PDA

View Full Version : Newtek please make LW for Linux now! I want one of these!



js33
08-03-2003, 07:46 PM
Check this out!

Now here's a reason for Newtek to make a native version of Lightwave for Linux.

An SGI server that can scale up to 2048 Itanium 2 processors running 64-bit Linux. And I thought SGI was dead. :(
It looks like they have come back to life at least for the high end. :D

SGI Altix (http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/)

Cheers,
JS

milkman
08-03-2003, 08:09 PM
yes, if they would just make Lightwave for linux i would no longer have to use Windows as my primary OS :)

But... I don't know if that should be at the top of the list of priorities.

But, Mac OS X is Unix-based so how hard could it be to port it to Linux?

js33
08-03-2003, 08:14 PM
Well all the plugins would have to be ported as well. But with this new SGI monster that should give people a glimpse of what is out there hardware wise that could use a Linux port.

I'm not necessarily all hot for Linux but if that's they only way to use a monster cluster like the SGI then so be it. :D

Cheers,
JS

hairy_llama
08-03-2003, 08:27 PM
If LW ran on linux I would switch to it from windows this very nanosecond. Yeah plugins would have to be converted but if LW ran on linux I bet most feature plugs will support it.

js33
08-03-2003, 08:30 PM
Yeah it would be good to have that option. Plus you could run it on one of those SGI monsters. :D
That is what has got me excited not necessarily the Linux part.

Remember LW used to run on every platform available even SGI IRIX back in the 5.0 days. So if Newtek could do it then there is no question that they can do Linux. I mean OSX is just another NIX after all.

Cheers,
JS

pixelmonk
08-03-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by js33
Check this out!

Now here's a reason for Newtek to make a native version of Lightwave for Linux.

An SGI server that can scale up to 2048 Itanium 2 processors running 64-bit Linux. And I thought SGI was dead. :(
It looks like they have come back to life at least for the high end. :D

SGI Altix (http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/)

Cheers,
JS

Nahhh too many cool things in Windows like other applications, editing hardware, and more. No need to switch. BTW, who can afford the SGI server anyways? You'd probably use it as a renderfarm, and there's already a rendernode for Linux available. I could care less if LW is ever ported to Linux as it won't affect how I do business.

It may bring more cash into Newtek's pocket though, if the porting and distribution isn't cost-prohibitive. Regardless of what people think about "Ohh.. OSX is UNIX, and Linux is a cheap rip off of Unix, therefore LW could be ported easily", there's costs and time involved in a port. It's not something they could do overnight with a minimal level of effort. Good luck to Newtek if they can pull it off without taking away from their schedule, unless of course that's part of the schedule. :)

Beamtracer
08-03-2003, 09:30 PM
Itanium is not a viable mainstream processor. It's been a disaster for Intel, as not many people are using it. Your applications (and all plug-ins) not only need to be ported to Linux, but recompiled to address 64-bit registers before they will work at any usable speed.

Intel is in crisis. Do they scrap Itanium and try to design a new 32/64-bit processor? They failed to realize that 64-bit computing would become mainstream (not just for servers) and failed to create a smooth upgrade path.

While Intel's 32-bit processors (Pentiums/Xeons) are selling well, they need to migrate to a 64-bit platform, and Itanium is late to market and underpowered.

You're better off going with either AMD64 (when Microsoft decides to give them a 64-bit OS) or the new Apple G5 (which is capable of addressing 8 Gigs of RAM!!!)

mattc
08-03-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by js33
Check this out!

Now here's a reason for Newtek to make a native version of Lightwave for Linux.

An SGI server that can scale up to 2048 Itanium 2 processors running 64-bit Linux. And I thought SGI was dead. :(
It looks like they have come back to life at least for the high end. :D

SGI Altix (http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/)

Cheers,
JS

And here's a reason why they won't. No business case to actually do a port. I know it's crazy talk but hey, reality is sometimes like that.

Regards
Matt

Original1
08-04-2003, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by mattc
And here's a reason why they won't. No business case to actually do a port. I know it's crazy talk but hey, reality is sometimes like that.

