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

Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

blender.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#51

Post by dylan604 »

raincole wrote: post #17
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #3

I think especially since the UI overhaul in Blender 2.8 the project has been on a steep upwards trajectory. The software was always amazing, especially since it was free and open source, but the new UI and all subsequent improvements really put Blender on the map as a serious tool and not just an alternative for when you don't have money for the big players.

It might sound weird, but I think the key factor is the rise of Youtube. There is unbelievable amount of Blender content on Youtube. Like, probably more than all the other DCCs (Maya, 3DsMax, Houdini, Modo, etc...) combined[0]. It's beyond the DCC for hobbyists. I've seen people who think it's the only DCC. A few years ago, I met an 2D artist who started integrating 3D workflow and he genuinely didn't know the existe…

The people that use Maya have been using Maya since the days of it being the only thing available. When you have students as young as junior high school getting active in computers and graphics, they have no money. Using myself as an example, I was a frequent user of newsgroups like a.b.m.a. to find the software to learn how to use. Now that I'm a "professional" by earning money with software I "borrowed" while learning, I now pay for all of it.

Now that tools like Blender, Resolve, etc are all available for FREE, it's a no brainer why the younger folks entering into the scene are using them. Hook them while they are young, they'll use it for life. On top of that you can add any converts, once you have a features worthy, as everyone likes free. With places like Reddit and YouTube, you can even forgo support and crowdsource it.

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#52

Post by panarchy »

bena wrote: post #36
crote wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a self-reinforcing loop. Once a FLOSS tool becomes good enough , it'll start to attract professional users, who are willing to invest in it, which makes it even better. And it is quite hard for commercial players to compete with free. But FLOSS software is mainly made by developers. Who like writing new flashy features, but are awful at UX, and making sure all the small kinks are worked out. So most FLOSS softwa…

I think it's an issue of "what matters". FLOSS software is often made people who are interested in the thing being done. The UI to do it is something that can be fixed "later". But later is always later. There's always another feature to implement before you can sit down and really fix that UI.

And then by the time they do get around to fixing the UI it seems the codebase is horribly bloated and littered with tech debt and now updating the UI would basically require a whole application rewrite. Which I have seen happen and work, but I also swear I've seen where teams spread themselves thin trying to make an updated UI version concurrently with their main branch only for the updated UI version to fall so far behind on features (or get worked on so rarely) that they abandoned it to fix it later...

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#53

Post by presbyterian »

dylan604 wrote: post #50
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #3

I think especially since the UI overhaul in Blender 2.8 the project has been on a steep upwards trajectory. The software was always amazing, especially since it was free and open source, but the new UI and all subsequent improvements really put Blender on the map as a serious tool and not just an alternative for when you don't have money for the big players.

Where are all of the open source UI/UX peeps? Why do they not exist? Why are so many devs accepting of the open source concept and yet apparently no UI types are by comparison? The number of open source UI peeps rounds to zero. What is it about design/artsy types that makes working on open source anathema where coders will do it just for the lulz?

It's not that UI/UX people don't want to contribute, it's that the coders have to be convinced that UI/UX matters enough to start including designers' contributions. The type of people making FOSS stuff also tend to be the people who prioritize code, make "good enough" interfaces, and see UI/UX work as fluff. This is thankfully less true today than it was in the past, but it's always been part of my experience around FOSS.

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#54

Post by panarchy »

haunter wrote: post #11
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #3

I think especially since the UI overhaul in Blender 2.8 the project has been on a steep upwards trajectory. The software was always amazing, especially since it was free and open source, but the new UI and all subsequent improvements really put Blender on the map as a serious tool and not just an alternative for when you don't have money for the big players.

>I think especially since the UI overhaul in Blender 2.8 the project has been on a steep upwards trajectory. 100% agreed. I know a lot of people don't like that but sometimes I feel that FOSS projects are intentionally sabotaging themselves by ignoring industry standard options/conventions and instead they are following open source ideas just to be different. UI/UX is the main symptom of that. Blender could move forw…

The problem with (3D) CAD I've heard is that the Open CASCADE CAD kernel is a huge mess. So as much as they update and fix FreeCAD (and they've made a lot of good progress, but it's still very rough around the edges) they're always going to be hampered by that. And making a new CAD kernel is a massive undertaking.

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#55

Post by mixmastamyk »

dylan604 wrote: post #50
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #3

I think especially since the UI overhaul in Blender 2.8 the project has been on a steep upwards trajectory. The software was always amazing, especially since it was free and open source, but the new UI and all subsequent improvements really put Blender on the map as a serious tool and not just an alternative for when you don't have money for the big players.

