PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave and Linux



Stingslang
07-26-2006, 02:05 PM
I read on wikipedia that the Lightwave render engine was ported to linux. Is this true? If so, how do I use this feature?

Bytehawk
07-26-2006, 05:48 PM
only screamernet was ported. Dunno if it is up to date though.

jdsax
07-26-2006, 07:06 PM
Googling Lightwave on Linux, I came across someone who claimed that Lightwave 7.5 would run with WINE. I have no idea how well it would run or if later versions will run at all with WINE.

starbase1
07-27-2006, 03:30 AM
I believe the situation is that Lightwave (as of 8.5) would run under wine on Linux.

However the dongle is not recognised, so you can't run it as registered.

I think this has some very interesting possibilities - if all that is needed is a dongle device driver that works under Linux, that's a pretty tiny effort to open up a whole new platform...

Nick

Phil
07-27-2006, 02:37 PM
It is, but NewTek have no interest, it seems. Shame, but there you are.

Stingslang
07-27-2006, 03:22 PM
Exactly. What exactly will happen without the dongle? What can't I do if the lisence isn't registered?

starbase1
07-27-2006, 03:40 PM
I guess you could run it for two weeks before the trial licence expired!

Elmar Moelzer
07-27-2006, 04:08 PM
Hello!
Just to clear up a few misconceptions here:
1. The Dongle is produced by Safenet Inc. and they are also responsible for the drivers.
2. I think there are drivers for Linux, but not for WINE.
3. Without the Dongle, LightWave will run in Discovery mode and that means no Scene saving and no saving of Objects with more than 6000 Polygons (if I am not mistaken now) also the renders will show a checkerboard pattern overlay.
CU
Elmar

RedBull
07-27-2006, 04:41 PM
LW9 will release a 30 day trial version of LW9 at Siggraph.....
So you should be able to try it out yourself without a dongle. For a full 30 days without any hassle on a linux or wine setup.

CAClark
07-27-2006, 05:04 PM
Newtek really are lagging. I have to use Maya in Linux at work, and it is a major ball-ache botting between linux and windows so I can use LW. And to add insult to injury, lightwave is crippled in OSX Intel stylee as well. Come on Newtek, thumbs out arses, lets do some catch up!

Cheers!

Phil
07-27-2006, 11:24 PM
The dongle is the source of the entire problem:

1) WINE cannot use the Windows drivers
2) The linux dongle drivers run in kernel space, and are proprietary, meaning that there are a lot of problems keeping them in step with each kernel update. There is a solution - put all the secret stuff in a userspace application and the bindings as an open source part of the kernel. Combined with HASP, this approach might be sensible (same approach is being taken by VMWare et al for virtualisation support in the linux kernel). From what I can tell, the dongle vendors are not considering this approach.

There seem to be major issues that prevent Wine talking to the existing kernel drivers, or nobody has put code together in any case. With userspace, this might be more doable. You also wouldn't be crippled by the dongle vendor dragging their feet following kernel updates.

Ignoring the dongle issues, LW has and does run perfectly under Wine. There are glitches in the current Wine code that break OpenGL (badly). Running Wine from January 2005, though, you see none of this.

A native port is also less attractive due to the dearth of plugin vendors for LW. The Win32 library is huge; losing that would be painful.

stib
07-28-2006, 12:35 AM
..and there's only one dongle vendor in the world..? I'd say it's another case of newtek having to be dragged kicking and screaming by their user base into any kind of upgrading. They're not the most proactive bunch, are they.

There would be a bit of a drought of 3rd party plugins initially I'd say, but I'm pretty sure that knowing the Linux community, that wouldn't last long.

CAClark
07-28-2006, 12:36 AM
Well they were prepared to go for it with LW64 which accepts none of the established plugins.

Cheers!

stib
07-28-2006, 12:46 AM
yeah, good point. I must admit that I gave up on LW 64 because of the no plugins issue. But I don't have the same level of fanboyishness for win64 as I do for Linux.

starbase1
07-28-2006, 01:03 AM
There would be a bit of a drought of 3rd party plugins initially I'd say, but I'm pretty sure that knowing the Linux community, that wouldn't last long.

Now I'd love to see a Linux version, but I don't believe that for a minute.

Look at the trouble mac users have getting the full set of plugins. And the key ones are not new ones from the Linux community, but Linux versions of the existing ones.

