Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

Linux at Industrial Light and Magic 285

Nicholas DePetrillo writes "Linux Journal has a big story about how LINUX is being used in hollywood, specificly at Industrial Light and Magic with some GREAT screenshots and a very descriptive article with configuration details." Word has it that their rendering farms have gotten even bigger since this article was published.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux at Industrial Light and Magic

Comments Filter:
  • by dirvish ( 574948 ) <> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:09AM (#3683959) Homepage Journal
    Could there be some kind of anology between the light side vs the dark side and Linux vs Microsoft.

    Would that make Bill Vader? Which distro is Obi Wan Kanobi?
  • Graphics are great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:10AM (#3683965) Homepage Journal
    Action is great!

    Music isn't bad!

    Acting is pathetic.

    No amount of eye candy will ever make the prequels worth watching as standalone movies.
  • by bilbobuggins ( 535860 ) <> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:14AM (#3683983)
    'Linux Journal' no less.
    we must never speak of this again
  • 2 comments and it's down already. I don't know which is worse: the old days where no one read the freaking articles, or how now the only people who get to read them are the First Post guys.
    • I think the problem is PHP and its ilk. In the old days, everyone hand-crafted each page, and they were all static.

      Nowadays, everybody's got to be running a fancy-pants database-driven site, and consequently their server chokes under even a moderate load.

      Back to the days of copy-and-paste templating, I say!
      • I'll give you that static pages are always faster then php, but you can't blame ljs problems on it, you can blame it on ljs lack of planning, I mean, they had to know we'd slashdot this.


  • by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:15AM (#3683990) Homepage
    They'll have to stop using Linux right after they outlaw it.

    I'm assuming that would be the case, anyway.
    • I am sick and tired of "Hollywood is a hypocrite for using Linux!" comments. The only remotly relevant comparison would be if Sony Pictures Imageworks started using a whole lot of Linux, which very well may happen, but until the article is on that, no more of this please. I know you are being sarcastic, but I know others really think this. Come to think of it, Sony is using Linux for the PS2 huh? This is AOL/TimeWarner suing themsevles over Gnutella all over again, but NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE!
    • Remember, it's your responsibility and your Second Ammendment right to defend Linux by owning a firearm, and also by joining the organization that I am proud to be the president of: the NRA.
  • by Burgundy Advocate ( 313960 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:16AM (#3683992) Homepage
    Remember everybody, if you like the article then please buy the magazine! The articles, while provided free of charge, do not magically appear.

    If you want more great articles like this, support Linux Journal. I know the idea of paying for something might go against some people's sensibilities (information wants to be FREEEEEEE!!! and such), but remember that in real life people need to eat. Please don't let the fine people at Linux Journal starve. Buy a magazine.

    Please. Do it for the authors.
    • Bwahahahaha hahaha hehe
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Man, if the Linux world has to get down on its knees and beg for money like this, it is doomed. That's one of the most degrading posts I've ever seen. Sheesh, man, stop crying and pull yourself together.

      Is it too much to ask that Linux Journal provide value in exchange for money? I don't see PC Magazine going broke. I don't see Dr. Dobbs going broke. I don't see a lot of magazines going broke.

      • Amen.

        I don't give a crap if any company goes under. They're companies, and if they don't sell me something that I think is worth it, screw them. I don't care what market it is, I'm not going to be providing corporate welfare. It's not like if some Linux company fails, then /Linux/ fails. Companies fail, Linux companies being no different. Except Linux companies have tended to be .com companies, and .com companies tend to have stupid unworkable business plans. Like, say, trying to annoy your customer into paying you to stop annoying them.

        Though this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Linux Journal, since I don't think that guy represents them in any way.
    • Remember everybody, if you like the article then please buy the magazine! The articles, while provided free of charge, do not magically appear. If you want more great articles like this, support Linux Journal. I know the idea of paying for something might go against some people's sensibilities (information wants to be FREEEEEEE!!! and such), but remember that in real life people need to eat. Please don't let the fine people at Linux Journal starve. Buy a magazine.

