Hi folks.

Been reading the last 21 posts since I restarted this discussion. Very intresting views.

There no doubt about it that we are all passionate about the platform we love to work on. But as I said before porting Houdini to OSX has nothing to do with a platform war. It's to provide the Mac community with Houdini. Simple as! That should be a good thing because it increases awareness of the power of Houdini and the potential of a wide user base.

Opinions are contaminated by experiences of the old Mac OS and the fact that Mac users have a cynical attitude to other OS and any bad experience they may have had with them. This get users of Windows and Linux back up and promotes a defensive attitude between everybody.

But for me Windows is in trouble. The interface for Vista appears no different from 95 to XP while adding ideas poached from Mac and Linux. With a large amount of viruses and securty problems people are now thinking of the alternatives only held back by low prices from Dell and others. In the next five years many PC users will move to Linux or Mac.

Once Sidefx have a Mac OSX Universal binary build and a version of Escape with POPs, DOPs and CHOPs at the right price (I proposed a version called PILOT which is ESCAPE but adds only POPs. DOPs and CHOPs for $3999.) they will have everyone covered and all this banter will cease. I believe at that point their line up will be very strong!

I hope my view is positive!

Slave1

I like your views and agree with all your points.
8)

banter banter

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YfbvrrlZlnM [youtube.com]

Or maybe we just need windows on the MAC?



–Carlos

well thats now an option … sure..
but then so is running x86 linux..

but at the end of the day, an Apple machine that isn't running OSX isnt really a Mac at that point..

if running windows or Linux was an acceptable solution then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place..

Speaking about the next movement in the future around OOSS.
Well I think that in many cases is not OS, is the apps you need.
If your apps aren't in one OS you can't use it, it is so simply.
Many times the quality os the OS is not important, the support from the software industry is the important key.
People from Windows and Mac many times say that they can't go to Linux, although they want, beacause the app/s they need doesn't have a Linux port.
So, if the software/hardware industry embraces Linux, the claimed Photoshop port is an example, then Linux will grow, otherwise, Linux will keep on being a OS for the minority.
A couple of interesting articles about OS and market:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-243527.html [news.com.com]
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10984&page=1 [osnews.com]
So anyone can take their option.
For me, you know, I will stay on Linux, at least we have Houdini for it
Ah!, goow web to be tuned about linux in the movies world:
http://www.linuxmovies.org/meeting/2006/02.html [linuxmovies.org]
And the last, but not least, look at this for the future of the cinepaint project:
http://cinepaint.org/docs/cinepaint.scale.2006.pdf [cinepaint.org]

Choose you environment!
If they allow it to you, of course

Therefore I want to be able to use Houdini on a platform that lets me, well.. just use Houdini .. and not have to be a part time unpaid UNIX admin/developer/hacker

This really says it all. I want my workstation to be a complete integrated environment running the best tools for anything 3D, 2D and media. OS X is the closest thing to that. When I'm done interacting, I want an army of GUI-less linux machines flex their muscle with a simple shell script from within Houdini. OS X does that right now.
Interacting–>Calculating;Client–>Server; Ever since computers started to emerge this has been an excellent model that hasn't let us down. Use the right tools for the right task. As a desktop, OS X has reached a satisfying point. As a render node, linux and its philosophy has always satisfied.
This really is a no-brainer.

BUT, you have to be kind of crazy to use it as of yet.

Check “BootCamp” from apple.com

Allows you to run windows on a mac.

YES, you can run linux too. Infact… he hemm…. the right way… on intel procs. Hence run houdini on a partioned drive.

ONLY bummer is, its not on OSX. but if you already invested in mac hardware… you ultimately will win with its true tri, boot capabilities.

Um, no irix and solaris wont run on it.

I'm using a kvm switch right now to switch between unix and os x. Can't use my apple to render frames unfortunately.

Here's an article looking at Boot Camp to run WinXP. The biggest drawback looks to be the lack of a proper RMB (Ctrl+LMB is the alias), but since it's reviewing a notebook, this might not be the case for a desktop system.

It also looks at a virtualization solution (which won't work for Houdini, as the graphics are all done by the CPU, not the video card).

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p=10 [anandtech.com]

(the first 10 pages are a performance comparison of a G4 to Core Duo notebook).

DriesD
I want my workstation to be a complete integrated environment running the best tools for anything 3D, 2D and media. OS X is the closest thing to that.

