Lightworks Video Editor To Go Open Source 205
Art3x writes "EditShare will release its video editor as open source this summer. Lightworks handles high-definition media, DPX, and RED, shares projects with Final Cut Pro and Avid, and was recently used by Academy-award-winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker on Shutter Island. Introduced in 1989 and bought by EditShare last year, it 'has come from over one million hours of software development,' says EditShare's James Richings. But he says releasing the source will 'generate concepts and capabilities never seen before. I expect that the Lightworks Open Source initiative will transform not only the technology, but also the opinions on what a professional editing tool can achieve.'" From the press release's description, it sounds like the "open source" phase will follow a period of free-as-in-beer downloading.
Great something (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you're joking, but the open source video editing tools that I've used have all had extremely clunky interfaces. I'm no pro, but I've edited a 90 minute amateur film, so if I can't figure out how to import and splice clips in less than 30 minutes of picking up a copy of your video editing software, I conclude that the software is no good. It's been about two years since I've seriously looked for something, but in 2008 the state-of-the-art for open source video editing wasn't in good shape.
Re:Great something (Score:5, Informative)
I agree completely, which is why I'm actually in the middle of writing one for Linux (+ maybe other OS's). A lot of work.
If anyone's interested, I'm working on a two-fold project: a video framework that works in 4:4:4 linear floating-point RGBA with OpenGL acceleration, and a video editor built on top of it, all scriptable via Python.
The framework is coming along nicely. I've just begun on the editing interface. You can see recent (but not current) framework code at: http://www.fluggo.com/redmine/projects/show/fluggo-media
I would be absolutely happy for someone to take the framework and build their own editor on top of it. I would love to provide support for that case. If anyone's interested, drop me a line at brian@fluggo.com.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it seems your page is behind some manner of login.
Just wanted to say - awesome! Hopefully it'll be a solid foundation.. best would be see the various disparate video editing tools converge or at least play together more to make a competitive product/suite.
I'm a big supporter of The GIMP myself - I have Photoshop on another machine and I continually feel like I'm playing with a piece of software that a photographer from the 30's designed.. even despite all the new nifty tools in CS5. E.g. pri
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ack!! No! I've disabled the sign-in barrier.
I'm coming to this with a different perspective-- I'm actually an editor, too, and I want my editor to focus on, well, EDITING. We're getting all of these open source editors with bells and whistles, but they don't edit very well at all.
With any luck, I'll be back here in a year promoting my way of doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
The editor is part of the battle. The other is capturing the video off the cameras. When I select capture video in FCP, I get a list of choices a mile long.
Re: (Score:2)
What about all those proprietary codecs in these cameras? It seems every manufacture is playing with the GOP too in HDV.
Re:Great something (Score:5, Insightful)
if I can't figure out how to import and splice clips in less than 30 minutes of picking up a copy of your video editing software, I conclude that the software is no good.
I have the same attitude with all products: if I can't figure it out in 30 minutes, without consulting a manual (see below), I just give up.
Incidentally, I can't read, write, swim, drive or ride a bicycle. I assume none of those things is any good.
Re:Great something (Score:5, Funny)
For an illiterate you made quite an insightful comment.
Re: (Score:2)
He won't know you appreciate his comment anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think it just appears that way. He's really just mashing keys, and sadly, will most likely respond to your comment with something like sajubzdfjhnzdfv nhjfdv nhdfHB Nvrwegrewuitfrhvfd bjdfvjhb kh. Although it may appear like English when it actually shows up, it really has no more connection to actual language than that.
Re:Great something (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks. Martha reads out stories and comments. Then I dictate replies of my own.
[Please help me. He has me locked in his basement and the smell is horrific!
- Martha.]
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, I can't read, write, swim, drive or ride a bicycle. I assume none of those things is any good.
Yes because simple splicing of video clips in the 21st Century requires just as much effort to learn as riding a bicycle, swimming, driving, writing, or walking.
Gotta love how users get blamed for lame UI's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you learnt english in 30 minutes? It takes most of us 1-2 years!
Re:Great something (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not really a fair analogy. It's probably more like, "I've been driving a car for twenty years. If I get into your car and can't figure out how to turn it on, pull out of the parking place and drive somewhere within thirty minutes, I conclude that the car is no good."