      Sorry, I'm peeved with them. I had subscribed for two years, but had to cancel mid-stream due to some financial constraints (yeah, it got tight). I never got a refund. I called up, and was told that I hadn't paid yet. I said I did, and referred back to my credit card statement, and the lady sneeringly told me, "no you haven't!" Boy, was I surprised at that! So I said to myself, "I am never dealing with LJ again." I took the thirty dollar loss, figuring it was worth avoiding dealing with LJ.

      Not that I'm suggesting anyone _not_ buy it. I'm just saying, _I_ ain't buying.

      • Having worked for magazines before, you have to realize that they don't handle their own subscriptions. These are done by "fulfulment houses". Of course you are responsible for picking a good one, I supposed, but if you don't have a lot of money and choose a cheap one, well, you get what you pay for. It's a case of simple economics. They'd have to charge more per issue or susbscription or more for advertisements; otherwise, they'd have to sell a lot more subscriptions to be able to afford better service.
    • But I do!

      I buy Linux Journal and Linux Magazine every month. Journal can be a bit dry sometimes, but it is worth a read.

      I do recommend them to newcommers. They often have some very good articles that are just perfect for those getting into the game.

      I've read some complaints where the focus is too great on code snippets and programming... but you will never hear me saying such ardasities!

      Buy em, enjoy em and lend em to your friends!
    • I did buy the magazine, however, it never appeared in my mailbox and I really won't bother subscribing again...
  • And soon... (Score:4, Funny)

    by SteelX ( 32194 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:16AM (#3683993)
    ...we'll have to start calling the company GNU/Industrial Light and Magic. :-)
  • Great News (Score:1, Insightful)

    by saden1 ( 581102 )
    Have a question for everyone: What would happen to the gaming world at large if Sony was to start developing games for Linux? Would developers support Sony? Would Linux gaming become a very viable option? How would it impact windows gaming?
    • Re:Great News (Score:4, Insightful)

      by handsomepete ( 561396 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:33AM (#3684062) Journal
      What would happen to the gaming world at large if Sony was to start developing games for Linux?

      If I had to guess, nothing major would happen except there'd be a few more games for Linux and there'd be a lot of articles about it on Linux Games [].

      Would developers support Sony?

      Probably, but it depends on what you mean by developers. Hardware (read as video and sound card) developers may try and throw Linux gamers a bone in the driver arena (but it'll be a small, closed source one). Since nvidia already does this and most (if not all) Linux gamers opt for their cards because of it, impact would be minimal. Software developers could care less about what Sony does in the software market. It would probably go down as follows:
      1.) Sony develops games for Linux.
      2.) Other developers develop games for Linux thinking that Sony had some special information.
      3.) Sales aren't immediately stellar, other developers back out and snicker behind Sony's back thinking that they're superior.

      Would Linux gaming become a very viable option?

      IMHO, and don't take this as a flame because I'm a supporter and user of Linux, but I don't think it'll be really great until a brand new/standarized API (a la direct X - so shoot me) is developed (or a current one is seriously overhauled). There's something to be said in an all-in-one multimedia package that doesn't depend on a bunch of other things. Or until there's a working alternative to X which will never happen. *shrug* I'm probably wrong, but that's just my 2 cents.
      • Here is what I'm thinking.

        1. Sony Releases its PlayStation Development Kit to the public (with some restrictions of course...don't want MS getting its hands on it).
        2. Sony starts shipping PCs that have Linux pre-installed.
        3. Sony encourages game developers to develop games for both Linux and PC at the same time with little to no extra development time (ala Windows and XBox style).
        4. Sony encourages other hardware manufactures with incentives to ship Linux drivers and desktop systems.
        5. Sony makes money as a publisher.

        Can this be done and besides money what are the obstacles to this idea?
        • Can this be done and besides money what are the obstacles to this idea?

          This is getting super off-topic, but what the hell. The most obvious obstacle (to me) is that there's no reason for Sony to do this. Why would they? Financially there isn't a good reason for them to push ahead with this kind of steam. It's not as if they have as much of a reason to try and cripple Microsoft's iron grip on the desktop market as other companies do, so inane corporate vengeance is probably out of the picture. Destroying competition? Well, Sony doesn't have a Linux distro and the X-Box is killing itself for the most part.

