Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Linux or Windows?

W

Wayne Morellini

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
6,157
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I know Linux has multiple issues with regarding professional commercial software availability over the years, but is it viable to use Linux in production instead of Windows. Are there enough high end packages and other software?

It is a shame that there is nothing ARM binary linux software base, otherwise Nvidia could potentially offer great ARM systems.
Thanks.
 
All of my high end packages are supported on Linux (nuke, maya, davinci, etc), there use to be a large cost difference of the package between Linux and window though. Now most of the packages are the same, davinci being a exception. I have gotten stuck on Windows 7, on my next film my big machines will definitely be Linux. You still need a Mac or Windows machine for some things, for example I run my Adobe stuff on a Mac Pro and autodesk motion builder on a Windows box.
 
Tears of Steel was put together using nothing but open-source software on hardware running Linux. That was several years ago. Things have definitely advanced since that was made.
 
PatrickFaith said:
All of my high end packages are supported on Linux (nuke, maya, davinci, etc), there use to be a large cost difference of the package between Linux and window though. Now most of the packages are the same, davinci being a exception. I have gotten stuck on Windows 7, on my next film my big machines will definitely be Linux. You still need a Mac or Windows machine for some things, for example I run my Adobe stuff on a Mac Pro and autodesk motion builder on a Windows box.
Click to expand...

So it is not a case most things are not available, but that virtually all things are available?

What are the things you need windows for? I know that even getting things like official bluray player is not on Linux, so how does bluray 4k authoring go?
 
Linux

Linux

When SGI was in decline, there was a huge concern about protecting investment for custom software tools written in Unix. Linux was a gateway to port over those tools on more robust Intel processors. OS X was still under construction during the time, so it wasn't a viable solution at that time.

Also, early versions of Windows Server had problems and deployment costs, again Linux was a perceived viable alternative, but had a hidden administration cost.

But most of problems have disappeared. Games, gadgets, developers are more plentiful on Windows because there is more money to made.

So few software titles exist on Linux anymore. SoftImage was discontinued last month. There are two reasons to be on Linux 1) sophisticated or specialty software or 2) you love tinkering.
 
When you're on Windows, pretty much all your apps will work on different versions of Windows, regardless if it is 7, 8 or 10.
Saying an app works on Linux means nothing.
There are a myriad of distributions of Linux and all apps are compiled for a specific one.
Resolve will not run on the same Red Hat CentOS as FilmLight. FilmLight actually have it's own variant of CentOS called FLOS- FilmLight OS. Mistika runs on entirely different flavor of Linix- SUSE and so is Flame and Nuke- CentOS. And if you fancy running Linux, get your Terminal chops ready. All in all, Linux is not as simple, as Windows.
 
Stacey Spears said:
Jake, which version(s) of Linux should one support? Right now the app we showed at NAB was running on Ubuntu. We have to get it working on Red Hat in the next few weeks. I really hope it is not much more than a re-compile. :)
Click to expand...
I think Ubuntu is the most popular one for the masses, but I feel, that Red Hat is the choice for the high end software, like BaseLight, Resolve, Flame and Nuke.
 
Re-edit: Better than expected. The solution is to have a core standard that binaries can run on. As most code and programs don't require customisation/optimisation past this, many programs can run on any distro supporting the standard, and others may require only sections of code outside the standard target to be recompiled. A common store can earn commission, even by referal, to pay for development of the standard. The first half of this I thought Linux was about from the start.
 
The privacy security issues, updates, garbage commercial side app installs with windows is my main issues with it.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Unreal, so there is no common target and no common store front to redirect to real shop fronts. No wonder Linux has not succeeded. The world is full of such dick heads, pardon the literal interpretation, missing the blindly obvious, it is just hard to believe.

The solution is to have a core standard that binaries can run on. As most code and programs don't require customisation/optimisation past this, many programs can run on any distro supporting the standard, and others may require only sections of code outside the standard target to be recompiled. A common store can earn commission, even by referal, to pay for development of the standard. The first half of this I thought Linux was about from the start.

Linux is likely doomed if all this is true, until they change otma distro becomes a defacto standard. A Commodore 64 Ubuntu, so to speak.
Click to expand...