Regards
Matt

Theres a very strong business reason to do the port, think of the number of studios that are fed up of microsoft, If you are building a render farm then the biggest cost is licences, if you have a linux box running the existing Linux render node its a huge saving for studios and facilities, It may also be the case that then the development of the Mac OS X / Unix /Linux version is one unified code base.


What you really need to see is Toaster port to a Dual Opteron running 64 Native under Linux

js33
08-04-2003, 02:12 AM
Yeah there are a lot of studios that have gone to Linux for rendering(Pixar and Dreamworks to name a couple). I know we have the Linux screamernet now but i don't know how many if any plug-ins support it. But think of using LW on one of these clustered systems from SGI. It would be like having one computer with however many processors you want. This would be far more powerful for rendering than just a bunch of networked dual processor machines. Of course you could have artists work on the Mac or PC or whatever and use those machines for content creation then dump off the scenes to a linux render beast or even use it for content creation if there was a Lightwave native port. The studios do that now and its just a matter of time before smaller ones will want to do the same.

Cheers,
JS

stone
08-04-2003, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by js33
And I thought SGI was dead. :(


that would be something, especially since alias and therefor maya is a subset of sgi and it would mean a goodbye to maya.

in other news concerning sgi. they released the specifications for opengl v1.5 doing siggraph and one of the new additions are the opengl shading language, which means shaders will have a standard and be platform independend.

first ogl 1.5 gfxcards should ship later this year - i wonder if lightwave8 will make use of ogl 1.5.

/stone

pixelmonk
08-04-2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by js33
Yeah there are a lot of studios that have gone to Linux for rendering(Pixar and Dreamworks to name a couple). I know we have the Linux screamernet now but i don't know how many if any plug-ins support it. But think of using LW on one of these clustered systems from SGI. It would be like having one computer with however many processors you want. This would be far more powerful for rendering than just a bunch of networked dual processor machines. Of course you could have artists work on the Mac or PC or whatever and use those machines for content creation then dump off the scenes to a linux render beast or even use it for content creation if there was a Lightwave native port. The studios do that now and its just a matter of time before smaller ones will want to do the same.

Cheers,
JS

mainly because intially most "big studios" had legacy SGI systems running IRIX. When SGI said they were shifting to Linux and not developing IRIX anymore, studios followed suit. They then dropped their SGIs for cheaper and faster PCs. Their staff, already proficient in a unix-based operating system, was already up to speed. Linux is a cheap way of making render nodes but I'd never want it as my primary development OS, considering everything under the sun already runs in WIndows. That's just me.

There is less Maya Linux sales than you'd think. Ask a local rep, like we did.

pixelmonk
08-04-2003, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by stone

first ogl 1.5 gfxcards should ship later this year - i wonder if lightwave8 will make use of ogl 1.5.

/stone

I wonder if LW8 will make better use of existing OGL technology. :)

Phil
08-04-2003, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by js33
Yeah there are a lot of studios that have gone to Linux for rendering(Pixar and Dreamworks to name a couple). I know we have the Linux screamernet now but i don't know how many if any plug-ins support it.
<snip>
Cheers,
JS

The problem is that it's not clear how best to get LW on linux (assuming NewTek want to do it). There are a fair number of legacy plugins out there that are no longer developed, but remain useful; even if one was prepared to relicense a suite of plugins to run under a linux-native version of LW, there would likely be significant gaps in the arsenal.
For home-brewed plugins, depending on how they were coded, it may be as simple as a straight recompile or could involve messing around trying to re-jig the interface (think Wavefilter 2 - the plugin's interfaces could not be served by the LW SDK even after the NT team had a go).

The alternative, as demonstrated by Corel, is to use Wine to allow your program to run. LW can run under Wine already, but there is a problem in regard to the dongle. Since Wine supports neither WinNT services nor VxD based drivers, it's impossible to get LW to talk to the dongle. Sentinel drivers do exist for linux kernels, though, so some technique may be available to make this work. The Wine approach has the advantage of allowing people to retain their Win32 plugins as well.