          While this is a nice thought, I doubt it'll happen. The more likely path is a company like Bioware really stepping it up and announcing complete support for Linux on all future releases. That would make a dent and an impression on the industry, but I also find it slightly less likely than me getting laid tonight.
    • by mnordstr ( 472213 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @03:30AM (#3684501) Homepage Journal
      "What would happen to the gaming world at large if Sony was to start developing games for Linux?"

      I would remove my Windows partition.
  • Here is older German [] link with additional information.

    "Microsofts recruiting rate gene could do to a wrong, because they purge in view of shrinking customer connection so obviously into panic. There as prestigious customers change as Pixar ("Toy Story") and Industrial Light & Magic ("Jurassic park ", "Shrek") its systems over course around course from Windows or SGI to Linux , and the Unterschleissheimer Dependance of the gate company breaks in nothing different one to take in than the middle class. Really pfiffig."
  • Not the official ILM site [] but has good insight and has been following the ILM ports.
  • by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) <doug&opengeek,org> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:41AM (#3684098) Homepage Journal
    Not very nice comments in there about SGI. They are true enough though. The O2 is a *great* multimedia desktop machine. Lots of features, small package. Just like the Indy before it.

    Compute performance is a real problem though for all but the high end SGI machines. The O2 went EOL this year for all but OEM (Medical and Video apps).

    What I find interesting is that the studios are building their own tech to suit their needs. They started this process on SGI machines in order to leverage the rich toolset found in IRIX. Now they are able to build on the open tools found under Linux.

    Alias Wavefront (owned by SGI) used to package and sell critical technology to the Studios along with a number of services delivered under NDA. They still do this, but their days are numbered.

    Open Source is enabling a new trend toward in-house technology development. Given the high cost of A|W and SGI toolsets plus the added services and consulting required to make them work in creative ways, I am not surprised to find the studios able to just build what they want cheaper. They also are able to create the features that make their workflow better.

    Seems like the studios want nothing to do with any sort of lock in with any vendor. Talk about lowering TCO!

    Not only does their in-house development allow them to make the most of their time and creative energy, but they get to take advantage of new platforms in the future --without having to re-purchase tools.

    They are smart enough to develop common tools that they (and us) can all use while keeping those things that make them special in-house. Too bad more of the mainstream businesses are not able to see this yet. When they do --look out!

    So SGI moves back into their niche with IRIX, high end visualization, and parallel computing and serving. What of Alias Wavefront?

    They look doomed to me. Maya now is cheap and runs on Linux. Its users develop their own tools with it so A|W maybe gets consulting, but little else. On the Industrial Design side, their Studio Tools package really only appeals to the high end Automotive styling group. Everyone else can use either MCAD tools, or tools like Rhino to get their work done.

    This was a great article that does a lot to illuminate just how computing can change under an open platform.
    • "Everyone else can use either MCAD tools, or tools like Rhino to get their work done." Uhm, not really. You ALWAYS use the right tool for the job. If you do (high end) visualisation, you won't use MCAD tools, 'cos MCAD is for production only. That's what they'r focussed on, what they do well and that shows in the toolset they incorporate into the package. And Rhino? Mwahahahaha! Come on. Rhino is a neat little package for home use. But it only does Nurbs, and the toolset isn't very complete, so don't expect a company which makes it's money doing CG to use it.
      • Well, for one, I never said that anyone doing CG will be doing it with Rhino. (You are correct about its ability to be used for CG though.)

        I am seeing a lot of smaller design firms shy away from A|W though and they *are* using Rhino and MCAD. For class 'A' surfaces, Studio is a very nice tool. In recent times though, MCAD toolsets include most of what one needs to get there. For the high-end automotive like markets, MCAD does not yet cut it. For most everyone else, MCAD can and does do the job now.