There are two standards in Linux. RedHat and Debian/Ubuntu, with many derivative spins of Debian/Ubuntu that try not to stray too far from the "works with the stock codebase" point, while still offering their own versions. Professional applications are almost always built around RedHat while all the open-source software stuff is built around Debian/Ubuntu, usually the mainstream versions and not the custom forked spins. Also, Linux is not about standards. It's about choice and customization. That's why so many people love it.
 
Thanks. I'm thankful the worse fragmentation has not come about over the last few decades. Linux is about linux. That means programs should be generally linux programs in common. The store and core standard idea is the way to go. You can customise past the core, but rarely do you need to. Gives both standardisation and freedom to customise.

Any chance of a version of Linux that can run Ubuntu and redhat versions of programs?
 
Most things run just fine on any distro, but the issue of dependencies is a problem and not all distros have the same versions of software - outdated/updated - and required dependencies (or are missing dependent software) in their repositories, so you have to use third-party sources. The real gap between RedHat and other distros is in the hardware support and frequency of software updates, which is why RedHat is the standard for professional Linux use. Pretty much anything in the professional realm of hardware that has Linux support works well on RedHat and you can't always say the same for other distros. In some cases, RedHat has proprietary drivers and such.
 
For the purposes of this conversation regarding the benefits of REDHAT, are we talking Fedora, CentOS and RHEL collectively or exclusively RHEL?
 
M.Halsell said:
For the purposes of this conversation regarding the benefits of REDHAT, are we talking Fedora, CentOS and RHEL collectively or exclusively RHEL?
Click to expand...

Since we're talking professional stuff, RHEL. CentOS and Fedora are NOT RedHat Linux, though one can probably say that Fedora is RedHat because RHEL is primarily derived from the work done for Fedora and it's historical ties to the original RHL that was replaced by RHEL. CentOS is a non-commercial use of RHEL code, meaning it isn't the same, but it's built from both RHEL and Fedora developments and most of the CentOS team works for RedHat. RedHat merely sponsors both distros - but does not control either one - and stuff gets tested out in both for eventual use in RHEL. It's somewhat like the OS X/Darwin BSD model of doing things.
 
L. Langer said:
Since we're talking professional stuff, RHEL. CentOS and Fedora are NOT RedHat Linux, though one can probably say that Fedora is RedHat because RHEL is primarily derived from the work done for Fedora and it's historical ties to the original RHL that was replaced by RHEL. CentOS is a non-commercial use of RHEL code, meaning it isn't the same, but it's built from both RHEL and Fedora developments and most of the CentOS team works for RedHat. RedHat merely sponsors both distros - but does not control either one - and stuff gets tested out in both for eventual use in RHEL. It's somewhat like the OS X/Darwin BSD model of doing things.
Click to expand...


Can binaries be shared between the three?
 
As a Comp Sci grad who has compiled his own kernel - dabble in both and then ultimately use a combo of OS X/Windows ;)
 
M.Halsell said:
Can binaries be shared between the three?
Click to expand...

Yes. Many pre-compiled binaries can be installed on different distros, especially those with shared codebase, but functionality/compatibility is not always guaranteed, especially if you are combining older/newer software packages that were made with different versions of dependencies or the distro does not have the dependencies in their repository, which is exceptionally rare for current distros. So long as the dependencies are in good order, things usually work. Worst-case scenario, you can roll your own software from the source-code to work with your particular installation, but it's very rare that you'd have to do that these days because you can usually install compatible packages from third-party sources who have compiled specific versions to address incompatibilities/hiccups with current software or older distros that people are still using in their twilight years, like Ubuntu's LTS releases, which are notoriously out of date after two years due to lack of back-porting most software packages from newer releases. One common example of having to install such software on Linux is that Adobe Flash's official package on Linux no longer has a component required for copy protection/media management that is used by Hulu's premium subscriptions and others - Google Chrome's version of Flash has it though - so you have to install a third-party package that restores and updates that DRM component for use with copy-protected Flash websites.
 
So, the dependencies go down to the fire between Redhat and Ubuntu? But in the redhat camp dependacies are mainly outside the core Api's?

Why don't app manufacturers have an download system in the programs to download and install software depended upon?
 
Wayne Morellini said:
So, the dependencies go down to the fire between Redhat and Ubuntu? But in the redhat camp dependacies are mainly outside the core Api's?

Why don't app manufacturers have an download system in the programs to download and install software depended upon?
Click to expand...
Pretty much all Linix distros already do that with repositories. You just need to know where to look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top