Looking at the site stats from my web ste, (ok, hardly comprehensive, but its at least a solid number for platforms used by people with an interest in Graphics).

92% Windows
7% Mac
1% Linux

That's not a lot of incentive to develop for Linux...

stib
07-28-2006, 01:44 AM
I'll have to take issue with your statistical methodology there: it's a solid number for people interested in lightwave. No big surprise that most of them are on windows.

My web site stats are something like 90% mac, but that's because I have final cut pro plugins there, and the'yre not much use to people on windows boxes.

True about mac plugins though. I suffered away in mac+LW land for a few years before economics drove me to switch the Dark Side. I guess not everybody would be as enthusiastic about switching to linux as me. *Sigh*

Still, blender gets better and better all the time, just wish I had the hours in the day to learn to use it..

Phil
07-28-2006, 03:13 AM
Now I'd love to see a Linux version, but I don't believe that for a minute.

Look at the trouble mac users have getting the full set of plugins. And the key ones are not new ones from the Linux community, but Linux versions of the existing ones.

Looking at the site stats from my web ste, (ok, hardly comprehensive, but its at least a solid number for platforms used by people with an interest in Graphics).

92% Windows
7% Mac
1% Linux

That's not a lot of incentive to develop for Linux...

Hmmm. Step back a moment and think why that might be. If you aren't hosting anything relevant to linux users, why would they come to your site? If LW isn't available (without dongle cracks) under linux, then no matter how many plugins you host, of any quality, no linux folk will be visiting.

This is chicken-and-egg at its finest. Someone has to make a move, but in this situation (excluding dongle cracks and Wine breakage), it has to be NewTek. Except they either don't care or are otherwise unable to, perhaps due to dongle vendor intransigence.

Hopping to a different dongle vendor is not trivial either, given that plugins have licenses by dongle ID. If this system is not extensible to, say, HASP dongles, then you have a real problem to deal with.

I don't envy them the logistical issues, but this isn't the most impossible problem in the world to deal with. Other companies manage. My hope is that the network license system being talked about for schools, companies, etc. could provide a window to LW on linux. We will see.

mrunion
07-28-2006, 07:32 AM
Well, my $0.02 is this:

I work and live in a "Windows" world because programming applications for Windows pays the bills. But I despise Windows. *IF* the next version (Vista) proves to be as much of a beast as it seems it will, I am gone from Windows at home for good. The ONLY reason I have not completely abandoned it now is because of Lightwave.

I love Lightwave, but I am only a hobbyist. If Vista is the pile of poo I surmise it to be I am leaving Bill and his travesty behind. I'll still have to use it at work, and for support I'll probably have to have a small (yeah, right) Windows partition on the laptop. I may even keep a few around for playing PC games. But for my daily use, Windows will probably be gone.

Linux is my preference. Has been for years. It may now be time to break a few Windows....

starbase1
07-28-2006, 01:24 PM
Yep, pretty much agree.

And if the only thing in the way of opening up a whole new platform is a device driver... There really should be a way around that...

Nick

Phil
07-28-2006, 03:24 PM
It really is that close. There is a known issue with Wine and OpenGL in child windows, basically meaning that all viewports get mangled with Wine releases after January 2005. They are hoping to fix this before the end of the year, but it requires an extension to X, meaning that display drivers also need to be updated, but that's hardly fatal - just run the older version of Wine. :)

But for the dongle, you could have LW on linux *right now* with the full Win32 plugin library. Feel my frustration at trying to get NewTek to respond yet? To be honest, even if LW10 is utterly superb, if it's not on linux, I'm not going to remain on Windows just to run it. It's not just 'high end' packages that have made efforts to corner the market. Cinema 4D has a linux version available in the production bundle! Right now. *sigh* NewTek - wake up, please and do something before the end of the 9.x series.

Phil
07-28-2006, 03:28 PM
Yep, pretty much agree.

And if the only thing in the way of opening up a whole new platform is a device driver... There really should be a way around that...

Nick

There are solutions, depending on how you feel about the approach - dongle cracks. I'm not quite sure why NewTek feel that legit customers should be crippled by their copy protection device. Pirates certainly aren't.

