Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blender Is Free Software

code.blender.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 335 posts

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#191

Post by micmil »

chii wrote: post #68
craigsmansion wrote: post #65

It's nice a high profile project such as Blender speaks about freedom to push back against the "source available" movement. I've always wondered why niche specific software such as Blender doesn't have a ton of industry backing. Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions, that is, someone who works full time on Blen…

It's more likely that the SFX industry has their training done on proprietary software, and shops that don't use the industry standard ones like Maya would have trouble hiring. Plus the after market plugins tend to be commercial in nature and won't want to sell with a GPL licence.

Bullshit. This is like saying someone that trained in Java will struggle learning Python, or someone that learned with C will have a hard time picking up Rust. With a few exceptions (Houdini probably being the prime example) all 3d graphics tools work in the same fashion. The concepts and techniques are universal, the only difference is the implementation.

If you have even a modicum of experience with one thing, you can pick the other up in an afternoon and be up to speed within a week.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#192

Post by micmil »

overgard wrote: post #160
craigsmansion wrote: post #65

It's nice a high profile project such as Blender speaks about freedom to push back against the "source available" movement. I've always wondered why niche specific software such as Blender doesn't have a ton of industry backing. Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions, that is, someone who works full time on Blen…

I like the idea but I don’t think it scales. How many developers are qualified to work on Blender? It would be hard to hire for. Also you need someone that both works in your organisation and that fits in well with the blender developers so their patches get accepted etc. I don’t think the popularity of proprietary solutions is vanity, it’s rather that switching between 3d modellers is really hard. It might be months…

"Switching between 3d modellers" undersells the issue.

COMPLETELY ALTERING YOUR PRODUCTION PIPELINE TO ACCOMMODATE ONE PACKAGE gets the point across a little bit better.

There are studios out there that have decades of in-house scripts and programs built around a given set of software. If you do a lot of architectural rendering you may have your own outdoor lighting systems. If you focus primarily on title sequences you may have certain effects that you developed. Having to completely rewrite all of that in-house code would be a MASSIVE undertaking.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#193

Post by andyonthewings »

BorisTheBrave wrote: post #10
javagram wrote: post #8

> Blender’s scripting API is an integral part of the software. Blender add-ons work, look and feel like Blender features. And as for any other Blender feature that means – it has to be free, free and free forever! Paying for an add-on can only mean access to the add-on download service… offering it to you as GNU GPL. Your freedom as a user and developer is guaranteed. This is the same issue that wordpress has faced i…

They treat addons as GPL'd. The same issue comes up with Blender Game Engine, requiring the whole game to be GPL.

Notice that the Blender Game Engine is discontinued anyway. People seem to instead use Armory3D[1], which has full Blender integration and is zlib licensed[2].

1: https://armory3d.org 2: https://github.com/armory3d/armory/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#195

Post by briandear »

chii wrote: post #68
craigsmansion wrote: post #65

It's nice a high profile project such as Blender speaks about freedom to push back against the "source available" movement. I've always wondered why niche specific software such as Blender doesn't have a ton of industry backing. Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions, that is, someone who works full time on Blen…

It's more likely that the SFX industry has their training done on proprietary software, and shops that don't use the industry standard ones like Maya would have trouble hiring. Plus the after market plugins tend to be commercial in nature and won't want to sell with a GPL licence.

> the after market plugins tend to be commercial in nature and won't want to sell with a GPL licence.

That’s exactly it, developing a high-end plug-ins is very expensive; to give that away for free is completely illogical. It’s a restaurant giving away sandwiches and selling napkins. Selling “service” and “support” or “hosting,” is ridiculous for the plugin industry. Most people in the business know how to use most of the important plugins already, so what kind of support would be needed at a level that users would pay? In all of my 15+ years of owning Waves audio plugins, I have not once contacted their support. If I need a reverb, I pay someone for a reverb. I am not going to pay someone to provide “support” for my reverb. I’m a pro, I don’t need to pay for help with a tool that has been almost industry standard for years.