        A|W is playing another game that is hard to play. They charge *lots* for a select few features needed by the high-end. This makes their product unattractive to the low end because without those select few features, the lesser products or a smart combination of them can do the job.

        Why not lower the price? In my mind they should, but they have waited too long. Lower the price and they lose the revenue from the big boys while only gaining some back from the low-end.

        Someone is going to do this and take a *lot* of market and mind-share from A|W, or they will continue to wither away quietly.

        Remember, I am a little off topic because I am talking about ID, not CG in this particular case.
    • SGI's big problem has always been twofold:

      1) Most of their gear is really, really expensive.
      2) The advantages of their stuff is hard to explain to cost-sensative pointy-hairs.

      They do have other issues, of course, one of which is a serious lack of follow-through. Still, they've done some pretty neat stuff, and it sucks to see them plow into the ground 'cause they can't seem to adapt to a new bid'ness model. That empty building on 101 and Shoreline seems to me like a constant reminder of the recession and tech bust.
      • SGI's follow-through in recent years has been pretty good. The NT and IA-32 Linux experiments didn't go too well, but they've been supporting IRIX on MIPS better than I could have ever asked.

        The funky SGI building on the corner of Shoreline and 101 is *old*. Drive down the street a ways towards their funky newer buildings... built just a couple years ago.
    • I wouldn't fear for A|W too much.
      Everybody in the industry uses it. We would not be able to function with out it. Being in a medium sized studio, we need to have some solutions come pre-packaged and others to be built in-house.

      I do worry for SGI though. They are loosing (or maybe lost) the high end desk top war. People are picking up dual Xeons and even after PC manufacturer's suport contracts, it is cheaper than a stand alone SGI that runs at half the speed.

      We have been migrating to linux for the last two years, first as a render solution and then as a desktop solution. When we get a linux compositing tool in house, we will be completely free of SGI systems for production work.

    • I don't know much about making CG, but I do know about making movies, and I can tell you the studios really don't care about TCO. Do you think Lucas cares whether it cost $80 million to make EPIII on Linux or $85 Million to make it on SGI? He doesn't.

      They are gravitating towards open source, because it allows them to do what they want to do, faster and in house not because it is cheaper. The only people in Hollywood who care how much a movie costs are the ones making them on their own dime who had to get a second mortgage on their house to do it. Folks like Lucas care about making the movie exactly the way they want it, and they LOVE when they have to create the tools to do it. How many times have you seen director on press junkets saying something like, "No one had ever done this before so we had to invent the technology ourselves . You really have to see it." You'll never hear, "We used off the shelf hardware and stock footage to make this scene, and saved a few dollars."

      This is not a good example of Linux and open source lowering TCO. This is an example of people who have unlimited money, need extreme flexibility, and insist on controlling all of the smallest details finding a tool that meets their needs.

      If Hollywood really wanted to save money they'd stop supplying craft services to the extras.

      • You'll never hear, "We used off the shelf hardware and stock footage to make this scene, and saved a few dollars."

        I saw a neat demo at a Maya seminar last week. They're looking to take panoramas to the next level--not only can you rotate the camera, but you can translate it. Combine this with some effects (e.g., moving water) and low-end compositing, and you can put together a passable demo reel with little or no video footage.

        As for production, we're seeing subtle effects in main-stream films. I was amazed by the behind-the-scenes footage of Cast Away, because I had no idea the extent to which CGI was used. This will eventually filter down even to the million dollar or less films. The difference between Linux and proprietary Unix will make a difference, there.

      • Ok so this particular studio does not care about TCO. You are probably right about that.

        What interests me though is the concept they are following. The technology investments they are making right now will last them a *long* time. (Building both common and in-house tools under Linux.)

        This shows the promise that OSS has for everyday business. Most of their basic computing needs can and will (if they let them) be addressed with OSS tools. They will have to invest some to make that happen, but once the investment is made, they are set for a very long time.

        That will affect TCO in a good way.
  • Gimme a break!