I hope that the network server system mentioned for sometime during 9.x is also available to regular users and might somehow be used to allow linux versions to run. I'll happily run a server remotely to get this functionality, at least until they get something better organised for on-machine license control.

benhaines
07-28-2006, 03:37 PM
I must admit the main reason I'm on Windows is because of LW too. Photoshop and all other gfx tools have good equivalents on Linux now that are mostly free too ;)

Phil
07-28-2006, 05:52 PM
It's interesting to note that Softimage are making enquiries on the Wine developer mailing list. It seems that they are considering using Wine to bring XSI to the new Intel Macs. This stems from the MainWin system currently used by XSI on linux (thanks to Microsoft heavily tying VBScript et al into XSI) not being available in complete-enough form for other systems yet.

Food for thought, perhaps :) If Wine is useful for Softimage (which is dongle controlled via the SPM license server), maybe it's good enough for LW?

lots
07-31-2006, 07:42 AM
The advantage of XSI's license system, though, is that the License server does not need to run on the workstation. So, for example, I could install XSI on Linux, and then point the license to the SPM license server running windows.

Phil
07-31-2006, 10:20 AM
Well, yes. I can understand that Win32 presents a unique problem in changing the license control scheme because so many plugins now expect a dongle ID to be available (e.g. Worley's, Dynamic Realities', PointOven, etc.) such that replacing this with a license server is likely to be extremely difficult.

That said, for Win64, where they had a clean slate to start from, they made no change.

I'm still hoping that the promised license server (sometime in 9.x) will at least allow a Windows box to deliver license control and perhaps allow a user to run on linux without dongle cracks, and that it will be made available to regular end users. It would defy my every expectation when that license server would also run on linux, though.

stib
07-31-2006, 01:22 PM
Is there an Official NT position on plans (or lack thereof) for linux? I'd love to know what it is.

Phil
07-31-2006, 01:35 PM
The best I ever got was a comment from Deuce that they hoped to show 'something' at Siggraph in 2005. That came and went with not even a whisper, although with the continuing Wine breakage (started Jan 31 2005), maybe their plans went awry.

Beyond that, the lack of a Linux LWSN package suggests clearly that it is not a priority, even a low one. :thumbsdow

We might need a 'beating a dead horse' icon :D

Amadeus0
07-31-2006, 08:42 PM
I really think that Newtek wants a Linux version of Lightwave (based on what they've said in the past), but has other priorities at this time. For example:

LW9 (now released)
Siggraph 2006 (Going on now)
Fixing bug database/programmers updating it.
Mac UB version/LW9.1 (a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush)
(General Bug fixes, SDK+Nodal+Modeler+CA improvements...)

After that I'm not really sure what's next. LW did run on Solaris (Sun) and SGI (IRIX) back in the days of 5.6, also if you read through the SDK they still have *nix references that should work.

With Newtek releasing a "native" Mac version of LW (assuming that they did it 'right') porting over to Linux would be pretty straight forward (although possibly still alot of work.)

Examples:

Threading: pthreads (pthreads is a POSIX threading wrapper for Windows) & POSIX threads

Interface: OpenGL (the same in all)

Device interface (HID): Some type of wrapper library (Which I dont know, maybe an in house one?)

Sound: Interestingly enough if they moved to a well know library (multi-platform at that), most of their sound issues would go away. What they use I don't know (I haven't ever checked...in fact I've never used sound in LW.)

Complier: They stated that they use Intel's, (and with LW written in C) generating binaries for all platforms is pretty easy.

Development enviroment: Any of them should be able to generate binaries for all platforms.

Dongle: USB works under Windows, OSX, and Linux. The driver people do need some work on their Linux implementation, but that shouldn't be a hold up.

Window Manager: This one would be interesting to know about. From the *nix days of LW they most likely used Motif, which means that this section would need some work. How much? Depends on how much of the interface is OpenGL (not much it seems.) If they ported to Linux then this most likely is the sticking point. If they use something like WxWidgets as their library then this point (and most of the above) is moot.

The more I think about it, the more I start wondering why they didn't put a full version out during the 7.x time.

Phil
08-01-2006, 02:39 AM
I really think that Newtek wants a Linux version of Lightwave (based on what they've said in the past), but has other priorities at this time.


If that were the case, I'd expect a little more involvement from NT in threads like this. That they remain silent on this matter suggests that they really do not have any plans to deliver a supported (or even unsupported) linux version. I'm not even after a native port, especially seeing the frustrated Mac users who are denied plugins that are available on Win32. A wine-based version is really, truly fine with me.


