linux to it would put a lot of strain onto smaller developers.

Mylenium

diablo-d3
03-12-2004, 08:43 PM
That isnt true. The only thing you'll have problems with is incorrectly built static binaries, and that is the program vendor's (ie Wavefront|Alias and Newtek) fault.

OpenGL wont be an issue except for Nvidia users (due to poorly written, and non-opensource drivers). All distros use the same OpenGL library and HAL. (Mesa and DRI/DRM.)

And distro differences wont be a problem either, just statically link the binary, and it should work on almost any major distro (Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, Gentoo).

And for the record, I do not think Maya was built correctly. It has serious issues on even newer redhat distros. (In comparison, look at any game title Loki released, they still work even on the newest software.)

Phil
03-15-2004, 09:55 PM
Statically compiling the LWSN render node would at least have avoided the slightly awkward dependency on the Intel C Compiler library that shows up on recent distributions (SuSE 9, Redhat 9)

I would be inclined to head for Mac except that LW on Mac seems to be at least partially broken.

diablo-d3
03-16-2004, 12:19 AM
Avoiding akward dependancies is one of the big reasons behind static compiling.

More on that note, you won't be able to statically compile everything in, like glibc and such (due to the LGPL). However, you can include your own copy of glibc (and basically every other required outside lib) with the program, and include the extra libs dir in the library path using the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable. (example: /usr/local/lightwave7/libraries)


Many commercial programs do this, and start their program using a shell script that sets the environment variable (among other things), and then runs the program.

js33
03-16-2004, 03:31 AM
The big problem with Linux I see is not necessarily the major software programs but the many assessory programs we all use and the hardware. Most people like buying things and just plugging them in or installing them and they work. Most people aren't going to want to fumble around recompiling their kernel to support the hardware or software they want to install. And that is assuming people will have a clue about it. Of course the more technical of us have no problem popping open their compilers and letting it go to town but that is probably a small minority of the computer using population. OSX hardware is already 64 bit and Windows has AMD with Intel coming soon to 64 bit with both OSes soon to be 64 bit. When that all happens I think Linux will be forced into an even smaller market than it is right now. But then again with Windows plagued by so many viruses it could go the other way. But I think MS is going to plug many holes with SP2 for XP and really plug holes with Longhorn so viruses and even spam will be a thing of the past.

Cheers,
JS

diablo-d3
03-16-2004, 06:42 AM
I see hardware setup and compatibility as a problem, but not for the same reasons you put. Hardware manufacturers just don't think Linux is important enough to support, so users get screwed; and in turn, those users blame Linux, instead of the hardware manufacturer for not either releasing specifications for the hardware (so someone knowledgable can build the driver), or building a driver themselves.

For supported hardware, plugging in usually does work fine; atleast, on distros that care about such things, like Redhat, Mandrake, or SuSE. And for rebuilding the kernel, you usually don't have to do that. (And you should be happy you can, in Windows-land Microsoft would tell you and/or the hardware manufacturer to **** off.)

And Im going to restrict this conversation to a very specific set of Linux users: The corperate world, who hires techies to do the dirty work. (And I'm doing this because Newtek's biggest customer grouping isnt the individual users, its big GFX houses.)

The big GFX houses hire dedicated techs to maintain and build anything they need. So, Linux doesnt have to be "user friendly" on the scale Windows is for system maintence. (And for user friendlyness on the UI level, you can make X look like or do anything using the right combination of window managers and desktop environments... Windows users would be right at home using default Gnome or KDE settings)

And as for that 64-bit blurb at the bottom, I'm not sure what you ment. Linux does support 64-bit archetectures fine, and has done so for awhile. It even supports the newer AMD and Intel jaunts into the x86-64 world. (By Linux, I mean the kernel, glibc, and gcc, which are by far the most important pieces of the 64-bit puzzle.)

And spam is a thing of the past, just run SpamAssasin on your Linux box. ;)

Phil
03-17-2004, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by js33
But then again with Windows plagued by so many viruses it could go the other way. But I think MS is going to plug many holes with SP2 for XP and really plug holes with Longhorn so viruses and even spam will be a thing of the past.

Cheers,
JS

Most non-techie and regular folks that I am in regular contact with are so distrustful of Windows/Office/etc. due to the virii, constant patches and rebooting that they are actively moving on to Mac (for those who can afford it). Longhorn has an ETA of 2006 and until then, we have a 200 MB service pack for XP that breaks MSVC 6 (no patch forthcoming). That's not going to convince many people to upgrade their machines and it demonstrates a real lack of careful consideration. Those who cannot afford a jump to Mac, or are more technically inclined, are moving to linux as rapidly as their applications and data allow them to (hardware also being an, increasingle minor, issue).

Not that this really is the driving need for LW on linux, but that NT's competitors are already there (XSI, Maya) and they have domination of that growing market. It's not as big as Windows, granted, but on desktop installs, it is becoming a more significant factor. If NT come to the market late, they won't realistically have penetration. Maya Complete is within the price bracket for LW after all.

Apart from the dev/support resources needed for LW on linux (which could be minimised for the later by statically compiling whereever possible), the more pressing problem for NT is probably 3rd party support. Seen any linux native plugins for the LWSN node recently? I haven't. If the developer community cannot be persuaded to help LW grow into a new market by making linux binaries, the only option is to provide a compatibility bridge between WinLW and LinLW using something like Wine. This then introduces the dongle issues, etc. that would need to be resolved in some manner.

I don't underestimate the problems, but LW does run on Wine (without the dongle support) and this is at least half the battle IMHO. Get the dongle issue resolved and NT would be good to go.

diablo-d3
03-17-2004, 06:10 AM
I agree, the dongle is a pain in the ***. It doesn't do anything, pirates have been cracking the dongle protection out for years, and it just ups the price of Lightwave.

Now, about the plugins. Linux is not a supported platform, nor does the Lightwave Plugin SDK work with GCC (afaik). So people cant produce plugins even if they wanted to. And as for Wine, one of my earlier posts (in some thread or another) I said that Lightwave works decently, but the third party plugins either crash themselves, or take Lightwave with them.

Now, if Newtek would release a gcc friendly SDK (hell, NT should already have one for OSX), then you would start seeing Linux plugins.

Phil
03-17-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by diablo-d3
I agree, the dongle is a pain in the ***. It doesn't do anything, pirates have been cracking the dongle protection out for years, and it just ups the price of Lightwave.

Now, about the plugins. Linux is not a supported platform, nor does the Lightwave Plugin SDK work with GCC (afaik). So people cant produce plugins even if they wanted to. And as for Wine, one of my earlier posts (in some thread or another) I said that Lightwave works decently, but the third party plugins either crash themselves, or take Lightwave with them.

Now, if Newtek would release a gcc friendly SDK (hell, NT should already have one for OSX), then you would start seeing Linux plugins.

For those plugins that I tried under Wine, the only real annoyance was that they would occasionally disappear behind the main window. This appears to have been fixed with the most recent Wine release. Not that there's much you can do with LW in Discovery Mode to really give them a thorough testing :D

As for the plugin issues, if Worley managed to get the LW team to wake up about the SDK that has been criticised before, perhaps we should persuade him to raise this issue with NT. He's working miracles at the moment so what's one more? :)

diablo-d3
03-17-2004, 11:33 PM
Heh, if Worley really wants to help people (and especially NT), provide Linux only liscenses for his plugins at a reduced rate below what hes currently charging for Windows and Mac users. (Of course, this requires said gcc friendly sdk....)