Where are all of the open source UI/UX peeps? Why do they not exist? Why are so many devs accepting of the open source concept and yet apparently no UI types are by comparison? The number of open source UI peeps rounds to zero. What is it about design/artsy types that makes working on open source anathema where coders will do it just for the lulz?

Almost no one is being paid to make desktop apps any longer. And the UI/X discipline did not make it to the web for whatever reason. The last gasps became designers and settled on more padding, rounded corners, and hidden scrollbars. Most of which are pretty but counterproductive. Dead discipline except for very large products.

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#56

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

Jedd wrote: post #19
crote wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a self-reinforcing loop. Once a FLOSS tool becomes good enough , it'll start to attract professional users, who are willing to invest in it, which makes it even better. And it is quite hard for commercial players to compete with free. But FLOSS software is mainly made by developers. Who like writing new flashy features, but are awful at UX, and making sure all the small kinks are worked out. So most FLOSS softwa…

> but are awful at UX This is such a weird trope. For those of us who've used microsoft teams, jira, servicenow, salesforce, or basically any insanely popular (in the commercial if not upvote sense) products, it's unclear what is being compared to with these tired claims.

Lots of that is momentum and politicking. Or the result of decades of concerted effort to associate your product with it's niche, from education to industry, like Adobe

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#57

Post by mixmastamyk »

Anyone know why Netflix doesn’t respond to their job site? I applied to several positions where I’m an exact match, with a decade of VFX and another decade of internet company experience in LA. Never heard a single word in response from them, for years. Reqs stay open a long time as well. What are they doing? Are they ghost jobs? They don’t even respond with a “no” form letter. (Lately their site is broken at the verify email stage, pin post returns 403.)

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#59

Post by pdpi »

Jedd wrote: post #19
crote wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a self-reinforcing loop. Once a FLOSS tool becomes good enough , it'll start to attract professional users, who are willing to invest in it, which makes it even better. And it is quite hard for commercial players to compete with free. But FLOSS software is mainly made by developers. Who like writing new flashy features, but are awful at UX, and making sure all the small kinks are worked out. So most FLOSS softwa…

> but are awful at UX This is such a weird trope. For those of us who've used microsoft teams, jira, servicenow, salesforce, or basically any insanely popular (in the commercial if not upvote sense) products, it's unclear what is being compared to with these tired claims.

"Bad" comes in many shapes and sizes. Specifically, "technically competent person implementing a thing designed by a technically incompetent person" is remarkably different from "technically incompetent person implementing a thing designed by a technically competent person".

The way this plays out in practice is that those products you listed can hire actual UX designers, but many product decisions are made by people focusing on business concerns rather than product concerns, so you have competent people implementing designs by incompetent people.

Inversely, because open source software is usually built by people trying to scratch their own itches, they those people actually understand what the product should be, but, because they're usually software engineers instead of UX designers, they're typically incompetent at UX design. So you have incompetent people (devs with their UX design hat on) implementing designs by competent people (those same devs, with their "scratch my own itch" product owner hat on)

Re: Netflix Animation Studios Joins the Blender Development Fund as Corporate Patron

#60

Post by Kye »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #13
haunter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think especially since the UI overhaul in Blender 2.8 the project has been on a steep upwards trajectory. 100% agreed. I know a lot of people don't like that but sometimes I feel that FOSS projects are intentionally sabotaging themselves by ignoring industry standard options/conventions and instead they are following open source ideas just to be different. UI/UX is the main symptom of that. Blender could move forw…

We have to keep in mind though that many open source projects started as something that someone wanted and then made. It probably worked just like that person wanted and then it grew. Maybe it is because they weren't too versed in UI/UX design. Another thing is that many classic open source projects don't have a "I want to grow my user base" mindset. Why would they. It's not like they get paid. Big overhauls also alw…

There always seems to be an incompatibility between the people who made it, the people who use it, and the people who want to contribute. The latter two often try, but the former isn't interested in the help or has a very specific vision for the project and doesn't allow any input that isn't in line with that even if it's not in conflict.

It's hard to fault anyone in that triad 100%. Open source has a way of becoming infrastructure. People come to depend on tools made by people without the resources, interest, or personality to run an infrastructure project, or who won't budge on their vision to allow contributions outside of it that might help get the project to a point where it can attract enough vision-aligned contributors.

Forking potentially shifts the problem to a new triad, so it's not an obvious solution in all cases.

Post reply on HN