For example:

LW9 (now released)
Siggraph 2006 (Going on now)
Fixing bug database/programmers updating it.
Mac UB version/LW9.1 (a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush)
(General Bug fixes, SDK+Nodal+Modeler+CA improvements...)

After that I'm not really sure what's next. LW did run on Solaris (Sun) and SGI (IRIX) back in the days of 5.6, also if you read through the SDK they still have *nix references that should work.

This was always the strength of the old LW system. I cannot be sure about the new system. It was coded to be platform agnostic in the main. Only the interaction with the OS had to be specialised. Everything else was kept clean. That LW works with Wine is a great testament to this approach - no deep hooks into Win32 (although DirectX previews would have been nice; they briefly appeared in 5.5, but disappeared again very quickly).

Sun and SGI ports appeared with unfortunate timing given the decline of the hardware in the face of x86 hardware developments. Interestingly, from what I remember of the 4.0 release, the Sun systems used a key file rather than a dongle for license control.



With Newtek releasing a "native" Mac version of LW (assuming that they did it 'right') porting over to Linux would be pretty straight forward (although possibly still alot of work.)


That's not entirely the reason that it would be easy. It's their architectural approach to the application that has kept this door open. It's the dongle that is currently forcing that same door shut. It's a great waste.



Dongle: USB works under Windows, OSX, and Linux. The driver people do need some work on their Linux implementation, but that shouldn't be a hold up.


It is the holdup. The only one. The main issue is that the dongle vendors insist on having an in-kernel driver. This means that they incur a lot of trouble whenever the kernel changes (i.e. with every kernel update) so they have given up to a large extent. The kernel developers are also closing doors to this approach; USB will not allow this kind of approach in future without fully opensource drivers.

The key thing to realise is that this does not mean you have to opensource your driver - you have the option of having an opensource, generic driver (e.g. collaboration between HASP and Sentinel folks) in the kernel and do all your secret stuff in an application running in userspace. You have cryptographic implementations available in-kernel so you can also protect all your communications as well - in both directions.

This is also fully compatible with Wine. The question is whether NT care enough to make an approach to the dongle vendor to see if this is possible, and whether the dongle vendor is sufficiently customer-oriented to make an effort.

The alternative is that NewTek, possibly beholden to the marketing department of the dongle vendor, simply does an impression of an ostrich and lets the whole market go to its competitors who have taken a more long-term view.



The more I think about it, the more I start wondering why they didn't put a full version out during the 7.x time.

The dongle. I'm utterly convinced that this accursed thing is the overriding reason for no Wine version.

Note that the old dev team was fairly entrenched in their way of doing things, so I'm hoping that enough threads and discussion about linux on these boards will prod the new team into re-evaluating the situation.

The old argument about support is there as well, but Wine pretty much isolates you from that - to LW, it is as though it is running on Win32. Codeweavers would quite happily provide a support system for Wine, in partnership with any company, meaning you incur no training effort for your staff in technical support. For what it is worth, I'd have surrendered Vue and LWCad for an officially blessed 9.0 on Wine, if that helps.

Amadeus0
08-02-2006, 02:20 AM
If that were the case, I'd expect a little more involvement from NT in threads like this. That they remain silent on this matter suggests that they really do not have any plans to deliver a supported (or even unsupported) linux version. I'm not even after a native port, especially seeing the frustrated Mac users who are denied plugins that are available on Win32. A wine-based version is really, truly fine with me.

Newtek really didn't particpate in many LW-MAC-UB threads, and only did so after a while.


This was always the strength of the old LW system. I cannot be sure about the new system. It was coded to be platform agnostic in the main. Only the interaction with the OS had to be specialised. Everything else was kept clean. That LW works with Wine is a great testament to this approach - no deep hooks into Win32 (although DirectX previews would have been nice; they briefly appeared in 5.5, but disappeared again very quickly).

I remember the DirectX interface in 5.6, but the preview looked worse then the software and OpenGL ones. (This running an ATI Rage 128, boy those days sucked.)


Sun and SGI ports appeared with unfortunate timing given the decline of the hardware in the face of x86 hardware developments. Interestingly, from what I remember of the 4.0 release, the Sun systems used a key file rather than a dongle for license control.

