Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Disney Switches To Linux For Animation 491

Posted by timothy from the intuhlectual-property dept.
EEEthan writes: "It looks like Linux is really the next big thing for movie graphics houses. The New York Times is reporting that Disney has switched over to Linux-based HP workstations for animation. Although Disney has historically been known for their hand-drawn animation, this is a big move to Linux for what might be the world's most famous producer of animated films."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Switches To Linux For Animation More

Disney Switches To Linux For Animation

Comments Filter:
  • We'll see more Penguins in Disney films?

  • Wait (Score:4, Funny)

    by KingKire64 ( 321470 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:13PM (#3723729) Homepage Journal
    But Disney is still Evil Right?

    • Re:Wait (Score:2, Redundant)

      by terpia ( 28218 )
      Maybe the corporate empire is evil, or at least an argument could be made... But did you really think the animators were evil? I like Disney movies.

      • Re:Wait (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jason Earl ( 1894 )

        Even if Disney were evil it's not like they were a vampire and Linux is the karmic equivalent of holy water. Linux use is growing because of purely economic reasons. With Linux you get a lot of bang for your buck, and migrating from commercial UNIX is relatively straightforward. That's all that should be read into this particular switch. The folks at Disney added up the numbers and realized the same thing that pretty much the entire animation and special effects industry is realizing. Switching to Linux will save them time and money.

        • Thank you, you know, Slashdot might give people the wrong impression, that the reason to use Linux is for all these arbitrary and idealistic causes.

          The reason for using Linux is that for just about every task other than day-to-day desktop shit, it is a faster, more secure, cheaper, and more stable platform than most anything out there.

          Opensource isn't good because it's Good. It's good because it allows interested parties to write better software.

          Which is why I have winXP at home and Linux at work. Desktop may take the glory, but the money is in business, and sooner or later people will do the math and realise that MS isn't worth it.
      • Yeah, I like Disney movies, too. And even though Disney's personal Senator (Fritz) is trying his best to destroy the computer industry, or at least parts of it including Linux, the fact that Disney is using Linux to make its very high profile products is a gigantic win for the home team. Plus, now, Disney may have a reason to fight Fritz (or change his agenda) on a few things. Once they go Linux, they will probably want to keep using Linux. I'm sure they didn't make the decision to switch to it lightly.

    • Nope. (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not as long as they pump out the shiny objects, they aren't!

      Now that they use the Lunix, they are Double Plus Good!

      The MPAA boycott is off again! WOO HOO!

    • Re:Wait (Score:2, Funny)

      by quantaman ( 517394 )
      Dang it's Monday, you're right Disney should be evil today.

    • Actually, they are now to be regarded as "Mostly Evil".

    • Strictly, yes.

      Any amount of evil is intolerable here in the Utopia of Slashdot:)

      Disney is not really concerned with good and evil, however. Those concepts are ancillary to increasing shareholder value. If you look at them through those eyes, everything is easy to understand.

      Disney dislikes how the doctrine of fair use for copyrightable material makes it too easy for unscrupulous people to circumvent their revenue stream.

      They aren't adopting Linux because they believe in its moral superiority - they're doing it because it makes financial sense to do so.

      Pure and simple.

  • Their Software (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jmu1 ( 183541 ) <jmullman.gasou@edu> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:15PM (#3723748) Journal
    is great. I saw it in action when I went to Disney World for my honeymoon in May. I asked several questions about the software and about GNU/Linux and they seemed to be quite enthusiastic about it in general. It makes sense really. They write all of their own software, so why not have an OS that they can completely manipulate, without paying extra for the code!
    • Discussion, ok.

      How does this jibe with the absolute control of consumer devices that they are attempting to buy with their senator (Hollings)?

      I mean the law (CDBDTDBDD... whatever the hell its called) could be intrepreted as making linux illegal due to the ability that would exist enabling users to remove the code for filesystems that would enforce the copy protection.

      We keep hearing about the big studios going with linux, and then they want a lame law that would severly hurt it (and be unconstitutional on the basis of violation our free speech rights). Are they that clueless....

      oh wait, maybe they are.....
      • The corporate types are really that clueless. However, it seemed to me that many of the regular folks that work there are pretty safe-minded people. I can tell you one thing though, I got a good laugh or two when I was approached five times by people with wearable computers running XPEmbedded... and they couldn't get them to stay running long enough to take but one interview(of the five).

      • Re:Their Software (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MisterBlister ( 539957 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:29PM (#3723887) Homepage
        You're missing the point.