Basic cut-and-splice video editing is a very simple process. In a good user interface, the actions a user must take to perform any simple and common task should be both discoverable and simple. Any software in which such functionality is difficult or undiscoverable is badly written software, period. You really should not need to read a manual for such basic usage unless the UI is unintuitive, which makes it, by definition, bad software. That's not saying that you should be able to be a power user in thirty minutes. You might not figure out every esoteric feature in thirty minutes, but you should be able to at least get most of the basics.
To go back to your bicycle example, this is like not being able to figure out how to raise the kickstand in the first thirty minutes. If you find that this is the case, something is massively wrong, and unless the user is a complete and total idiot, it's probably the UI.
Re: (Score:2)
People can use instead of their stolen Adobe Premiere programs.
Especially now that a free alternative is available, there will be no excuse for pirating commercial software. I for one would rather not add legitimacy to the copyright interests' constant claims that piracy is the cause of all of their problems. Every time someone advocates or excuses piracy, they feel vindicated and they don't deserve that. For that reason, I have not and will not pirate Adobe Premiere or any similar commercial software and strongly recommend that no one else does this either.
I rea
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Psshh. Have you ever tried to edit AVCHD in Premiere? It's like dragging an anvil through frozen molasses.
We're all pirating Final Cut on our Hackintoshes. Duhhhhh...
Re: (Score:2)
>>Have you ever tried to edit AVCHD in Premiere?
Actually I do it almost daily and don't have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/adobe-creative-suite/476438-premiere-cs4-system-requirements-avchd-editing.html#post1512282 [dvinfo.net]
For AVCHD I put minimum requirements at:
i7-930 CPU, 6 GB memory, 3 SATA 7200 disks and a decent video card.
For CS5 / MPE the minimum video card is GTX-285.
More memory is better.
I edit AVCHD on a C2D 2.53 with 4GB of memory, 5400 RPM HDD, and a non-discrete video card.
Re: (Score:2)
Be warned (Score:3, Funny)
You can edit RED with the open source version, but you have to pay if you want to edit blue or green.
open source pixi dust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they going to continue to provide developers and push some form of direction?
From what I've seen the only successful OS projects are grown from scratch or 50%+ maintained by a single company.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing good will probably come of this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing good will probably come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.
OR... the company realizes that the benefits of crowd sourcing the application far outweigh the potential monetary gains of keeping it closed source. If the company releases it via BSD license and then develops and sells closed source plugins for the architecture, the massive adoption of the core software will springboard their new plugin products. As the developers of the software, they are best positioned to be the leader in plugin development for this project.
So, the cynical view that the application is dead completely ignores the possibility that it may simply be more profitable for them to open source it.
Re: (Score:2)
ditShare has effectively acknowledged that the tool provides them little commercial value, and that in turn implies that the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.
or most of their money comes from services rather than licenses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if they've decided to go the open source route, EditShare has effectively acknowledged that the tool provides them little commercial value, and that in turn implies that the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.
I'm sure people on Slashdot can remember many technologies, operating systems or applications which, while great, didn't really have the chance to take off; or died untimely death due to factors external from the product itself.
Even if this tool can be considered "dead" commercially (as far as selling it goes), it can still have bright times ahead once freed.
Much-needed pro-level competition for Avid (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently we work on Avid Media Composer, since it remains the only true pro-level editing software. Final Cut has it's pros but, at least to me, it's more for video editing (by which I mean not sourcing or finishing to film) and smaller projects (promos, commercials, shorts). If you want to cut a feature film - you use Avid. I have arguments with co-workers about FCP versus Avid but we usually arrive at the agreement that Avid is simply the standard to which all other systems are currently judged.
With the open sourcing of Lightworks I can only hope that the best of modern systems like Avid and FCP can be integrated with the very intuitive Lightworks way of working. At the very least, I hope it scares Avid and Apple at least enough to make them fix some of the problems that currently exist with their systems. More competition is always better for the end user.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
List of features [editshare.com] certainly looks nice (it would be even better to see some presentation; I haven't found much, too niche it seems...plus now search results are swamped with this news). For somebody who is generally fine with Sony Vegas + some nice color grading plugin, this almost looks too good to be true...