I didn't know that about the Sun version (never used it or saw it.) Too bad about SGI, in fact I kinda wish nVidia (mostly ex-SGI guys back in the day) would try to pull another revolution in the Visual computing space...but most likely not. :hey:


Various things about the Dongle and Linux.

A couple of things. One I remember back about 8-10 years ago a company really felt the urge to release a Linux version of their software, but couldn't due to lack of dongle drivers. They released the software without the dongle, and said that "the [Linux] market is small now, but by getting in on the ground floor we can really [make] some headway in this emerging market."

I don't remember the name of that company, but their product was something that was aimed at corporate/enterprise companies (they had a lower version for mid-sized companies.) My point is that if Newtek REALLY wanted to they could do something.

As for running under Wine, I really don't like that idea. I want native and 64-bit. Running under Wine is like running under Rosetta in that the moment that you get fancy or some developer decides to change something things go wrong very badly, and can become impossible to fix. Relying on a 3rd party is what has this dongle issue in the air, and given that the WINE guys broke LW running back in Jan. '05 and still haven't fixed it gives pause. Also no 64-bit LW for users. All-around-suckage for the*nix translation layer.

As for the drivers, it's kinda funny. I went to their website (safe-net is the company that makes the Rainbow line of dongles), installed the driver just fine (I'll try pluging in my key later and cat-ing around to see what I can find.) This on FC5 with the latest kernel (2.6.17-1.2157_FC5). Most people make a lot af fuss about kernel drivers, and believe me when I say I would rather have an open-source one and barring that an open-source stub with everything else in user space, but really if it works with the kernels from FC3 (2.6.9) then (at least for the time being) USB should still work now. Parallel is a lost cause though. 64-bit (which my box is) I'll look into.


Codeweavers would quite happily provide a support system for Wine, in partnership with any company, meaning you incur no training effort for your staff in technical support.

That's incorrect. If Wine breaks something (or LW breaks Wine) then lots'o'calls from people. If you have a system that auto-updates, then you may find yoursely waking up one day and LW not working. Some may think that's not much of an issue, but it happens a LOT more then people realize. Also that 64-bit issue still bothers me. Plus it costs a good chunk of money to get Codeweavers support in any good amount. Newtek would still have to re-write the Dongle parts to work in the translation layer (instead of just a re-compile angainst the Safe-net API.) I could mention Fusion, but that'd be a low blow. I really like the Wine crew, but WINE is not [an] easy answer (sorry for the bad acronym.) :D

starbase1
08-02-2006, 02:48 AM
The dongle. I'm utterly convinced that this accursed thing is the overriding reason for no Wine version.


Well... I do feel that the dongle works well in other regards - when I upgrade my hardware I really don't worry about moving LW over. Which is more than I can say for other stuff, (notabley my large number of paid for shareware and small software manufacturer tools.)

And don't get me started on microsoft - buy a new motherboard, buy a new copy of windows. Though I suspect I am preaching to the converted on this thread!

stib
08-02-2006, 03:24 AM
Haven't found that installing LW is any easier / harder than installing software that doesn't use a dongle. Photoshop for example: stick in the disc, hit "ok" a few times, type in my serial, off you go. How is that harder than installing LW?

And as for efficacy, well dongles are about as effective as any other anti piracy measure: not really.

Phil
08-02-2006, 05:12 AM
I remember the DirectX interface in 5.6, but the preview looked worse then the software and OpenGL ones. (This running an ATI Rage 128, boy those days sucked.)


I don't think it ever actually worked for me. Tended to crash Layout from what I remember, but it was a long time ago :)



A couple of things. One I remember back about 8-10 years ago a company really felt the urge to release a Linux version of their software, but couldn't due to lack of dongle drivers. They released the software without the dongle, and said that "the [Linux] market is small now, but by getting in on the ground floor we can really [make] some headway in this emerging market."


The question is whether that company still exists and whether that move proved to be successful. That's the important driver to get NewTek to perhaps reconsider the dongle issue.



I don't remember the name of that company, but their product was something that was aimed at corporate/enterprise companies (they had a lower version for mid-sized companies.) My point is that if Newtek REALLY wanted to they could do something.


Well, they did. Kind of. With LWSN. That wasn't maintained. That isn't now available. That never had 3rd party support. That could not use the extensive and possibly expensive 3rd party library of plugins that various people use. Hmmmm.