        Disney isn't going with Linux because they agree with the GNU or Linux worldview. They are going with Linux because they can use it for free, as in beer. When you consider the cost over hundreds or thousands of workstations, it adds up. Especially when Microsoft's starting to get all crazy with their forced subscription model. Something like that could cost Disney millions of dollars per year in their animation department alone, not including IT & Legal costs associated with making sure everything is "in compliance".

        Disney doesn't give a fuck about OSS ideals, they just want free-beer.

        • So?
          Unless you live in some Socalist Utopia, this is a free country. You don't have to agree with me, and neither do they. That is what liberty is, that is what freedom is. It is not you forcing your values down anyone's collective throat.

        • Re:Their Software (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 )
          Maybe somebody should inform Mike Eisner that it CBDTPA passes, their Linux software will become illegal.
        • ``They are going with Linux because they can use it for free, as in beer.''

          Yep. Michael Eisner's kids need new shoes.

          ``Especially when Microsoft's starting to get all crazy with their forced subscription model. Something like that could cost Disney millions of dollars per year in their animation department alone...''

          I took a tour of the animation department down in Orlando in Feb. 2001 and all the workstations that I saw were running UNIX (warmed my heart actually). So they may save big bucks but it won't be at Microsoft's expense.

      • those laws will fail, because entertainment companies are arrogantly and erroneously assuming they have more power than the combined might of the software and hardware world.

        if IBM and Dell don't want it, it won't happen.
    • Makes sense.

      When I was with my wife in WDW in November for our Honeymoon (I'm noticing a trend...) we walked through the "Animation" exhibit in MGM Studios. You also get to peak into the animation floor and while most people were "Ooohing" and "Ahhhing" over the backgrounds and what-not on display, I noticed that almost every desktop that had a PC, had a *nix console (they had the clasic "Life" Screensaver running and a few had the "swarm" one running), not a Windows machin. I THINK they were HPs (which would make sense), but I can't swear to that.

      On a lighter note, a propose a new poll:

      On my honeymoon I will/did go to:

      1) Asia
      2) Europe
      3) Africa
      4) North America
      5) South America
      6) Antarctica
      7) Australia
      8) Cruise
      9) Disney World
      10) The Moon
      11) Honeymoon?
      12) Cowboy Neal's Pants!

  • Join the Dark Side, Linus.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by zpengo ( 99887 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:16PM (#3723752) Homepage
    It's always reassuring when companies such as Disney that are generally understood to be Evil(tm) break down and go for things developed by the forces of Good(tm).

    Next thing we know, MS will switch their website over to Apache....

    • Not a moral choice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      I very much doubt if Disney cares about Good or Evil, at least as it applies to platforms. They simply decided it was more cost effective to get their next round of upgrades from HP instead of SGI.
    • Linux is a tool. Thats all it is not nessary a force of Good or Evil. All it dose is take requestest and decided to do them or not. It is great for the spread of the wide useage of Linux at disney is using them but. Still linux is just an OS a tool to get the job done. It is like calling a Craftman Hammer a force for good and a Stanly Hamer a force for evil. One may work better then the other but it is still a tool and not a religious Icon. I suport Linux and Hope for its growth It is a nice OS compared to some of the others out there. But still it is a tool and not a political party or a religion that some people make it seem to be.
    • It's always reassuring when companies such as Disney that are generally understood to be Evil(tm) break down and go for things developed by the forces of Good(tm).

      And I know I'll get tagged as a troll (I'm not), but more and more it's not at all obvious what the differences between Linux and Windows are. Both are fast, stable, and reliable (I'm talking about Windows 2K here, not 98). And both have their many hells: library conflicts, driver problems, bloated and buggy software. Okay, yeah, Linux is free, but otherwise we're just looking at several forms of the same thing.

  • Its time for a tux show. (Score:5, Funny)

    by minkwe ( 222331 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:18PM (#3723768) Journal
    The Tux is such a cute friendly creature/character, I would really like to see a Disney cartoon series based on that. Maybe something based on the theme "First they ignored us, then they laughed at us, then they fought us, then we won"

  • So what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:18PM (#3723770) Homepage
    If the operating system *mattered* for animation, this would be a big deal... but it doesn't. They're using Linux because it's cheaper, and because any (half-decent) operating system would function just as well for this sort of task.

    • Not really.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dark Nexus ( 172808 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:27PM (#3723854)
      Try to find any self respecting production studio that uses a Windows box for anything more than basic editing.

      If they ARE using a desktop machine (instead of a dedicated box or something like an SGI workstation), then it's probably a Mac - simply because the Mac has MUCH better tools than windows.