Given the total lack of 3rd party linux Screamernet plugins that followed the release of 7.5b and lately 7.5c, I don't think there will be much enthusiasm for a native port of LW and even the Wine-based port looks to be unlikely unless the dongle issues can be addressed.

js33
08-04-2003, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by stone
that would be something, especially since alias and therefor maya is a subset of sgi and it would mean a goodbye to maya.

in other news concerning sgi. they released the specifications for opengl v1.5 doing siggraph and one of the new additions are the opengl shading language, which means shaders will have a standard and be platform independend.

first ogl 1.5 gfxcards should ship later this year - i wonder if lightwave8 will make use of ogl 1.5.

/stone

I meant I thought SGI hardware was dead:D
It looks like they are making hardware strides in the right direction now but they still continue to make the MIPS hardware as well which I also thought was dead.

Yeah I know they own Maya and created OpenGL and those are alive and well. :D

I don't see why LW can't use the CG shader language from nVidia as MAX and MAYA are both using now. If they can do it then so should LW. After all if you run a nVidia card it already supports the CG language.

Cheers,
JS

js33
08-04-2003, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by pixelmonk
mainly because intially most "big studios" had legacy SGI systems running IRIX. When SGI said they were shifting to Linux and not developing IRIX anymore, studios followed suit. They then dropped their SGIs for cheaper and faster PCs. Their staff, already proficient in a unix-based operating system, was already up to speed. Linux is a cheap way of making render nodes but I'd never want it as my primary development OS, considering everything under the sun already runs in WIndows. That's just me.

There is less Maya Linux sales than you'd think. Ask a local rep, like we did.

Yeah true but alot of big studio are just now switching to rendering on Linux with Intel hardware like Pixar (Used SUN before) and Dreamworks (Don't know what they used for Shrek).

It doesn't have to be your primary development OS. You could create on whatever you want and then use a giant Linux cluster to render on. :D

I wonder if WINE would run on an SGI cluster montser?

Cheers,
JS

pixelmonk
08-04-2003, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by js33
Yeah true but alot of big studio are just now switching to rendering on Linux with Intel hardware like Pixar (Used SUN before) and Dreamworks (Don't know what they used for Shrek).

It doesn't have to be your primary development OS. You could create on whatever you want and then use a giant Linux cluster to render on. :D

I wonder if WINE would run on an SGI cluster montser?

Cheers,
JS

Well.. i did post that those studios have dropped SGI hardware in favor of cheaper PCs. :)

Someone on here did get LW running in Linux using WINE.. you may want to check the archives for more info if you want to tinker around some. Cheers!

hrgiger
08-04-2003, 08:36 AM
I thought there already was a linux version of Lighwwave?

garg
08-04-2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Phil
Given the total lack of 3rd party linux Screamernet plugins that followed the release of 7.5b and lately 7.5c, I don't think there will be much enthusiasm for a native port of LW and even the Wine-based port looks to be unlikely unless the dongle issues can be addressed.

Not quiet true... Amleto (http://www.rayserver.com) support Linux Lightwave nodes and even mix bentween win and linux clients. So if you realy want to run on linux this can be done.

But beside the fact it's easier to maitain a linux renderfarm than a windows renderfarm I do not realy see the point as most packages like Adobe Photosop, Premiere, or whatever run under windows / mac os X and not linux... Until I have all those package running as well under linux I will not switch.

Alain Bertrand

js33
08-04-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by hrgiger
I thought there already was a linux version of Lighwwave?

Only LWSN module has a Linux version. :(

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
08-04-2003, 03:36 PM
Making any changes to Lightwave for the sake of big studios would not be directly profitable.

At the price that Lightwave sells (and Maya too, for that matter) the profits must come from volume sales, and big studios won't directly account for this.

But... there's the indirect factor. People learning the app, or those using it professionally on a small scale will be attracted to use the same software that the big studios do.

So what if the large studios say they won't use a software package unless there is a Linux version? Film credits are very important for software sales. That's why every software company crows about it when they get one.