I love open source, Postgres, Rails, Sidekiq for example. But the GPL-religious side of open source? Not so much. It seems too culty-dogmatic-restricted. Kind of the opposite of “free.” “You are free to do anything you want, except anything we don’t want you to do. The MIT license is the one that is actually free.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#196

Post by micmil »

kgwxd wrote: post #117
fsloth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically speaking software development is extremely risky from the point of view that n units of work will create x units of deliverables. If you are not a software shop you really would like to outsource those risks. Hence, they pay the capital cost to get a fixed, known deliverable. Developing new software is hard and risky. Sure, if you can get the right team for the job it can work out wonderfully but this j…

If someone wants fixed, known deliverables, the last thing they should be looking at is proprietary software, where a seemingly stable product suddenly updates and everything is different and the license changes retroactively, e.g Photoshop. Version controlled, open source means you can check out any version you might need, at any time, now and forever. Seems worth throwing some money at such a promise.

Spoken like someone that doesn't own a business. You do not throw money at promises. You throw money at solutions.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#197

Post by bscphil »

carlmr wrote: post #146
craigsmansion wrote: post #65

It's nice a high profile project such as Blender speaks about freedom to push back against the "source available" movement. I've always wondered why niche specific software such as Blender doesn't have a ton of industry backing. Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions, that is, someone who works full time on Blen…

>And it wouldn't even interfere with their competitive edge, since the software isn't their business. They don't have to care about the GPL as long as the software does what they want. Most developers know this, but company managers that forbid open source contribution don't understand this. That's why I'm personally not too much against source available licensing. It's the only language old companies understand.

Speculation on my part, but I think one of the reasons the big graphics companies have their own software (think Pixar) at least in part is because it gives their results a unique visual look that becomes part of the brand.

Why anyone would use all third-party proprietary software, I have no idea.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#198

Post by Animats »

Causality1 wrote: post #175
asutekku wrote: post #81

When 90% of the plugins and tutorials are available for proprietary software it’s hard to support blender. It also doesn’t help that the UI of the blender is extremely hostile for new users. When other tools are easier to use and have better tooling it’s hard to justify the usage of blender.

This. Back when I was trying to learn Blender as a hobby I had no issue finding tutorials, but they were for a variety of Blender versions. For most programs that would be a non-issue but Blender seemed to radically alter its UI with every update. Buttons were moved to different submenus, entire menu categories were added or dissolved, and keyboard shortcuts would either not work or do something different than descri…

Yes. The big question in Blender is usually "where did (function) go?"

In 2.8, the mouse buttons have different meaning.

Still, the UI has gone from appallingly bad a decade ago to sort of OK in 2.79. Haven't tried 2.8 yet; it's still in beta.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#199

Post by asutekku »

wlesieutre wrote: post #91
asutekku wrote: post #81

When 90% of the plugins and tutorials are available for proprietary software it’s hard to support blender. It also doesn’t help that the UI of the blender is extremely hostile for new users. When other tools are easier to use and have better tooling it’s hard to justify the usage of blender.

2.8 is a big step forward for the new user experience. https://www.blender.org/2-8/#user-interface They’re also finally switching the default to left click select. Having to select with right click was one of the big things that made the UI feel really alien for anyone who hasn’t used it a lot.

It is a good step forward. However a lot damage has been done already as blender is known to be the tool that is extremely hard to learn. It’s hard to lose the mark when it’s there.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#200

Post by micmil »

0815test wrote: post #33
starbugs wrote: post #7

From the article: "And if you think you ‘suffer from piracy’ or find it hard to do business with Free Software? Just distinguish yourselves with the proven successful free/open source business model: provide docs, training, content, frequent updates and support. Your customers will love you!" Well, then why does Blender need a development fund? [0] I honestly agree with most of what this article says and I admire the…

> Well, then why does Blender need a development fund? Why wouldn't they have such a fund? Sponsoring is a viable FLOSS business model, and it heavily overlaps with support (which is discussed in your quote from the blogpost). The notion that "people" aren't "able to make money" with FLOSS is just a fallacy, and Blender itself is one of the clearest examples of how wrong it is - it was failing as a commercial prospec…

It is not a viable model.

How many people are actually paid by the Blender Foundation for their contributions to the software? How many fewer employees do they have than a company like Autodesk or Maxon?

The simple fact is that FLOSS is the outsourcing of large swathes of development cost to those stupid or interested enough to make something happen for free on their own time.

What do you do when that interest wanes?

You're fucked.

Post reply on HN