      I haven't heard much about Linux desktops being used in animation/post production before, but it's nice to see it happening. I'm wondering how the tools they're using stack up against Mac and Windows equivalents (both with and without price in the equation).
      • As some of the first corporate adoptions of Linux on the Desktop, I'd like to see those companies provide feedback to the KDE and Gnome projects about how to make their desktop environments more user-friendly.

      • Re:Not really.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by stubear ( 130454 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @03:32PM (#3724367)
        If you're using Avid Symphony [avid.com], Avid|DS, Avid|DS HD, or Avid|DS HD Editor [avid.com], you are most certainly uisng a Windows box as you can't run any of this on any other system. If you are running 3D StudioMAX [discreet.com], once again, you are running Windows because this is all it runs on. Should I go on?

      • Re:Not really.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by donglekey ( 124433 )
        This is false. SGI was the high end and has been dying very slowly. For 3D NT and 2000 have really been the mainstay. Mac never had any good 3D programs except for Lightwave, and just recently Maya. Look at the backbones of high end 3D, Softimage|3D/Softimage|XSI, PowerAnimator/Maya and Houdini. First they were on SGI, then SGI and NT, and now they are all on Linux. Mac's aren't a player on the animation side of things, but Apple seems to be trying to change that quickly. What is one tool for Mac that isn't available on windows?

        The tools they are using on Linux ARE THE SAME TOOLS they were using on windows. That is why they are switching, because they can port stuff over, and the upper end of 3D and animation (Softimage, Maya, Houdini, Shake, etc. etc.) are available on Linux.
  • So, they use OSS, but then they lock Mickey Mouse up through their continued efforts to lengthen copyright law and broaden the definition of trademark infringement. Until they free Mickey, I'm not applauding....
    • or

      Free the Disneyland 1!

      or

      Let the Mouse out of the Big House!

      Damn the cafeteria for only having decaffeinated coffee!

    • but then [Michael Eisner and the Walt Disney Company] lock Mickey Mouse up through their continued efforts to lengthen copyright law

      Even in the presence of a potential Bono Act [wikipedia.com] every 20 years, the early Mickey Mouse films have fallen into the public domain because Walt Disney screwed up a copyright notice [asu.edu]. Summary of the argument: Back in the 1920s (under the Copyright Act of 1909), a copyright notice was required on the first publication of a work, and "© 1929" wasn't sufficient; it had to be "© 1929 Walt Disney".


      Free the Mouse [eldred.cc]

  • Disney? Hollings?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Groucho ( 1038 )
    The right mouse doesn't really know what the left mouse is doing, does it?

    I mean, does Disney's animation department have any idea of the ramifications of the legislation proposed by their government employee (Hollings)?

    I guess this is good news... at least there are people within Disney who will (one expects) fight to keep their OWN TOOLS from becoming contraband.

    G

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:22PM (#3723807)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Disney needs a boycott (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:24PM (#3723833)
    Disney sponsors Hollings bill.

    BOYCOTT DISNEY.

    Don't buy Disney products. Don't go to DisneyWorld, Don't install Linux distributions.
  • Is this a cost cutting exercise? Noticed this on the hotel news rag this morning:

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/2002/200 2-06-18-lilo.htm [usatoday.com]

  • Steve Jobs tried before (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:27PM (#3723864) Homepage Journal
    Steve Jobs once flew to LA to meet Disney's head of feature films, Jeffrey Katzenberg. He tried to sell them some top-of the line NeXT workstations, running Pixar's software for 3D movies.

    Jeffrey cut Steve off when the animation was being demoed. "This is art. I own animation, and nobody's going to get it. It's as if someone comes to date my daughter. I have a shotgun. If someone tries to take this away, I'll blow his balls off." -The Second Coming of Steve Jobs

    Apparently Disney felt seriously threatened that Pixar could make full-length animated movies, which could smash Disney's monopoly. They didn't buy the software, and threatened to crush Pixar, until they hired them for a movie, Toy Story. Funny how it seems so different now.

    • This is nonsense. Disney was already running CAPS, which was written by Pixar. Disney and Pixar had a good working relationship at that time. Steve came to Disney to sell NeXT workstations, not to sell software.

      Point two is that if Disney felt so threatened by Pixar, why did they sign Pixar (really John Lassiter) up to a multi-picture deal? Disney never threatened to crush Pixar (ironically, there was a time when they could have)--Jeffrey liked Pixar. I believe Jeffrey's quote was in the context of negotiations for that picture deal (Jeffrey's quite the negotiator).