This summs it up pretty well. OS X seems to be the closest thing to a good media production OS. I think Linux is far from this. Of course you can render on it and you can use Houdini an some high-end compositing and FX packages, but that's it. What about colour management? What about a media layer (QuickTime, Windows media)? The Quartz visual layer of OS X seems very powerful (PDF+OpenGL), and this is a nice thing to have (even if it's not very relevant for Houdini-only work). And then are the apps: I want to be able to do editing, DVD-authoring, I want Photoshop and Illustrator, I want OpenType fonts. I simply do not agree with statements like “It doesn't give you more than Linux”. For visual work it gives you a LOT more. I like the idea of Linux very much but I am very sad that still, after all these years, Linux is not a mature platform for visual work.

Dragos

Another vote for Mac OS X.

1.) Windows, I'll never use windows, cygwin although good just never quite cut it for me.

2.) Linux, I'm too old to even care about compiling kernals…, I really just want to get my work done, and play guitar.

3.) Mac OSX… Stable unix, that just works out of the box, with easy updates. Let's me do my job 100% of the time. I am a full time developer. Most of our best programmers have switched to Mac OS X for their development machine, even though we deploy on RS6000s, Sun Servers, and Windows machines. Plus I was a NeXTStep programmer from the old days, and Mac OSX is just NeXTStep… go Objective-C.

I am a hobbyist, but I make 6 figures at my day job and have money to spend on a 3D hobby ( maybe not $17,000 ), but as of now, sidefx doesn't offer a product in my price range or my platform. I want POPS, I want Mac OS X, and I want a semi-reasonal price.

P.S.- I don't know why sideFX wants to deal with the headache of every possible Linux configuration (software and hardware) that exists out there. What a pain for them. On Mac OS X, it is turnkey set of hardware and software… when they port, they can be guaranteed that it will work for their customers just like it is working on the sidefx development machines.

I think there are a couple of things at work here;

I'm not sure how many professionals (or hobbyists) willing to pay $17k work on OS/X in the first place… and also, I don't think they want to support all those linux flavours - they have large customers that need them to. I'm sure that, if such a thing existed, they'd rather compile a Universal Binary ™ that works for every OS ever made and be done with it.

Jason.

PS. there is no compiling of kernels needed, of course. I installed ubuntu on my laptop and within 30 minutes of putting the installation disk in my machine, I had an install with my graphics card working 100%, a wireless connection established, and downloaded and installed houdini. I can't imagine an easier process.

jason_iversen
I'm not sure how many professionals (or hobbyists) willing to pay $17k work on OS/X in the first place…

I think the real issue issue is that most professionals that use Houdini have already paid their $17K and are running on Linux, and not that they wouldn't want to run on OS X.

What really blows my mind, is that any professional would ever run on Windows, yet SideFx supports this??

jason_iversen
Jason.

PS. there is no compiling of kernels needed, of course. I installed ubuntu on my laptop and within 30 minutes of putting the installation disk in my machine, I had an install with my graphics card working 100%, a wireless connection established, and downloaded and installed houdini. I can't imagine an easier process.

I was being a little sarcastic…, but people still do compile their kernels. But I realize most kernels are shipped with almost all options compiled in as modules so it greatly reduces the need to do so.

I'm not sure what your point is - are you trying to convince SESI just how terribly they've misjudged the market? There's lots of reasons and issues behind porting a complicated product like this, and issues like the size of the company enter into it too. It's not a political issue - there's plenty of SESI employees that would like it ported - it's a financial one. One person spreading FUD isn't going to change things.

J.C.

P.S. I don't think you understand the mechanics of things when you say “most professionals that use Houdini have already paid their $17K”. What has that got to do with it? You don't pay extra for another platform. What's relevant is how many *additional* sales(or how much pressure existing large customer companies make) are generated by investing in that port. it's a moving target, OSX. Remains to be seen whether or not it's worth the risk. SESI was the first to port to linux(well, except perhaps pixar/rman), before Maya, before XSI. They're hardly timid in this department.

Compiling kernels? Please, I have better things to do. Only diehard hobbyists do that. If you're going to spend time doing that for a production pipeline, you better have a lot of time on your hands.

JColdrick
I'm not sure what your point is - are you trying to convince SESI just how terribly they've misjudged the market?

No… in a polite tone, my point in a round about way was directed at the previous posters that said they don't want SESI spending time dealing with porting to OS X. They would rather have them add features to existing platforms. I was trying to make the point, that once they do the port, it will be MUCH MUCH easier to maintain because OS X is a turnkey solution with limited hardware, and OS configuration. This is compared to Linux and the array of PC configurations, that they deal with and still make a profit.

JColdrick
P.S. I don't think you understand the mechanics of things when you say “most professionals that use Houdini have already paid their $17K”. What has that got to do with it? You don't pay extra for another platform. What's relevant is how many *additional* sales(or how much pressure existing large customer companies make) are generated by investing in that port. it's a moving target, OSX. Remains to be seen whether or not it's worth the risk. SESI was the first to port to linux(well, except perhaps pixar/rman), before Maya, before XSI. They're hardly timid in this department.

