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

301–310 of 335 posts

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#301

Post by micmil »

damon_c wrote: post #234
chii wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concepts and techniques are universal, the only difference is the implementation. only someone who hasn't really used the tool in anger and mastered it would claim this. I can't even switch to eclipse from intellij and not have a huge productivity hit for several months. and that's just typing code! A real 3D modeller would have so much muscle memory for their modelling app of choice it't not funny.

Yes, exactly this. As someone who had a prior career in VFX using mostly Autodesk and Adobe software, there are people who spend their whole career in one of these packages and have a lot of difficulty becoming fluent in a second one. They are designed with completely different metaphors and workflows and yes, the end result is always pixels, but learning multiple high end creative software is nothing like learning d…

If those people ever actually put in the effort they'd find all the same tools just under different names. While it may take a while to get the nuances down at the end of the day they all do the same things. It's simply a matter of adapting your existing skill to a new workflow.

Just like a programming language.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#302

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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 think it's more about vendor support. There's a big difference between having a person on your payroll who can add a feature and having a help desk and applications engineers who are under contract to make sure the software works for you.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#303

Post by micmil »

craigsmansion wrote: post #251
micmil wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with "employee vanity" and that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. There's a simple reason Blender doesn't see much use in film production: Support. There is no way the Blender Foundation could provide the level of support that a company like Autodesk does. When you run into problems you call your enterprise support team and get it fixed. This is why you pay them the big bucks. Their…

> The idea that a company should just hire a programmer they don't otherwise need just so they can make some software work is asinine Weren't you just saying the magic ingredient was "support"? Do you believe a first line help-desk is going to provide better support than a guy whose livelihood depends on it and you can call to your desk? >That's like saying a home builder should hire a full time auto mechanic In this…

>Do you believe a first line help-desk is going to provide better support than a guy whose livelihood depends on it and you can call to your desk?

I can guarantee you there are no top-level VFX houses or game developers that ever speak to first-line support.

If you're not top level you have no need to waste money on a programmer that will likely be sitting on his ass 23/7. No, that isn't a typo. The vast majority of the time these systems work as intended. When they don't, who do you think is going to respond better? The multitude of professionals that are paid to work on this code day in and day out... or Steve, who spends most of his time pretending he isn't shopping for waifu pillows? WE KNOW IT'S YOU, STEVE. CLEAR YOUR BROWSER HISTORY.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#305

Post by la_barba »

microcolonel wrote: post #269
la_barba wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't really see the difference between this and "accept its drawbacks" The difference is one is known, and the other is unknown. When you're evaluating existing software you can evaluate multiple competitors based on their finished product. You can't do that when you're hiring a developer. >and if the developer fails, you can replace them (whereas for a given proprietary product, you typically can not replace the…

> one is known Only if the software you're buying meets all of your current and future requirements, and is maintained indefinitely. If new requirements come up, they're at least not any more helpful than in-house resources (unless a lot of people suddenly have the same requirements at the same time); and if they stop maintaining it, there's a good chance you literally can't do anything about that. You just have a di…

>Only if the software you're buying meets all of your current and future requirements, and is maintained indefinitely.

Nobody expects 3d design software to be maintained indefinitely or expects 3d design software to satisfy future requirements magically. You buy a 3d design software to make you money by creating content. Either it makes you money or it doesn't. The easiest thing to do is to simply buy what everyone else is using because it makes it easier to hire talent from a pre-existing pool of experts, or if need be, train them on a software for which training programs already exist because its popular.

>If new requirements come up, they're at least not any more helpful than in-house resources (unless a lot of people suddenly have the same requirements at the same time);

Well, wait a minute. Before you even get there, you not only have to be good at producing 3D art/content (or atleast good enough to make a decent chunk of change), you have to now hire dev/test/pm folks and successfully run a software development team in-house. I don't find this to be a realistic proposition.

>and if they stop maintaining it, there's a good chance you literally can't do anything about that.

A vendor for any software that you rely on can go out of business. Do you plan to run independent software development teams for your OS, accounting software, browser, IDE, etc ? The answer obviously is no. And the same reasoning applies to your 3d design software.

>You just have a different set of unknowns, one of which seems more manageable (which is probably why it is more popular), and probably is more manageable in some subset of use cases.

I don't agree at all. I think it actually is more manageable.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#306

Post by HeWhoLurksLate »

micmil wrote: post #300
HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to learn SolidWorks, coming from Autodesm Inventor, and I can confirm- it's really hard to switch- SolidWorks is more powerful, even, and is better at what I want to do- and I've only been using Inventor off and on for around 4 years. I can only imagine what it would be like to switch from something that you've used a flavor of for your whole career to something entirely new, and 3D modelling for ani…

That's a little bit different. A LOT of CAD software is built on decades-old legacy ways of doing things because old people won't retire and can't be bothered to learn new and better ways of operating. It's much less focused on artistic creation and more on engineering. As a result CAD software wants you to work in a specific way with it. Order of operations is extremely important and can be different from one packag…

Ohhhhhhh. That makes a lot of sense- and now I'm frustrated because it probably won't ever change that much because there will always be an older generation.

I understand why people use Blender as a CAD package a lot more now, thanks!

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#307

Post by herbstein »

simias wrote: post #62
herbstein wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a soon-to-be third year CS student. If I started to use the term "libre software" I'd be ridiculed to hell and back. I think you overestimate the receptiveness of developers.

I'm not sure how to interpret your reply in the context of what the parent is saying. Of course if it's not common to use the term then people will find it odd, out of place or maybe even pretentious. If some influential people manage to push it, eventually it'll be accepted. If our industry as a whole managed to utter words like "cloud computing", "webscale" or "full stack" with a straight face I really think "libre…

I personally will start using "libre" instead of "free" in relation to "free as in freedom" software. However, my comment was meant to exemplify the mentality I see at my university.

It's a mentality of "eh, it works". Of the, at this point, 50+ people I've talked to about software licensing about 3 put any merit in the libre approach. That's not scientific nor representative, but to me it's highly discouraging. Whenever my friend, who recently saw RMS talk live, talks about libre software I notice other students roll their eyes.

To be honest, I don't think most people, students or otherwise, are really even aware of what libre software and the GPL is - let alone think it's something worth investing time and energy into.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#309

Post by naniwaduni »

lttlrck wrote: post #166
dmos62 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it fascinating that the English language doesn't have a distinction between the social meaning of free and the economic, in that these meanings are meshed into the same word?

Is it not free and gratis?

"gratis" is not a common english word either; you'd only use it to make this exact distinction.

Re: Blender Is Free Software

#310

Post by somatic »

starbugs wrote: post #207
somatic wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there were a license that made all hobbyist and educational use free and open source, and all commercial use propriety with kickbacks to devs? Would that resolve your hemispheric conflict?

This is exactly what open source is not, per definition of the OSI: https://opensource.org/osd , see paragraph 6 "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". What you are proposing is a form of a shared source license.

Here's the text of #6: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

My thought is not to restrict anyone from doing anything. Rather that, for example, any profit-seeking entity can use any code, but that that profit-seeking entity must pay a standard and proportional fee to the license-holder of that code, generally its author(s) and/or maintainer(s).

Does that qualify as "restricting anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor"? Going by the wording, I would lean toward "no".

Furthermore, while on that page I glanced at the other paragraphs, and I couldn't help but notice that according to #9: "License Must Not Restrict Other Software" and its text: "The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.", the GNU/GPL don't qualify as "open source" software.

It is to laugh.

Post reply on HN