      • "Disney and Pixar had a good working relationship at that time"

        Not really, Pixar wanted to sell their technology, and Disney only got their software, not their animating equipment, and threatened to roll over Pixar like a steamroller if they tried making animation. Disney dominated the animation business.

        The problem was that in the 1970's and 1980's, Disney went into a slump, and put out a bunch of mediocre movies. Animators were quitting, like Tim Burton, and going onto big success (like Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, and Batman). Meanwhile, Pixar went to Paramount and WB to search for work, knowing full well that Disney was aware.

        That might be why in 1990, Disney and Pixar went into talks for a feature film. Before the meeting Jeffrey's people were arrogant and condescending, implying that Pixar was nothing and Disney runs the show. Once they met, Disney was willing to talk, provided Pixar went to no other studios.

        Yes, Jeffrey is an amazing negotiator, and he brokered the deal (driving a really hard bargain) and setup a three-movie deal.

  • At the Disney [disney.com] Front Page, if you look up in the right hand corner you see the "Powered by HP" Ad.

    HP is a Disney Technology partner, and as stated in the NYTIMES article"Disney's animation division is announcing today that it plans to use Hewlett-Packard workstations and data-serving computers running Linux for digital animation work in the future"

    Historically, animation has been a Unix environment," said Al Gillen, an analyst at the International Data Corporation. "And what's happening in Hollywood is that another piece of the Unix market is moving into the Linux space."

    Indeed, Mr. Carey observed that adopting Linux for part of its animation was part of its migration strategy to move away from its previous "homogeneous technology environment," revolving around SGI's Irix.

    The Disney commitment is the second agreement in recent months for Hewlett-Packard systems running Linux in Hollywood. In January, Hewlett-Packard announced a three-year partnership with DreamWorks involving the purchase of Hewlett computers and some joint development of technology.

    Hewlett-Packard, to be sure, has a heritage of doing business with Hollywood and Disney. The first product the founders William Hewlett and David Packard sold in 1938 was to Disney, an oscillator used to help produce the rich, textured soundtrack for the animated movie "Fantasia."

    This is a deal brokered by Martin Fink, general manager for Hewlett-Packard's Linux systems division.

    Disney is moving from Unix to Linux. Quite a smooth move, not only does this appease one of their most voiciferous antagonists, they get mucho positive P.R.
  • It's ok but didn't Disney shift away from hand drawn animation a LONG time ago?

    Michael Eisner said that he wanted to see Disney put out one animated feature a year and thanks to computers you can.

    Disney had fine quality animation in the past because it was all hand drawn but computers can "tween" (generate cels between key frames) thus allowing Disney to continue to put out their crappy versions of popular stories every year now.
  • The article states:

    But in the near term, as the Hollywood experience shows, Linux is gaining at the expense of proprietary versions of Unix.

    In my opinion, while the adoption of Linux by large corporations (like Disney) affirms the validity of Linux for professional uses, Bill Gates is clearly not losing any sleep over this one, as the article notes. As much as I'd like to see a decrease in dominance by MS led by Linux, I'm not so sure I'd like to see less choices in *nix OS's in the process.

  • Disney's split personality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by webmaven ( 27463 ) <webmavenNO@SPAMcox.net> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:40PM (#3723956) Homepage
    As Cory Doctorow Pointed out [boingboing.net]:
    "The great irony, of course, is that Disney is also using the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group [eff.org] to make it illegal to develop open source digital video applications."

  • Irony (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Target Drone ( 546651 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:42PM (#3723971)
    I find it rather ironic that a company that tries to squeeze every last cent out of people for the IP it creates is using an OS created by people who have freely donated their IP.
  • What happens when you mix Disney's promotion of the CBDTPA with their use of Linux? Is Disney going to implode and disappear, like when mixing matter and anti-matter?
  • Dreamworks are also using HP hardware and Linux for their animation - HP released this a few days ago.. Info on it Here [hp.com]

  • Switching to Apple? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AIXadmin ( 10544 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:51PM (#3724038) Homepage
    One has to wonder. With Apple's string of aquisitions, and invetiable future string of aquisitions of 3D and other content creation tools.
    Will shops starting switching to Mac OS X. I imagine several all ready have Mac OS X in their environments for Photoshop.
    So far Apple has kept the Linux versions on most of the applications and dumped NT. What happens if they dump Linux?
  • I think we should change the way the GNU license works for those people in the media industry.

    Let's see...
    Must agree to an open source DVD decoder for Linux comes to mind.

    Anyone else care to add to the wish list?