As for running under Wine, I really don't like that idea. I want native and 64-bit. Running under Wine is like running under Rosetta in that the moment that you get fancy or some developer decides to change something things go wrong very badly, and can become impossible to fix. Relying on a 3rd party is what has this dongle issue in the air, and given that the WINE guys broke LW running back in Jan. '05 and still haven't fixed it gives pause. Also no 64-bit LW for users. All-around-suckage for the*nix translation layer.


The first part of this is flawed because by going native, the proposition is much more difficult to justify when the market is unknown. Using Wine allows you to assess the market without having to hire a targetted development and support crew. It's a sensible step. It also means that LW on linux automatically has a huge 3rd party library available to it - a native port won't have that. PointOven doesn't appear on OSX, for example, despite being very useful. That is simply because the developer cannot be bothered. Win32 is all that is available for this and many other plugins. Why throw that support away?

The Wine breakage is much more difficult to fix, but is frustrating. In some respects, the change was needed, but it could have been implemented and managed much better. They simply did not consider mitigating the impact of the change. I think they realise this, Codeweavers especially due to their commercial interests, but noone has yet found a solution that either doesn't cost lots of performance or that doesn't require an extension to X. It looks like they are heading in the direction of the X extension and Codeweavers are hoping to have a fix in place before the end of the year, politics and X allowing.

It has taken far too long for the Wine project to deliver a fix - something that has caused me considerable irritation (see bug 2398 on bugs.winehq.org for the gory details).



As for the drivers, it's kinda funny. I went to their website (safe-net is the company that makes the Rainbow line of dongles), installed the driver just fine (I'll try pluging in my key later and cat-ing around to see what I can find.) This on FC5 with the latest kernel (2.6.17-1.2157_FC5). Most people make a lot af fuss about kernel drivers, and believe me when I say I would rather have an open-source one and barring that an open-source stub with everything else in user space, but really if it works with the kernels from FC3 (2.6.9) then (at least for the time being) USB should still work now. Parallel is a lost cause though. 64-bit (which my box is) I'll look into.


The dongle driver is provided for an old kernel, hence my suspicion that things would break. If it works on FC5, that's surprising. They must have improved their approach considerably :)

Nonetheless, for 2.6.18 or 2.6.19 and later, I think the USB layer starts getting closed off to non GPL modules. That could break the dongle driver, depending on how they put it together. The situation will get worse, but hopefully those needing these kind of modules will manage to get an update to work around it.



That's incorrect. If Wine breaks something (or LW breaks Wine) then lots'o'calls from people. If you have a system that auto-updates, then you may find yoursely waking up one day and LW not working. Some may think that's not much of an issue, but it happens a LOT more then people realize. Also that 64-bit issue still bothers me. Plus it costs a good chunk of money to get Codeweavers support in any good amount. Newtek would still have to re-write the Dongle parts to work in the translation layer (instead of just a re-compile angainst the Safe-net API.) I could mention Fusion, but that'd be a low blow. I really like the Wine crew, but WINE is not [an] easy answer (sorry for the bad acronym.) :D

It depends on how you do it, I guess. Codeweavers are open to negotiation and I'll pay a reasonable premium to offset any support costs. The issue with dongle communication would need a change, but then if they want a linux system that is tied to a dongle, it's possibly the least traumatic way to go (and possibly least costly). It's certainly likely to be less expensive and risky than pouring resources into a native version that might crash and burn commercially.

Additionally, by going with a Codeweavers deal, you are also independent of the system-installed Wine. CW do not currently provide an autoupdate feature and the deal could be structured such that any problems go through them first. That's the reason I mention them. They can provide a known-good Wine build with the LW-linux package. It can also be indepedent of all other Wine systems and crippled to only run LW. I don't care. I already have a license for CrossOver Office Pro.

The main point, though, is that you can run LW right now, in discovery mode or with a dongle crack, on Wine from Jan 2005. Without issue and this is also true for an older version of CrossOver office (3.0.1). Addressing the dongle issue is largely the last step to having a version available that people can use. It's copy protection. It's not vital to the operation of the core program. Some 3rd party plugins remain tricky, but not the vast majority.

It's all in spitting distance. Really, truly, spitting distance. The distance left is dongle-related and I'm not sure the dongle is truly worth sacrificing an entire potential market for. I'd love to see numbers of just how much piracy is being defeated by the dongle....I just don't believe it is effective at any significant level.