What platform does this run on? (Score:2)
I read the press release and even visited the website. I can't find ANYTHING that reveals the system requirements for this software. Is it a Mac application? Windows? Linux? If it won't run on my OS of choice, why should I care about it?
This appears to be an application that was never available in retail channels in the first place and has no market share or brand equity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, wrong Lightworks. Apparently, there's Lightworks the NLE software (now being open sourced), and Lightworks the rendering software (which you linked to).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to phoronix [phoronix.com], it's available for Linux. Not sure about other platforms. Somebody on the phoronix forums remembers using it on Windows.
geek-bait? (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation:
It sounds like the "open source" hype, in combination with a free-as-in-beer download, will win massive marketshare, followed by the release of a "premium" version to capitalize on that.
Note that this works whether it's released as (netscape-style) open-source, or whether that promise fades away -- as long as everybody got their free copy, and knows that open-source is
Two things I noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess that there is a Windows version and since it seems to integrate with Final Cut Pro, a Mac version seems likely as well, but there is no way to be sure and strangely, I could not find anything.
Also, it seems that Lightworks was only recently (August 2009) acquired by EditShare. Making it OpenSource now could mean that EditShare maybe was not able or willing to continue developing, selling and supporting the program and now tries to salvage something by open-sourcing it, hoping the community will pick up the slack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, it seems that Lightworks was only recently (August 2009) acquired by EditShare. Making it OpenSource now could mean that EditShare maybe was not able or willing to continue developing, selling and supporting the program and now tries to salvage something by open-sourcing it, hoping the community will pick up the slack.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though, look at blender :) That's taken off like fireweed!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's high-end video editing software. The system requirements are always 'more'. If you have to ask whether your computer can run it the answer is no. Considering that the summery talks about HD and Red video I wouldn't consider anything less than quad core with 4Gb RAM. If you are serious you would be looking more like 16Gb RAM, two or three 23"+ widescreens and a couple Tb of RAID drives for storage.
If any of this is surprising then you are not working at the level where software like this is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
If any of that is surprising then you aren't even CONSUMING this sort of material.
Nevermind creating it.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno - there is a real niche for some half-decent FOSS video editing software that works on lower-end hardware. I know a high-schooler who wants to get into video editing but he has a very old PC. It runs ancient versions of Pinnacle moderately well, but anything new just won't work. The problem is that the old software lacks a lot of features - and I'm talking about stuff like better support for DVDs, and codecs - nothing that should require more CPU/RAM.
He just got a camera that records to mpeg-2 an
Where's the meat? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're keeping what they reveal now to be as vague as possible so they will be able to change it later on.
Right now, they just want to judge how much of a reaction they get from this. The game they're playing is that the community will give them more than their competition can take, in terms of marketshare (expect a 'premium' or 'professional' version) and in software advances contributed.
So if a lot of developers sign up, I would expect they'll be more permissive in their licensing. If not many are intere
More info (Score:2)
Looks like you'll have to register to get more info :
http://www.editshare.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=208 [editshare.com]
NOT open source. They're just open sourcing the UI (Score:2, Interesting)
It's entirely clear from the press release that they have no intention whatsoever of op
Video editing with AviSynth (Score:2)
There was at one time a project to make a version that ran cross-platform, but it ran out of steam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Clearly not oh trollish one.
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.
Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly not oh trollish one. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.
I don't know how I will modded but GPL is "NOT" for end users. It does not affect end users one bit. End users do not compile or care to compile code.
If you are contributing to the codebase then you are no longer wearing the "end user" hat but a "contributing developer" hat.
BSD and MIT license grant more rights to third party developers. Full stop. GPL places some restrictions on release of binaries from code modifications which require publishing of code changes if a binary is released to the general public. Full Stop. Let's stop trying redefine terms like "freedom" and just spell out the differences.
GPL takes the approach of enforcement of rules if you want to play while BSD relies on good will and a desire to co-operate. One requires coercion and the other is completely voluntary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly not oh trollish one. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.
I don't know how I will modded but GPL is "NOT" for end users. It does not affect end users one bit. End users do not compile or care to compile code.
Unfortunately, there is no (-1, Wrong) moderation. The GPL is for protection of users. It gives the users the right to receive, modify, and redistribute the code. You can see it is for protection of users because it gives these rights only to the users, i.e. the recipients of the binary code. As a programmer who is not the user, you are not entitled to receive the code from the distributor, because they did not distribute the binary to you.
If you are contributing to the codebase then you are no longer wearing the "end user" hat but a "contributing developer" hat.
This is provably false. You are, rather, wearing two hats at once.
BSD and MIT license grant more rights to third party developers. Full stop.
Ar
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used.
Not true. Software also exists as an asset to be profited from. For example, if you owned IP right to Photoshop, is would be useful to you as an income generator, even if you never actually used Photoshop in your entire life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you wanna sum up, then you should sum up the times the license is used. And in the long run GPL might come ahead as it will always keep scoring 3 points whereas BSD will score 0 points once it gets closed by some vendor.
Or instead of thinking what the license gives to the developer, maybe we should give more value on what it gives to the user. With GPL the user will always get the same rights as the developer had, with BSD they can be taken away.
Also BSD does have nasty limitations, it forces me to retai
Re: (Score:2)
This is what date stamps and the way back machine are for.
Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why do you label him a "troll"? What he says is absolutely true; the MIT and BSD licenses are basically the most-free licenses around.
And pointless.
They could have merely put the source in the public domain if they wanted things to be a free-for-all.
The main benefit of a non Mad Max approach to Free Software is that it gives more developers a better incentive to contribute as they can be sure that their contributions won't be gobbled up by some company and then used against them. People like to forget that this is why the GPL came about in the first place. RMS didn't just decided to go on an ideological tear. His own contributors gave him grief when they found out that their work had been commercialized without their knowledge.
The GPL is a result of a failure of more open licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
"...they can be sure that their contributions won't be gobbled up by some company and then used against them."
How so? Used against them in what way?
"His own contributors gave him grief when they found out that their work had been commercialized without their knowledge."
I won't be looking to you for any history lessons. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
> Why do you label him a "troll"? What he says is absolutely true; the MIT and BSD licenses are basically the most-free licenses around.
And pointless.
They aren't entirely pointless. They force new developers to give credit to those that came before. I figure this is what a university is most interested in (i.e. their reputation).
Re:I hope it's under the BSD or MIT licenses. (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, the freedom you get with the MIT and BSD licenses exceeds that which you'd get from the GPL.
It's not a different amount of freedom, it's a different quality, with different goals. BSD is "I want everyone to use this". GPL is "I want everyone to get the updates". We can argue about which one is better all day, but unless you understand both philosophies, it's pointless.
BSD takes into account the fact that all software can be better by using known good code. GPL takes into account the fact that writing good software is not about the code but the process that leads to the code.
your equations are wrong (Score:2)
BSD license:
freedom to see, modify, and redistribute the source code of an application that I use = 0
GPL license:
freedom to see, modify, and redistribute the source code of an application that I use = 3
Clearly, the freedom I get with the GPL is bigger than the freedom I get with the BSD license.
Your so-called freedoms are the "freedom" of people who didn't contribute to the software to restrict other people from modifying and redistributing the software. Sometimes software developers grant these additiona
Re:Orwellian Style GNU Doublespeak (Score:4, Insightful)
> What a bunch of retards.
>
> Do you GNU idiots actually think anyone is falling for your lame attempts at word games to cover up your shitty viral license?
I was thinking the exact same thing about you lot that have a notion of "freedom" that neglects human nature.
Good troll! (Score:3, Funny)
I'll push it a little further by saying. What really makes Richard Stallman the true genius behind Linux is not his code or gcc, but the little bit of virus he put in every GPL.
How's that sound?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the BSD license promotes the freedom of companies to close up code you wrote and it sell back to you. They can then use it in a computer that you are not even allowed to run your own apps on or develop for if you do not use their blessed environment.
That's some great freedom if you are a billionaire, for the rest of us not so much.
Re:Good troll! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, but in practice, most of the time, either A. the company keeps it open source anyway (e.g. Apple with most of the lower half of Mac OS X), B. the company builds a closed source version but regularly pushes fixes upstream, or C. the software is in a device where changing out parts of the software is well beyond the skills of a typical user (e.g. your microwave oven). Most of the exceptions to that statement never gained any real traction in the marketplace.
Sure, you can point out a few prominent exceptions, e.g. Microsoft using BSD's TCP/IP stack in Windows, but do you honestly expect anybody to believe that anyone would have been served by the original stack being under the GPL? Microsoft would never have made their kernel open source anyway, so they either would have rewritten it or worse, developed a competing network standard. Either of those would have resulted in further fragmentation of the market, more bugs that users have to suffer through, and in general a worse perception of computing by the public as a whole. The only way you could reasonably argue that anyone would have benefitted from this is if you honestly believe that Windows (already the dominant platform by this time) would have lost its dominance due to Linux having a better TCP/IP stack sooner. That's a pretty big stretch of the imagination, to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
A. So they get free stuff you get nothing new
B. how nice of them, too bad they can stop at anytime
C. Perhaps I want to mod my microwave
I think MS will take whatever they can get for free and never give anything back. They would have eventually written their own stack, nothing would have changed except they would not have gotten a free ride.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right about MS. And they would be a few million dollars poorer, which sounds like a lot until you realize that it's on the order of 0.001% of their market cap.... In short, nothing would be substantially different in the grand scheme of things. It's neither a gain nor a loss. However when you factor in all the other companies that used the same stack and *did* push changes back, it's pretty clear that the BSD license was a net win.
Corporations for the most part don't care about open sour
Re: (Score:2)
Putting aside your whining about being unable to monetize your changes to someone else's code, I think you can expect a relatively permissive license. In TFA, EditShare mentions they intend to let developers sell plug-ins and such. While some device drivers demonstrate you can make binary blobs interact with GPL code, I imagine it would make things much simpler if they stuck with a BSD or MIT license.
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD and MIT licenses don't maximize the freedoms of the people who actually count: the original software developers and the end users. In particular, as an end user, I don't have the freedom to inspect, modify, and redistribute the code for the software I use. In return, you grant some other people the freedom to make money of software they didn't develop.
Your argument is like saying that striking laws against murder and theft from the books grants people more freedom. But that impinges my freedom to
Re:Companies Have Caught On To The Viral GPL Garba (Score:3, Insightful)
Chrome is also a bad example. It's based on WebKit, and portions of WebKit are under the LGPL. I doubt they've stripped out and rewritten all of WebCore.
Re: (Score:2)
LLVM: nice idea, but no one is using it.
Or, nice idea, implemented in a terrible language. Could have been much nicer if it had been designed along the lines of COLA/OMeta. And - that's a wild guess, though - much, much shorter.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand you have LLVM taking over the compiler tech world like no other project in the history of the field.
Making shit up or you got a citation for that?
Even the projects built with llvm page shows nothing all that interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand you have LLVM taking over the compiler tech world like no other project in the history of the field.
Uhhm, sorry? I see no such thing. The field of programming language compilers is diverse and LLVM most certainly does not fit all scenarios, and perhaps not even all languages. (One of my friends tried to implement some sort of Scheme-like system language, he had rather strict requirements and he found the LLVM IR model deficient - tail calls, continuation, type system...I can't remember now what exactly was the problem, it was a few years ago - but perhaps they have extended it by now.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of my friends tried to implement some sort of Scheme-like system language, he had rather strict requirements and he found the LLVM IR model deficient - tail calls, continuation, type system...I can't remember now what exactly was the problem, it was a few years ago - but perhaps they have extended it by now.
"Type system" complaint doesn't make much sense, to be honest. LLVM is really just "portable assembly". Type system? It offers the basic primitive types, aggregates thereof (arrays, structs), and pointers to them. That is sufficient to build a data structure of any complexity. Any actual type system of your language would be entirely separate, and may not even trivially map to any of LLVM types - the latter are implementation details.
With respect to tail calls, LLVM has them - unlike C, and that one is actu
Re: (Score:2)
OSX is a bad example because you need to use highly proprietary software to get anything out of it.
It's not like anyone uses OSX for the BSD.