I was responding to the previous poster that said that there are no professionals that use OS X willing to spend $17,000 on Houdini. I was making the point that they maybe they don't use OS X because they can't use OS X (since Houdini doesn't run on it) and thus they are already set up on Linux, and at this point are content. I realize how the license mechnism works, I had a Houdini license for 2 years from 2000-2002

Compiling kernels? Please, I have better things to do. Only diehard hobbyists do that. If you're going to spend time doing that for a production pipeline, you better have a lot of time on your hands.

OK…, I already admitted it's not that bad anymore… like it was years ago when everyone compiled their kernel.


Additional note…

Well for the Mac people out there, thinking of trying Linux on Virtual PC and then running Houdini on that. My attempt was on a Powerbook G4 1.25 GHz with 2 Gigs of Ram.

I installed Ubuntu 5.1 last night. It installed very cleanly, but took about 10 hours. After it booted, I had to go into recovery mode and make one X11 config change. But after all that, it works, but the performance issue made the install unusable… Takes like 5 seconds for windows to pop up. It is so slow, I'm not even going to try Houdini.

I find this strange, because I have a Windows 2000 Virtual PC install that I use to log my hours for work( the only Windows app I have to run ) The Windows 2000 install runs very well and fast. But Houdini 8.0 always crashes on it, so I gave up on that.

I find it very strange that a Linux distro would run so horribly slow compared to Windows 2000. I remember the days when Linux rocked on a 486. Have these consumer based Linux distros become that bloated on the road to user friendliness?

Maybe I'll try a stripped down Slackware and see if that makes a difference.

###
I would like to get Houdini up and running on Linux in Virtual PC.

After further testing, this may be doable, the slow response isn't as bad as I first thought… it seems that was more application start up time…, like a terminal window… still 5 seconds for a termina window… but it works.

Also talked to a friend who has been a Linux diehard since 1994, a computer science professional that does compile his own kernels… He says…

In general Linux distros still can rock. To a large extent, the greatest deterrminant of “speed” on a Linux machine is the choice of desktop. Run KDE and you'll be less impressed than if you run WindowMaker. Gnome desktops are somewhere in the middle.

Also, your stock kernel almost certainly does not come compiled fot the processor on your machine. While the differences between, say, a PII and PIII are nothing to get upset about, the same can't be said for a PII vs a Motorola chip. This can make a big difference.

<shrug>

We're running SUSE/KDE on P4 HP workstations, outfitted with FX3xxx cards, typically 2-4G memory - it screams…faster than MS, faster than any OSX workstation *I've* seen, in terms of interactivity(then again, maybe I'm distracted by those bouncing, bubbly icons - I turn that sort of eye candy off for the most part on Linux). What can I say? We run all sorts of workstations, you'd have to pry Linux out of the animator's cold, dead hands here. The editors and producers here seem to like their Macs, though.

J.C.

Forget Virtual PC

My friend is mailing me a workstation PC…

So easily swayed from my Mac…

you'd have to pry Linux out of the animator's cold, dead hands here. The editors and producers here seem to like their Macs, though.

awesome… :wink:


ps. What I find intersting is that a 3d artist after using linux would want to use osx for 3d production? I mean when you are are in the heat of work trying to hit a deadline, you have countless windows/panes floating all over the place with reference flip books and images up. In linux that is ok because you can mouse focus through ,shade things or send them to different desktops…etc. In osx what do you do? Look at one thing at a time and dock the other stuff? Perhaps I over value workflow. :roll:

Wren
ps. What I find intersting is that a 3d artist after using linux would want to use osx for 3d production? I mean when you are are in the heat of work trying to hit a deadline, you have countless windows/panes floating all over the place with reference flip books and images up. In linux that is ok because you can mouse focus through ,shade things or send them to different desktops…etc. In osx what do you do? Look at one thing at a time and dock the other stuff? Perhaps I over value workflow. :roll:

I never dock anything… I use F9 to deal with tons of open wndows on Mac OS X.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/theater/expose.html [apple.com]

It's an esthetic, Wren. I have no problem with someone personally enjoying the look and feel of OSX - knock yourself out, enjoy! What I don't like is an inference(or declaration) that somehow it's more artistic, more “natural”, more “organic”(BS words we often hear in our business, I would point out ) than other options(I'm not talking about you here, jcoyle). It's a computer operating system, for crying out loud. It's supposed to facilitate getting work done. It's like hearing programmers waxing rhetorically over the “freedom” of a given programming language. I think it's human nature, but please. You can find an aesthetic in anything, it's the nature of the beast.

Cheers,

J.C.