    Remember the short film "The 405" that was all over the net a year or two ago, about the airliner landing on an empty freeway? If two guys working nights and weekends for 3 months with a PC can make one of the busiest freeways in LA look empty, it doesn't make sense that a professional effects crew with a multimillion dollar budget can't simulate Sydney deserted. This has to be either a publicity thing or some unbelievable ego trip.
  • ILM OSes (Score:4, Informative)

    by Brendor ( 208073 ) < minus punct> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @12:51AM (#3684140) Journal
    ILM says they have rarely seen artists get excited by hardware, but artists fought to get the new Linux workstations--Dell single-CPU P4s with NVIDIA Quadra 2 Pro graphics cards. The question became, ``Where's my Linux box?''

    ILM is comfortable with multiple platforms. Its 1,400 employees use a variety of operating systems. The art department has Macs, with the rotoscopers and painters transitioning to OS X. Hendrickson sees OS X as a possible player. ``What attracts us is the BSD-like Darwin core and network compatibility.'' ILM has few Windows boxes, besides those on business side. ``There's no advantage to a Windows conversion for us'', says Hendrickson. ``We're a UNIX shop and probably always will be.''

    Nice to see ILM is keeping with the times. When Phantom Menace came out, SGI had promotional info up about SGI [origin?] servers and EP I. Fast forward three years and we have come upon another case of Linux and [relativel] commodity hardware changing the heart of a big Iron SGI all-star. ILM did have a JEDI Pact [] with SGI not too long ago, but as was inferred in the article, its really hard to compete with free (as in beer) in the shrinking-margin world of SFX.

    FWIW, On the Ep I DVD Making of Documentary, OS 9 was visible durinag a photoshopping session, Windows (or a GUI clone) for Motion capture and unix (presumably IRIX) for the rest.

    • It was interesting to see the ILM Director of Research and Development, Andy Hendrickson, say this: "As we get into Linux we're not finding one company to hand-hold. IBM and HP aren't there, yet. But, before Linux it was out of our control and out of control. [Now] we own our Linux problems."

      That's really not a great position to be in, is it Andy?
      I mean, they bought the workstations from fucking Dell but obviously Dell tech support is in no position to aid them on the technology of the OS. Or anything beyond installing a ethernet driver or scanner on Windows, if even that. So about this time I am wondering :Gee wouldn't it have made better sense to buy the Intel hardware or support from SGI (who was trying to get started with Lintel workstations) so you could at least be dealing with people who CAN help with technical issues a linux customer is experiencing?

      Pennywise so often is pound stupid.

      • From the rest of the article, I gathered they had some top notch unix gurus in-house. Why out source the support if they don't need it? They seem more than capable of solving their own problems.
        • Yeah, like having to change out all the fans on the pc's because they were defective? Amidst all the talk about how great Linux was doing for them, that was priceless. I have only a bit of experience on SGI machines, but I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't get a shipment of them with broken fans on every unit. Is the "tel" portion of "Lintel" really the part that isn't ready for the enterprise?

          Of course, with the money they are saving, changing a few fans and having a few hot spare workstations in a closet may be very well worth it.

    • Trivial but true: years ago (about 1989?) I was working on a Sequent multi-processor box, which ran Dynix/PTX, and came across an entry in the /etc/magic file... can't recall what the file type was supposed to be, but the comment field read: "for Lucasfilm". I thought that was so cool at the time... OS mods, just for George ;)

      I can only guess that they probably used such machines for their motion cameras; in any case, I'm sure SGI wasn't the only hardware platform sitting around ILM back then.

  • Cool stuff (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now this is cool!

    Plus, they've GOT Beowulf cluster of these!!!