  • Interesting Timing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by T3kno ( 51315 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @03:06PM (#3724152) Homepage
    Just this morning I was reading about how Disney is starting to loose money on their animated films. The story is on the front page of todays WSJ [wsj.com] and it lays out what the price/performace ratios of the last few movies were.

    From the article:

    The Lion King 1994
    Production Budget: $50 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $312 million

    Hercules 1997
    Production Budget: $100 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $99 million

    Tarzan 1999
    Production Budget: $150 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $171 million

    The Emperor's New Groove 2001
    Production Budget: $100 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $89.2 million

    Lilo & Stitch
    Production Budget: $80+ million
    U.S. Box Office Take: Unknown
    Of course it could be because of the declining quality of these movies, the only one I've seen is Lion King, which was a pretty good flick IMHO. I wonder if the lower TCO argument of Linux is starting to kick in a little bit. This will be interesting to see.
    • "Of course it could be because of the declining quality of these movies, the only one I've seen is Lion King, which was a pretty good flick IMHO."

      Which was a wholesale ripoff of the anime Kimba.
      From http://www.stonebridge.com/dreamland.html:
      "When Charles Burress, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle wrote an article on July 11, 1994, titled "Uproar Over 'The Lion King,'" the story broke into the mainstream U.S. media, generating considerable coverage in major newspapers and on national television. The official Disney company response, as first reported in the Chronicle on July 14, was that The Lion King was an original work, and that none of the people involved in creating The Lion King "were aware of Kimba or Tezuka.""

      Lies, damned lies and Disney execs...

      LEXX

  • Add DMCA waiver clause to open source licences (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bwt ( 68845 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @03:10PM (#3724182)

    What if we added a clause to the GPL and all other OSI licences that said "by accepting possession of this software, you agree to grant technological protection measure access rights that otherwise would be reserved under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA to any software developer who releases the resulting software under this licence (or any other OSI approved licence) in a way that does not otherwise infringe the copyright"?

    Such a clause would immunize open source software developers from DMCA claims by corporations that use *any* open source software. That sounds like a fair trade to me: we work for free to build software for them in return for the right to not be sued under the DMCA.
    • No, it would not. The GPL clearly states that if you don't want to be bound by its terms, you don't have to. This is why the GPL is so strong, you can do anything with GPLed programs you want as long as it's within the bounds of copyright law. Since using the software *is* within those bounds (at least it was until about 2 years ago), you're all set.

      When you want to do something that's illegal under copyright law (e.g. re-distribute or distribute modified versions) you then have to deal with the GPL.

  • CGI in disney cartoons since Aladdin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @03:35PM (#3724399)
    A few parts in each summer animated movie since Aladdin have been CGI. Dinosaur was the first full CGI film. The magic carpet and cave scene were cgi. The ballroom dance scene in Beauty and Beast was CGI. The wildebest stampede in Lion King was CGI. The street crowds in Hunchback were CGI. The Olympic clouds in Hercules were CGI. The soldier armies in Mulan were CGI. Disney talked about these at the national and L.A. SIGGRAPH meetings.
  • On the one hand they support Linux, on the other they support the laws that would effectively kill it. The biggest irony is that Disney now uses the "evil hacker operating system" it worked so hard to condemn. What's even more ironic, is that the only way to watch Disney DVDs on Linux is by using DeCSS -- the "evil hacker digital crowbar" that Disney tried to outlaw. Somebody at Disney needs to get a clue.
  • This event really gives me the impression that Disney is merely playing 'Catch up with Katzenberg.'

    Consider: Someone else has pointed out that Dreamworks already made the switch to HP and Linux. Look at the visuals from their latest flick, 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.' Pretty impressive stuff, and good storytelling on top of it.

    IMO, Disney hasn't released a single movie that has looked anywhere near as impressive, in visuals or in writing, since "Monsters, Inc." Don't get me started about their (upcoming? Already out?) "Lilo and Stitch" (which looks more like a blatant rip-off of the 'Pokemon' craze than anything else). On the other wing, I've not been disappointed with ANYthing that Dreamworks has released in that same period.

    Perhaps Eisner is thinking that new hardware/software is all it'll take for Disney Studios to turn out similar winners in the theater. If so, he's sadly mistaken. The most advanced animation rendering farm in the world is useless without a well-written story for the characters thus created to work with.

  • I have to admit I'm rather wonked by the fact that the one place where linux is making the most inroads is animation houses. years ago when I first started using linux the last place I though linux would become a power was animation studios. funny how things just find their place.

Slashdot Top Deals

We must believe that it is the darkest before the dawn of a beautiful new world. We will see it when we believe it. -- Saul Alinsky

Close