BSD just enabled Apple to get the underside of the OS for free.
Bring the iphone/ipad into the picture and it only gets worse.
Re: (Score:2)
And we all know what runaway success that GIMP is.
It works for me...
Anyway, Blender would be a better analogy - a closed-source tool that later went open-source. I bet if you tried real hard you could even find fault with Blender, somewhere...
Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (Score:5, Interesting)
Finding fault with Blender is* easy, and for much the same reason people find fault with GIMP -- the UI is something you either love, or absolutely despise, with very little in between.
*Referring to Blender circa 2003, so this may need to be changed to "was". The UI was bad enough at the time to make me not look back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know, although at the time Maya was much more usable *for me*. The fact they had a free (beer) version (watermarked images) was good enough since I was just doing some concept art. Now that Autodesk got their hands on it, I have no doubt they've ruined both the UI and the free version as well.
Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (Score:4, Informative)
The Durian team (CC movie by the Blender Institute) is a mix of the best Blender Artists working with the best Blender programmers - makes for startling progress and practical workflow.
Go have a look at a current Blender build from Graphicall.org - I think you'll be surprised. Let me know! =)
Re: (Score:2)
the UI is something you either love, or absolutely despise, with very little in between.
Yeah, but that's hardly the exclusive domain of open source software; plenty of commercial apps over the years have had poor interfaces, and/or workflow, and/or functionality.
There's nothing wrong with simply learning a clunky UI, warts and all. The warts are a lot less obtrusive once you get used to them. I'm not saying there is an excuse for crappy design, I'm saying that familiarity can often make up for it.
Re:No doubt, will equal GIMP (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet that doesn't excuse the fact that it is (or was, anyway -- as I said, it's been years since I've looked at Blender) valid criticism of it, either.
And yes, there IS something wrong with learning a clunky UI, IF there's a better solution available. In my case there was, and I would have been stupid to use the worse solution simply because it was open source. Then again, I try to use the best tool for the job, instead of being blinded by any ideology; if that best tool is open source, great. If not, that's fine with me too.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, for precision/engineering work, it is lacking some power compared to a dedicated product like SolidWorks... different target audiences though, I'm probably in a rare intersection.
Re: (Score:2)
I like blender and i use it a lot. But a good fee CAD tool, i cannot find.
Re: (Score:2)
God, I hope it goes the way of Gimp and Blender.
They're free, they work, and they're *good enough* for me. I.e., if I want/need something more, I'll fork out the money and buy it. I did this with *gasp* Adobe Premiere because the freely available tools were either buggy or lacked the features I needed.
Re: (Score:2)
However standardizing UI's is not a bad thing either. I just don't like the idea of standardizing and the expense of never improving things, or trying new ideas and work flows. A fully customizable UI is a good idea in that respect.
F
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if people will now grumble more about UI of Blender or about this Lightworks thing (seems to be fairly advanced, with operation built around hardware peripheral, so it's bound to be "weird" and "hard"...)
Still, can't wait (and you'd think /. would mostly agree)...one step closer to having everything I need under open OS.
Re:Analogy Pendant (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your beer is expiring try making a different beer. Many beers fair well with years of storage and no pasteurization.
Re:Analogy Pendant (Score:4, Interesting)
buying them can run you over $150 per batch.
Depends on your ingredients and batch size. I just picked up a 50lb sack of 2-row malt for $40US, and have another on backorder. Also picked up a couple vials of White Labs yeast at half off (no, they aren't expired). I just bought 3lbs of hops (1 x Galena, 1 x Willamette, 1 x Cascade) for $40US including shipping. Propane tank fillup was $15. I'll be brewing 10 gallon batches (sorry, 38 liters for you non-imperial types, or a little over 4 cases for those bad at unit conversion and division) at a cost of ~$40 for ingredients & consumables, or about $0.50 per pint. Compare that to $4/pint at the local pub.
Unless you already own the equipment
Right. I gave up trying to cost-justify that stuff a long time ago. No one ever really owns enough equipment anyway. There's always something else you need. It's part of the fun, actually.
Then you have to count the time-consuming process of sanitizing the equipment
Ugh. The primary reason I don't brew more often.
actually brewing beer
That's the fun part! Well, one of the fun parts, anyway.
bottling it
Corny kegs, baby. Best brewing investment ever.
then drinking it before it expires
Sufficient alcohol content/hopping levels should keep infections away, if you've sanitized properly. Of course, if you're worried about consuming it before it passes peak flavor, invite friends over for a party. I promise you, they will show. However, I tend to find the old maxim true: The homebrew is ready when it's gone.
However, if you do decide to do it, it is a very rewarding experience.
Cheers to that. I take it you brew?
* Apologia pro vita sua: People homebrew for the same reasons that people use or develop FOSS. Some people are just out to save a buck. Others feel that the mass-produced and mass-marketed products are often lacking in quality, or perhaps they feel that the niche products are often pricey and have an artificially snobby following. Some do it because they realize they can produce something equal or superior (for their tastes and purposes, at least) to commercially available alternatives. Some do it just because they love doing it, they love the process of creation. Brewers usually share their creations freely with others and simply ask for a smile and tiny bit of gratitude in return. Many are content to buy basic equipment and a set of ingredients and combine them as instructed, like someone might download and use Ubuntu without ever peeking under the hood. Or, a brewer might create and refine their own recipes then share them with the world, like a developer might write applications or drivers to suit themselves before releasing it to others who might use it or improve it.
They often take pride in personally building or tweaking their hardware, whether it is a 2 x quad core server with 32 GB RAM repurposed into a badass desktop (the fans make it sound like a Cessna taking off, but who the hell cares), or a custom-welded brewstand with 3 x 170,000btu propane burners (sounds like a jet taking off - freakin' glorious).
Commercial brewers jealously guard their recipes and processes. Homebrewers love to share insights and techniques. As a matter of fact, once you get one talking you can barely shut them up (case and point). Homebrewers believe that knowledge is power, and should be shared freely. In fact, they not only personify the free as in beer / free as in speech metaphor, they improve on it, since they are generally happy to freely provide the recipe for the beer just poured you, making a hybrid case of free as in speech and beer.
Re: (Score:2)
I have some wine making supplies can I brew small batches of beer in that?
What would be a good start?
I would prefer to start with extract as I lack the equipment for all grain brewing.
Re:Analogy Pendant (Score:4, Informative)
You will also need:
You can get prepackaged ingredient kits or order a la carte. For $30 - $45US [monsterbrew.com], you should be able to get a kit that contains the following, which should be all you need to brew 5 gallons of beer:
There are homebrew books that are helpful in figuring out what to do and how to do it. In my experience, This [amazon.com] is one of the best out there, and I highly recommend it for brewers of all levels. Fortunately, there is a huge amount of excellent info freely available on the internet. (Google, as always, is your friend)
The outdated look of hbd.org [hbd.org] is misleading - you'd never know that it holds an excellent beer recipe development tool (click on "Spreadsheet") [hbd.org] and recipe database.
Forums worth checking out:
http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/ [thebrewingnetwork.com]
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/ [homebrewtalk.com]
Good luck to you, and enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, get over yourself. Yeah, C and C++ are not ideal in every way; but no language is. They are still quite useful. There is a lot of good software out there written in them (such as Firefox itself).
If you really want to contribute, and help fix said security issues, it would behoove you to learn them. Otherwise, I'd recommend finding a project written in the language of your choice, and contributing to that. It doesn't make that much sense to complain about a project not being in your favorite language a
Re:Depends... (Score:5, Funny)
I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design [...] and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.
No problem. All Lightwave development is done in LOGO. Just tell the turtle what you want it to do.
Re:Depends... (Score:4, Funny)
Your comment is beyond awesome. That comment makes the FSM smile upon you and will get you closer to an eternity spent in the shadow of the beer volcano and within walking distance of the stripper factory.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
Hilarious! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI. I consider Haskell my favorite language. So coming up to an elitist like me, by using elitism... not such a great idea... ;))
Re: (Score:2)
But I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design to be the cause of pretty much every security exploit out there, and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.
I bet you were told you were special when you were a kid right?
Re:Sure beats what I've been using (Score:4, Funny)
I use ffmpeg "-ss" and "-t" options to splice videos, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)