Amadeus0
08-03-2006, 05:27 PM
Ok. My box can see the dongle (USB UltraPro), but the drivers wont load (32-bit drivers vs. 64-bit kernel), so I don't know if that will load in a 32-bit kernel. Maybe someone with a 32-bit box will try it? as for 2.6.18+ I have heard about that, but haven't investigated to see if/when that'll happen.

I'll call safe-net tomorrow, see if I can find out more about it. A note: Safe-net states the the dongle driver should work in a kernel 2.6.9 due to the USB breakage that happened in that release, and them having to update their stuff for it.

Back to our discussion...

Newtek has stated on various occasions that LW is 80-90% cross platform (this during the 7.x days), i.e. a simple recompile will make that much of the software work on another platform assuming that said platform supports VERY basic things (e.g. ANSI libc, ANSI C-Complier, OpenGL, von Neumann, et etc.) If that's the case then re-writing the dongle layer would take more time/money then Newtek doing the port themselves. However if their cross-platform code is a bunch of tangled #if_def's then they would have a lot of work to do. In that case Wine would be faster and less costly.

Your points about Wine being (basically) a .so for LW_Win32 is valid, and would help simplify distribution/install/support. Also Newtek could take all the newest parts of Wine, sans the GUI code (that would take some work on their end though) combine with the old Wine GUI code and roll their own.

Part of my lack of Wine gung-ho stems from the fact that the (few) only 3rd-party plug-ins that I use have excellent support on Win32, Win64 (sans Worley) and OSX, so I believe that those developers would port/recompile for Linux (and I would offer any help I can to them), but I realize that's not the case for several/alot of LW'ers. That does broaden the appeal of Wine.

I want native Linux LW and a 64-bit version at that (in fact dump the 32-bit Linux version :D ), but I'd take a Wine version to get started. At some point though I would want native. I compelety agree that LW_Linux64/32 is really in spitting distance, and it hurts at the same time knowing that we are soooooo close, be it Wine or Native.

monovich
08-03-2006, 06:18 PM
linux would have really helped keep the price of my upcoming render farm low. as-is I have to spend quite a bit of cash per node just for the windows OS.

stib
08-03-2006, 06:53 PM
[..]a simple recompile will make that much of the software work on another platform assuming that said platform supports VERY basic things (e.g. ANSI libc, ANSI C-Complier, OpenGL, von Neumann, et etc.)

tee hee.

What, you mean it won't run on my Quantum Computer..?

Phil
08-03-2006, 10:56 PM
Ok. My box can see the dongle (USB UltraPro), but the drivers wont load (32-bit drivers vs. 64-bit kernel), so I don't know if that will load in a 32-bit kernel. Maybe someone with a 32-bit box will try it? as for 2.6.18+ I have heard about that, but haven't investigated to see if/when that'll happen.

I'll call safe-net tomorrow, see if I can find out more about it. A note: Safe-net states the the dongle driver should work in a kernel 2.6.9 due to the USB breakage that happened in that release, and them having to update their stuff for it.


Now the first is interesting and could perhaps be addressed by SafeNet with a userspace/kernel space separation. The upcoming denial of the USB layer to non-GPL modules also will probably need them to do this if they want to continue to make the driver available. The second suggests that this might actually happen, which cheers me up a bit.



Back to our discussion...

Newtek has stated on various occasions that LW is 80-90% cross platform (this during the 7.x days), i.e. a simple recompile will make that much of the software work on another platform assuming that said platform supports VERY basic things (e.g. ANSI libc, ANSI C-Complier, OpenGL, von Neumann, et etc.) If that's the case then re-writing the dongle layer would take more time/money then Newtek doing the port themselves. However if their cross-platform code is a bunch of tangled #if_def's then they would have a lot of work to do. In that case Wine would be faster and less costly.


I'm not sure. I suspect you'd need to patch Wine to handle the dongle queries via linux userspace, assuming that this is possible. I'm not sure LW needs to be patched because it probably doesn't care about the implementation of the dongle support system.



Part of my lack of Wine gung-ho stems from the fact that the (few) only 3rd-party plug-ins that I use have excellent support on Win32, Win64 (sans Worley) and OSX, so I believe that those developers would port/recompile for Linux (and I would offer any help I can to them), but I realize that's not the case for several/alot of LW'ers. That does broaden the appeal of Wine.