  • This has to be simply one of the coolest pictures I've ever seen: /i ssue99/6011f4.png

    Linux, Yoda, Gnome... very nice.
  • I could be wrong but doesnt isnt Maya dependent on OpenGL and wouldnt those Quadra Pro cards in the linux machines be the real power behind the rendering increase and not the OS?
    • Basically yes, the PC's they are using are way better than their outdated SGI's. And they aren't even using top PC's. If I was doing VFX for ILM I would buy one big fucking computer, I don't know why they are only using quadro 2's, but it sure sounds cost efficient. This was probably just a long time ago when they were top of the Line however. The rendering increase is actually due to the CPU, the interactivity is due to the graphics card)
  • My favorite quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NTT ( 92764 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @01:33AM (#3684257) Journal
    ``Due to the speed of Linux, for the first time in my life, 15 years in the business, I'm starting to feel some RSI [repetitive strain injury]'', says Technical Director Robert Weaver. ``Usually you are working the machine, but Linux is so fast it can overwork you.'' Weaver has to remember to take breaks because with Linux he doesn't get any breaks waiting for the machine anymore
  • by einTier ( 33752 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @01:35AM (#3684264)
    Am I the only one who thinks it's rather odd that movie companies are pursuing a law that would effectively outlaw Linux -- while that's the operating system running most of their kick-ass render farms?
    • You know I just thought about that a little. The way the laws are intended to work are subtle indeed.

      For you and I, Linux would be outlawed. For the Studios, things would work just fine. They have the lawyers to back them up, and they can just use Linux inside their firewalls.

      Since they create the content, it is easy for them to say Linux is ok. Nobody is watching unauthorized copies.

      They just don't want Joe citizen to have a user programmable system that allows programs they don't like.

      Irony indeed.
    • Ignorance knows no bounds. 'Movie Companies?' The MPAA is pursuing laws that would make it difficult if not impossible for an operating system to be completely open source. The biggest thing to remember though, is that ILM is a visual effects and post production company, not a fucking giant movie studio, and not part of the MPAA or associated with it. They aren't even in Hollywood they are a 6 hour drive north. Get a clue and stop with this nonsense.
      • But ILM gets paid for making parts of movies and those get distributed by the big movie companies (like FOX) who pay money to the MPAA. They ARE in the movie business and money from there does go to the MPAA. They may not be a "movie company" but they get hired by movie companies to help make movies.
        • Do you watch movies by any chance? Or TV? If so, then shut up, because you're helping to fund these guys...
          • I do watch some TV, but I decided to stop going to the movies and to stop buying CDs/tapes. I don't steal them either (despite what people say about distributing mp3's as not being is). I do know that the industry has a point that people steal their stuff and they have to do something about it but I can't see how to stop piracy without destroying freedom. They would have to confiscate all current electronics or make them illegal to use to do what they want to do. I also think their real reason for doing all this is to stop competition machines that will make it cheap and easy to make good entertainment (given a creative story).
          • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @11:21AM (#3686371)
            Do you watch movies by any chance? Or TV? If so, then shut up, because you're helping to fund these guys...

            This fallacy has been rebutted numerous times.

            The long and short of it is: just because circumstances constrain you to operate within particular boundries, doesn't mean you are in any way wrong or hypocritical in criticizing those boundries, or anything unjust or wrong you find within those boundries. Many of the folk, black and white alike, who criticized apartheid in the United States and South Africa still paid taxes to those governments, watched the television and listened to the radio put out by those governments (or the private corporations profiting from those apartheid systems). Those who advocated communism or socialism still had jobs within those systems, and bought their food, clothing, and housing within those very same systems they so disapproved of. This did not in any way make their criticisms less valid, or make them hyporcrits for having the courage and moxy to stand up and criticize those systems. Quite the contrary.

            Indeed, had reformers throughout history been required to operate within the parameters your troll implies ('you cannot legitimately criticize anything that is a part of your lifestyle!') we would be living no differently from people a thousand years ago. In other words, no reform would have been possible, because no criticism would have been possible.

            I suspect that, were someone who doesn't watch television or movies to criticize the Hollywood Copyright and Media Cartels, you would be the first to say something to the effect of "That's easy for you to say, you don't use their product anyway!" which is, of course, the flipside of the very same logical fallacy you've indulged in here.