It's also possible that the Linux renderer may satisfy what the studios want.

Phil
08-05-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by garg
Not quiet true... Amleto (http://www.rayserver.com) support Linux Lightwave nodes and even mix bentween win and linux clients. So if you realy want to run on linux this can be done.

But beside the fact it's easier to maitain a linux renderfarm than a windows renderfarm I do not realy see the point as most packages like Adobe Photosop, Premiere, or whatever run under windows / mac os X and not linux... Until I have all those package running as well under linux I will not switch.

Alain Bertrand

The problem remains, however, that there are few/no 3rd party linux plugins for the linux LWSN program to use. Commercial plugin vendors either see no market or simply cannot be bothered to make linux versions of their plugins available, even just as LWSN versions. I suspect this lack of response from the vendors will colour NewTek's attitude to developing a full LW suite for linux.

LSlugger
08-05-2003, 11:20 PM
If the Linux renderer is any indication, NewTek shouldn't bother porting the rest of the app. We've been asking since the middle of May where the 7.5c renderer went. I hate to be negative, but NewTek can barely support two platforms, let alone three.

The sad thing is, if you found someone at NewTek who even knows what Linux is, he would probably claim there is no demand. Alias, Softimage, Side Effects, and Pixar disagree.

stone
08-06-2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by LSlugger
The sad thing is, if you found someone at NewTek who even knows what Linux is, he would probably claim there is no demand. Alias, Softimage, Side Effects, and Pixar disagree.

because you have obviously talked to each employee at newtek and know their feelings regarding linux and the future development plans they have.

what a bunch of worthless nonsense to polute the forum with. get a grip, grow up, and hopefully you as well as others will stop posting such rediculous and unjustified babble.

i for one am starting to get really tired of all the negative, unreasonable and ungrounded ranting.

/stone

LSlugger
08-06-2003, 08:59 AM
Thank you, stone, all of your pleasant, on-topic posts really raise the SNR around here.

The only NewTek statement I have to go on is Chuck's USENET post back in March: "When I asked those [third-party developers] who planned to develop Linux ports to contact me for follow-up, I received exactly zero responses."

Other than that, I have to go by NewTek's actions. The Linux renderer was half baked in 7.5b, then pulled from 7.5c with no mention. My email to lwbugs went unanswered.

If you want to see some pleasant discussion, check out the Mac forums after 7.5b was pulled. LightWave platform parity is a pipe dream, and I don't want to wait in line behind the Mac users.

Phil
08-07-2003, 06:49 AM
One other issue to note is that both Softimage and AW both show problems on non-certified platforms. Most casual users and indeed a fair number of professional users will be looking at recent distributions for better usability and more coherent interfaces, but often these distributions are not compatible with the code in Softimage or Maya.

Redhat 9 is a very usable, well rounded distribution, but there are a number of problems facing people intending to run Softimage or Maya on that OS. There's nothing to say that similar issues would not be present for NewTek (although statically compiling everything would help). This adds cost to the support of the product and if there are no interested third party vendors, you're out of economic reasons (as opposed to political reasons) to make the change. Without Aura and VT on the same OS, those running on Windows have even less reason to chase a linux port of LW.

Note that Wine is generally seen to be the only solution fo the time being & it does a very good job all things considered.

prospector
08-16-2003, 03:29 PM
Didn't LW run on every OS that was out at one time?

Or was that every CPU type?

can't remember

jds
08-16-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by garg
Not quiet true... Amleto (http://www.rayserver.com) support Linux Lightwave nodes and even mix bentween win and linux clients. So if you realy want to run on linux this can be done.

But beside the fact it's easier to maitain a linux renderfarm than a windows renderfarm I do not realy see the point as most packages like Adobe Photosop, Premiere, or whatever run under windows / mac os X and not linux... Until I have all those package running as well under linux I will not switch.

I admit that I haven't used Linux for a year or so and I don't know how easy it is to maintain a linux renderfarm but I have looked after 60 Windows servers (and 14 AIX servers) for the last 6 years and have had very few problems maintaining them so I don't know how Linux could be any easier. The users and dodgy apps (not usually the OS) are the ones that cause the problems!

I am not anti-Linux but I really have no requirement to change and I am actually fairly happy with MS. I don't understand why so many people are outright anti-MS but still use their products (I know they are certainly not perfect but if you find any company or individual that is then I will eat my shorts).

Anyway, I would much prefer Newtek to concentrate on LW8.x for the Windows and Mac platforms before thinking about a Linux version (although the linux render node may well be useful to the large studios)

BTW, Amleto is great!

messiah
08-18-2003, 02:07 AM
As soon as we start releasing our plugins to the public we will have Linux plugins available since internaly we sit mostly on Unix enviroments.
I wouldnt discount the uptake of Linux in the visual effects industry as something trivial though as most if not all of the big studios run most of their gear on unix(always have) and its the same to a degree with mid sized shops.
The support issue is quite easy to get around with a little bit of testing realy(certified platforms and all)

Oh and the gain in productivity might not be down to the free nature of the OS or the additional tools but actualy the lack of HalfLife2 support :D


Originally posted by Phil
The problem remains, however, that there are few/no 3rd party linux plugins for the linux LWSN program to use. Commercial plugin vendors either see no market or simply cannot be bothered to make linux versions of their plugins available, even just as LWSN versions. I suspect this lack of response from the vendors will colour NewTek's attitude to developing a full LW suite for linux. :D :D

DarkLight
08-18-2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by jds

I admit that I haven't used Linux for a year or so and I don't know how easy it is to maintain a linux renderfarm but I have looked after 60 Windows servers (and 14 AIX servers) for the last 6 years and have had very few problems maintaining them so I don't know how Linux could be any easier. The users and dodgy apps (not usually the OS) are the ones that cause the problems!

I am not anti-Linux but I really have no requirement to change and I am actually fairly happy with MS. I don't understand why so many people are outright anti-MS but still use their products (I know they are certainly not perfect but if you find any company or individual that is then I will eat my shorts).


I think the renderfarm issue is mainly one of cost when using Linux, as you would only need to pay for the hardware and not for OS licenses.

I do like the ability with linux to be able to remotly administer the server from a SSH client though :)

Phil
08-18-2003, 08:58 AM
Well that's good news, but to be fair you will be about the only vendor shipping linux versions of your plugins (assuming they are for LW, that is). What is really needed is for the long standing vendors such as Dynamic Realities to either be offered an incentive to port their plugins over. Without the back catalogue of plugins being available under linux, at least the most popular of them, there is no way of determining the potential market for a full port.

People, I amongst them, have stated that they would be interested in a linux native version of LW. That does not mean I will switch without the plugins I use every day being available. That takes developer commitment across the board; it may even require financial backing from NewTek to offset the potential support costs for smaller vendors.
L[6] demonstrated the effect of plugin dependency quite clearly. People had to run 5.x alongside 6.x for around a year or more until their plugins were updated or alternatives arrived from new sources. That really isn't going to be an option in going from Windows to linux - there are few people who will want to reboot simply to use a plugin in the Windows version that isn't available for linux. Granted, you can use Wine, but then you lose the dongle support and would have to either locate a cracked version or find a lengthy workaround (even if this is possible).

The LWSN for linux issue really doesn't seem to be useful in either a) determining the genuine demand for LW on linux or b) encouraging developers to issue linux versions of their plugins. Those two are vital for a decision to be made about porting LW, assuming even that such an undertaking is on the table for discussion at NewTek.

I still think using Wine would be an appropriate using of resources, as demonstrated by Corel with their Photopaint 9 wine-based linux port. The only issue with Wine is the absence of dongle support and once that was addressed in some manner, it would provide a halfway house that meant people could switch without sacrificing their investment in Windows-based plugins.


Originally posted by messiah
As soon as we start releasing our plugins to the public we will have Linux plugins available since internaly we sit mostly on Unix enviroments.
I wouldnt discount the uptake of Linux in the visual effects industry as something trivial though as most if not all of the big studios run most of their gear on unix(always have) and its the same to a degree with mid sized shops.
The support issue is quite easy to get around with a little bit of testing realy(certified platforms and all)

Oh and the gain in productivity might not be down to the free nature of the OS or the additional tools but actualy the lack of HalfLife2 support :D

:D :D

Nightwalker
10-12-2003, 10:00 AM
Well I don't know for Half Life 2 but but Counterstrike, Unreal turnament, Warcraft 3, Jedi knight 2, quake 1,2,3, Doom 1,2,3 (the leaked) , starcraft, Max payne, are all known to run on Linux without too many astle... are those games enought for you guys?

About lightwave, the question about that 3rd party plugs is not a real issue, its not true that its requires any extra work to compile them on linux, they only depend on the Lw api and the C++ complire on the machine, the problem that arises porting plugs to mac is that they ave diferent hardware architecture, basicaly it meens that a plugin developer must either buy a mac to compile the plugs or release the source to the public for someone else to do-it, with Linux for x86 this is not an issue. A good example is for instance a maya plug caled liquid (a maya renderman interface) this is a gpl plug and all you have to do is download the source and compile-it on your machine, so it fits the maya vertion the os and the renderer (renderman 3dlight aqsis etc..) you have instaled. The only diference is that in Windows you have to buy visual c++ to do that....

As for the other apps, I run redhat 9, no windows partition at all, i run photoshop 7 via crossover office (its very cheap and enables you to run photosop, office ect.), Maya linux and the houdini aprentice edition, they run very very well, cinepaint and gimp can realy do mosts editing work you can think about, cinelera is a very interesting app for the price, etc..

In fact I have everithing I need and more, its safer, cheaper, faster, and its growing fast as hell, you just can't imagine the diference between rehat 7.2 an 9.0....

I realy dont believe Newtek isn't aleady working on the full port or at least in a wine port. Just a last note Houdini is known to be 30% faster on Linux....

garg
10-12-2003, 12:32 PM
Not quiet true. It depends if your plugin is only using LW sdk and no specific OS calls. In this case you may compile it without too much troubles. Amelie for instance is only one source that can be compiled for PC or MAC. But some plugins have asembler code or OS specific things. In this case it's not so simple to port.

Alain Bertrand

Cageman
10-12-2003, 02:10 PM
Donīt know much about Linux, but Iīve heard that Maya renders almost twice as fast under Linux compared to Windows, on the same hardware.

Windows is far from optimal as a multimedia OS; it has all the needed ingredients, but mixed terribly wrong and itīs Windows thatīs controlling the computer, not the user....

I remember the good old days when high-end Amigas were used. AmigaOS was a true multimedia OS with alot of user-controll and verry little bloat. To bad it didnīt migrate to x86 or PPC... :/

One can only wonder what an x86 version of AmigaOS could have done in this industry...

pixelmonk
10-13-2003, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Cageman
Donīt know much about Linux, but Iīve heard that Maya renders almost twice as fast under Linux compared to Windows, on the same hardware.

Windows is far from optimal as a multimedia OS; it has all the needed ingredients, but mixed terribly wrong and itīs Windows thatīs controlling the computer, not the user....

I remember the good old days when high-end Amigas were used. AmigaOS was a true multimedia OS with alot of user-controll and verry little bloat. To bad it didnīt migrate to x86 or PPC... :/

One can only wonder what an x86 version of AmigaOS could have done in this industry...


Actually that's inaccurate. Maya doesn't render almost 2x as fast in Linux. There's a few test sites which show results (like Blanos for LW) as well as a couple posts on CGtalk which talk about the speed "issue". Linux is a great "buy" for rendernodes though. I'm sticking with Windows till all the apps I use are ported (will NEVER happen). I'm sure OSX users feel the same with their real Unix OS. Linux is still trying to gain in the marketplace but it's not quite there yet. That doesn't mean that studios aren't using it (mainly due to them porting their tools from IRIX). It's a viable option... just not mine.