Ahah. So that's why you have been able to use linux LWSN native versions of all of these plugins. I hadn't noticed them mentioned on flay :) The native linux LWSN has no 3rd party supported of any kind, beyond the 'accidental' support of LScript based addons. That's why I don't believe a native version will work.



I want native Linux LW and a 64-bit version at that (in fact dump the 32-bit Linux version :D ), but I'd take a Wine version to get started. At some point though I would want native. I compelety agree that LW_Linux64/32 is really in spitting distance, and it hurts at the same time knowing that we are soooooo close, be it Wine or Native.

I would take native linux when NT are confident that it will be successful. I don't want an effort that they incur loss for and have to dump later (see SGI and Sun ports for reference).

Dumping the 32 bit option is much more difficult due to the fledging nature of 64 bit in all desktop operating systems except Solaris and SGI (edge case, probably). If I cannot get my hardware running under it, you can give me a 64 bit OS and I'll use it for a doorstop. :D

slow67
08-06-2006, 08:38 PM
While I would rather a native port(even with absoltely 0 thirdparty support), Wine would be better than nothing.

currently I have not and probably will not upgrade to 9, I just can not justify buying software that does not work

under the operating system I use all day long. I think if Newtek did decide to release a wine version, it would be

just that, a version of Wine that works with Lightwave not a Lightwave version for Wine, And I would also

suspect it would be an unsupported version at that. I mean if they do not take the initiative to write a native

linux version how could you expect them to support a port of opensource software that they were not the

origonal authors of? Either way I have money earmarked for my lightwave/linux purchase, even if it means I

need to buy a new seat of lightwave. I do wish they would just openly admit whether or not it is in the grand

scheme of things or not.

Phil
08-07-2006, 03:02 AM
While I would rather a native port(even with absoltely 0 thirdparty support), Wine would be better than nothing.

currently I have not and probably will not upgrade to 9, I just can not justify buying software that does not work under the operating system I use all day long. I think if Newtek did decide to release a wine version, it would be just that, a version of Wine that works with Lightwave not a Lightwave version for Wine, And I would also suspect it would be an unsupported version at that. I mean if they do not take the initiative to write a native linux version how could you expect them to support a port of opensource software that they were not the origonal authors of?


Consider Wine to be a framework and the situation becomes clearer. Paint.NET uses the .NET framework, but they don't need to support it. KDE uses Qt; GNOME uses GTK. GTK and Qt are independent of the desktop environments KDE and GNOME. You don't need to actively support the framework in order to use it.

Additionally, I'd rather NewTek continue their efforts on the LW program without incurring another platform that they have to natively support. Wine has a benefit in this respect. Softimage XSI uses MainWin for the linux version - the internal code for XSI is still Win32-related thanks to Microsoft owning Softimage for a period of time (there is significant usage of VBScript, etc.). Softimage is also looking at Wine to provide XSI on Intel Macs. That lends Wine some credibility, assuming Softimage can pull it off.

Having invested a fair amount of money into addons for LW over the years, a native port would do nothing particular for me until such time that 3rd party addons were available. Losing IFW2 Nodal, SE/DSFX, ShadowBlatt (still needed in 9.0 surprisingly), Taiki, SuperGlow 2 (dead for 9.0, sadly), PointOven, HD Instance, LWCad, etc. would be a real blow. For others that only use the LW toolset, that's not an issue of course.

Additionally, NewTek really have to improve their developer documentation - complete with tutorials that actually show all of the features available to developers. One ancient modeler tutorial really doesn't cut it. I don't understand why this documentation is not wrapped in the same system as the end-user documentation, complete with search.

stib
08-07-2006, 12:58 PM
Still keeping my ear out for Newtek's response to all this... *listens*.. nope, nothing but my tinnitus and a deafening silence.. I'd rather they came out and said, we won't do it because x, y, z than just ignore it.

Phil
08-07-2006, 01:12 PM
Heh. There's always dongle cracks. I'm grateful that at least it runs under Wine, cracked or not.

I'm now (only barely with patience) waiting for the child window issue in bug 2398 to get fixed. I'm kind of hoping that Softimage fix the thing :D. You won't see me for dust once it is fixed :) I'm hoping to be really happy by the end of 2006, even more so if NT wake up.