            So it is you, not the person you responded to, who really ought to shut up.
            • Since when is criticizing apartheid anything like criticizing a movie company? Since when has our society become so soft that watching TV and movies is somehow a necessity of life? People paid taxes to aparteid government because otherwise they'd go to jail. People operated within communist governments because otherwise they'd go to jail (or worse). Not watching TV or movies simply means you might (gasp!) have to read a book once in a while. Besides, you took the comment out of context. The original poster was criticizing ILM for working for the "evil" movie companies. I pointed out, that by watching movies and TV, he was in no position to criticize ILM for working for Sony and Universal. Under your logic, ILM is in a better position than the original poster. Making special effects it their livelihood, how they earn money to survive. If they have to do it in cooperation with the "evil" movie companies, then that's what they have to do. The poster, on the other hand, watches movies merely for entertainment. For him to pay the "evil" movie comapnies is ideologically unsupportable, because he is entirely free to not watch without undue trauma to himself.
    • the right hand doesnt know what the left is doing.
  • Mirror with pictures (Score:3, Informative)

    by moyix ( 412254 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @01:43AM (#3684291) Homepage
    Full article mirror []. Produced with:
    wget -p --convert-links
  • big article + screen shots = slashdotted = so posted
  • Does someone want to post what some of those terms are? In particular:
    • NOAA (through the first link)
    • TD (some kind of people?)
  • by hemabe ( 532570 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @03:33AM (#3684506)
    hey, a few weeks ago you could win money for a great idea, how to extend google in an attractive way. here is mine: every time, an article is posted to slashdot, google will be automaticly informed a few seconds before (with SOAP) to fetch the links. This would be a great cowork between google and slashdot and i could finaly read all the articles ;) ciao, Hermi
  • Linux or Intel? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Coward Anonymous ( 110649 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @03:37AM (#3684517)
    Of course, performance doesn't suffer when you upgrade from a 5 y/o processor to a new top-of-the-line processor.
    Most of the descriptions about speed up seem to be directly attributable to Intel, not Linux...
    • Of course, performance doesn't suffer when you upgrade from a 5 y/o processor to a new top-of-the-line processor.
      Most of the descriptions about speed up seem to be directly attributable to Intel, not Linux...

      I think part of the point, though, is that it is _because_ Linux is extremely flexible in terms of the wide variety of hardware it will run it that makes it very easy to upgrade your systems and still run the same system. This way, ILM doesn't have to wait for the next SGI systems to come out; if they need more, they can just go out and get it and intergrate it with the systems they are already running since it's all running the same thing.
  • Google cache []

    A bit slow, but at least it's accessible.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    doesnt anyone else find it a bit hypocritical that
    "hollywood" is making use of opensource and free software while petitioning for its hobbling with the current legislation regarding digital "rights"?
  • The multimedia series Linux Journal has been running since 2001 seems to be driving most of their readership, not the embedded systems, web applications stories or the security series that comprise 95% of the magazine. It's the least popular topic for publishers yet it's the most popular thing for readers. Movie making on Linux is part of a growing number of cult hobbies. No-one talks about all these uses for Linux besides embedded systems and servers. They're not regarded as the intended purpose of Linux, but everyone does them in their private time.
  • by mrm677 ( 456727 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @11:48AM (#3686660)
    Linux is not solely responsible for the five-fold increase in speed. Linux allows ILM to leverage the very high price/performance ratio of the x86 microprocessors produced by AMD and Intel. If SGI ported IRIX to x86, then they might not be using Linux. Of course Linux is free, but ILM had to spend many man hours to port their software.
    • Linux is not solely responsible for the five-fold increase in speed. Linux allows ILM to leverage the very high price/performance ratio of the x86 microprocessors produced by AMD and Intel. If SGI ported IRIX to x86, then they might not be using Linux. Of course Linux is free, but ILM had to spend many man hours to port their software.

      I agree, in part. While it took many man hours to port, it took much less than it would to port to Windows. Remember, hardware is useless without software. Linux makes the cheap commodity Intel/AMD systems useful by providing a stable, efficient and full-featured platform that's largely compatible with what they're used to. I think you're selling Linu show to say the CPUs deserve more credit; there should be an even share for both.
  • An unexpected snag arose during the upgrade: all the PC fans had to be replaced because they were defective.

    I guess all those PC fans were replaced with linux advocates...

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll