Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux goes to Hollywood

CmdrTaco posted more than 13 years ago | from the something-to-read dept.

Linux 313

j2brown writes: " Yahoo! News has this little article about IBM taking Linux to Hollywood. " It's not a very in-depth article, but it is interesting that Big Blue is saying that Hollywood will be moving their rendering stuffs to Linux in the next 12 to 18 months. Wonder how SGI feels about that.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great move. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2110211)

As the creator of linux I find this really cool, and can tell you that linux kicks some serious ass.

Sincerely, Mike Bouma

Render farms are great, content-creation is better (4, Insightful)

tyrann98 (161653) | more than 13 years ago | (#2111269)

Render farms just crunch numbers and that is where Linux is succeeding. Linux on x86 (AMD or Intel) is displacing SGI not based on qualities of the Linux OS necessarily, but due to the low cost of x86 hardware, high quality compilers and free OS last. I'm sure NetBSD would be just as good is this application. Linux could even be replaced by commercial render-farm operations that run on purpose-built hardware.

SGI effectively gives away their OS and you have to pay incredible prices for their hardware. For certain applications where real-time 3D performance or high-bandwidth memory applications is required, SGI and Sun still has the tools to beat the x86 platform any day. Real workstations still have many advantages over the best PC motherboards. But all of additional cost for SGI hardware is a waste if you are just number crunching.

However, the news that IBM and Alias are developing content-creation software for Linux is a very good sign. These are the tools that every artist would be using to push pixels, and that's the way to get a huge foothold in the Hollywood. That moves Linux for the room in the back to the desktop of each artist.

Who cares??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2114670)

SGI is 60 cents (a share) away from oblivion. Unless they can pull off a miracle, which they couldn't do in the last 6 years, they'll be bankrupt next year. They should have sold the company years ago. What happened to increasing shareholder value? Fuckheads....

Before you sprain a hand patting Linus' back... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#2115049)

This is yet another step in Hollywood's belt tightening. As more production is done in Canada or overseas to reduce costs, moving away from expensive licenses is one more way to conserve costs. And we all know how important it can be when you need to offer actors premium salaries.

Cheap hardware (4, Interesting)

mfarver (43681) | more than 13 years ago | (#2119375)

At this point studios want CPU cycles cheap, and they are already comfortable writing toolchains on Unix.

Linux combines the best of both worlds, cheap fast PC hardware and Unix. One studio said they could afford to replace their Linux cluster twice as often as the SGI renderfarm (since it cost half as much) so they could keep themselves closer to the state of the art in processing power.

SGI used to offer awesome custom graphics acceleration hardware but custom hardware limits choice, and costs more than general purpose stuff. And the general purpose stuff is nearly as fast.

Re:Cheap hardware (2)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139030)

Umm... SGI *still* offers graphics acceleration that will blow away any general purpose card you can get off the street for building 3d animation.

Linux is only being used for rendering, they don't even have to have a graphics card, all they are doing is calculate pixel, color and write it out to a file, no-one ever has to look at the images as they are being created.

If you ever look at a studio, you'll see SGI workstations everywhere, and lots and lots of rendering systems, that most likely have no monitor at all, and a very low-end graphics card if any. Most of the time you'll have to pry a SGI Irix workstation out of the cold dead hand of an animator, since nobody else has anything that will come close for animation development.

IBM is a bit late. (4, Informative)

rogerbo (74443) | more than 13 years ago | (#2119376)

Um, changing to Linux for rendering in 12-18 months?? What rock has IBM been under? Visual Effects house have been using Linux rendering already for the past 12-18 months. Final Fantasy was rendered on a 1200 CPU Linux render farm (see the recent Ars Technica article can't be bothered to find a link).

Lord of the Rings has at least several hundred CPU linux render farm of SGI 1200 boxes(see here: 4 ), sure other hollywood houses have them as well.

SGI doesn't care because they sell a lot of rack mount linux intel render servers. The real next wave of adoption of Linux in visual effects is as 3d and compositing workstations. Maya, Shake, Rayz, Houdini all run fine on Linux with the right 3d card. The only reason Linux boxes don't dominate in Visual Effects is that high bandwidth playback eg playing 2k images in realtime of a disk array is not really possible under Linux. That's why they still have a ton of SGI octanes kicking around.

Re:IBM is a bit late. (2, Insightful)

room101 (236520) | more than 13 years ago | (#2114665)

That is because IBM doesn't do anything until it has a solid business case. They didn't get involved in Linux until it becase viable for business and there was a proven track record.

IBM doesn't do anything "half-assed". They try very hard not to waste their money, and sometimes that means that they wait until others have blazed the trail before they follow it.

Re:IBM is a bit late. (1)

lobsterGun (415085) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132851)

why is it that every time i see the URL I think its

Re:IBM is a bit late. (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135102)

Same reason I keep on looking for open source projects on

Re:IBM is a bit late. (1)

misaka (13816) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135104)

Very true. I've been outfitting my company with a Linux renderfarm since our main renderers have been available for it (since early this year). We're looking at setting up Linux workstations, some of our animators have stated that they would prefer to be running Linux over MSWin*.

The other issue, one that should have SGI and IBM a little worried, is cheap x86 hardware. SGI and IBM both sell render units bun charge several times more than the cost of an equivelent unit assembled from off-the-shelf parts. I don't see how they can justify this cost differential in a field where shear horsepower is absolutely crucial, buying more render power by far outweighs anything else, including high individual system availability. This is a premise of clustered computing: get the most bang for the buck and make replacing a faulty node cheap and inexpensive.


Re:IBM is a bit late. (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140155)

Doesn't anyone remember "Titanic"? (No? Good!) IIRC, the F/X were rendered using Linux boxen.

What this might mean... (3, Insightful)

Eslyjah (245320) | more than 13 years ago | (#2119377)

Hopefully, Hollywood will be willing to put some time and money into developing Linux. In the longer term, this would mean that we, the "regular users" of Linux would benefit from better graphics capabilities of the OS as a whole. Maybe this is overly optimistic, but you never know...

Linux movie title (2, Funny)

sporty (27564) | more than 13 years ago | (#2120575)

Linux Goes to Hollywood: Send in the Clones


Oh, God, I dunno if Linux is ready... (2, Funny)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#2123401)

For any more big-name roles. I mean... Look at Linux's performance in 'Anti-trust'. It was pretty dissapointing. Let's all chip in and get Linux some good voice coaching and poise training and see if its not ready for another starring role later this year.

SGI and Linux (1)

envisionary (238020) | more than 13 years ago | (#2124732)

Anyone remember all the traffic concerning SGI and Final Fantasy the movie. Well from yet another Yahoo blurb [] one finds that many of the machines used in rendering were running Linux.

Four SGI(TM) 2000 series high-performance servers, four Silicon Graphics® Onyx2® visualization systems, 167 Silicon Graphics® Octane® visual workstations and other SGI systems were used to create the film. Alias|Wavefront(TM) Maya® software was used for animation authoring on the SGI machines, and Pixar RenderMan® software was run on Linux® OS-based systems.

SGI is a strong proponent of Linux, I would think that it's more the prospect of IBM selling the machines that scares them.

Open Source EFX Software (1)

worldwideweber (116531) | more than 13 years ago | (#2125063)

I would imagine that this opens up a real big need for open source efx software to match packages like maya, softimage, etc (yeah, i know how hard this is).

Anyone have any idea what types of free efx packages exist out there?

Umm.....duh..... (2)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 13 years ago | (#2125739)

Go to SGI's web page.....they're pushing linux on Intel based servers for rendering. HP is saying it, AMD is saying it, how is this news?

How SGI feels (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2126801)

We hate it!


Future tense? (2)

Apotsy (84148) | more than 13 years ago | (#2126802)

What does that mean, they "will be"? FX houses have already had Linux machines in their render farms for years now, starting with Titanic in 1997 [] and continuing right up until Final Fantasy.

Why are they acting like this is something new?

Re:Future tense? (1)

jfinke (68409) | more than 13 years ago | (#2141931)

I believe that the article is about IBM providing standard tools to do this with... Not that Linux is being used as a render farm... The article mentions that it has been for several large productions....

Big Issue (5, Informative)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#2126945)

This is a pretty big issue so I feel I should run down some of the more important points.

First, yes, SGI offered Linux systems a long time ago and to my knowledge they have done very poorly. They were however for workstations and not rendering, as IBM's newest offerings seem to be. IBM is probably going into workstations too, but that isn't what the article is about. Many big companies with Big Money (TM) have invested a whole ass ton in SGI clusters over the years, from Onyx computers for compositing and play back, to Octanes for creation, to Origin's for processing job queues.

Everyone is switching to Linux. PC's are so cheap and close to what SGI has to offer that it stands out as a clear solution. Pentium 4's and Athalon 4's are including more features suitable to rendering. SIMD instructions are great stuff for all the vector math that goes on behind the scenes. Linux costs nothing so when you have 1000 computers in your render farm you aren't paying $200,000 in licenses every few years. It is stable so that also helps everything, especially rendering. When a frame takes 8 hours to render, you don't want to worry about the OS crashing 6 hours through. You have 1000 computers and if they don't all work smoothly you are fucked. Lastly, Linux is unix, and that's important for an industry coming off of other unix platforms, mainly Irix.

Software for Linux is Good Stuff (TM) in the graphics world. As far as rendering goes, you have the mighty PRman, Mental Ray, Blue Moon Rendering Tools, Jig, Entropy, and many other renderers. That's good enough for just about any studio. On the software front, you have the magic four (or five, depending on how you look at it) of Maya 4 , Softimage XSI 2.0, 3D Studio 4, Lightwave 6.5, and Houdini. Maya and Houdini run on Linux right now and can be purchased for a small (huge) fee. Lightwave is the most ported 3D application that I know of and runs on Amiga (earlier versions), Windows NT, Sun OS, Solaris, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and Irix. It shouldn't be a huge deal to port to Linux. 3D Studio is another story. It has a deep history of being rooted in WinNT, and didn't even run on NT for Alpha when Alphas were all the rage so only time will tell. Also compositing software like Shake is making its way as well.

Last on the list is custom software. Pacific Data Images (Antz, Shrek) has written lots of software for Linux and ported lots from Irix as well. Linux is unix of course and that means that all the custom software that no one wanted to port from Irix to NT is now being ported to Linux with ease, and that's a huge deal.

There aren't too many Free solutions in there, I realize, but Linux can't be everything to everyone and remain completely Free. I am sure there is a lot of GIMP action going on there but not many programs in the Free world are powerful enough to help out the big studios.

I hope that clears some stuff up!

IBM isn't the only one... (3, Insightful)

willy_me (212994) | more than 13 years ago | (#2128989)

Apple will also be pushing into this realm very soon - they've already, with 1394 and iMovie, have pushed themselves into the home consumer market. Once OSX matures, they should finally have a great OS to market. Combine this with the fact that the 64bit G5 is due out early next year and that Steve Jobs runs both Apple and Pixar...... See the potential?

The real problem is of course that Apple doesn't have any hardware that's up to the challenge. They need some good rack-mount servers similar to those that IBM sell. Rumors [] of these servers exist and should they be true, Apple will finally have what it needs to become a player in this industry.

There are still lots of "if"s but regardless, I'd like to see SGI, IBM, and Apple all fighing for this market. It should produce some great products...


LINUX HAS SEX! (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2129782)

New York City - Renowned sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer has published a study that shows that users of Linux and other open-sex operating systems experience impotence 32% less of the time, are multiorgasmic 44% of the time and have 68% more sexual encounters.

"This is a great vindication for the real-world benefits of Open Sex Software," Westheimer proclaimed. A sex-specific build of Linux, codenamed Orgasmix, is currently underway in a subsidiary of Red Hat known as French Tickler.

Title (5, Funny)

DigitalDragon (194314) | more than 13 years ago | (#2130657)

Hmm.. Somehow I always knew that this title would appear on /., it was just a matter of time. Next one to wait for: "Linux does Dallas".

everybody sing with me... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2128912)

if Linux can make it there, Linux can make it--*any*where*, it's up to Linux, you dork, you dork! na na nanana nana na nanana...

Re:everybody sing with me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2120799)

Why do geeks always try to "sing" in their posts? Don't you understand that people don't know the tune you're envisioning just by "na na nanana"?

I hate you fucking geeks.

Re:everybody sing with me... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2119263)

I hate you, fuckhead. Go get a bigger penis and fuck your mom.

Linux already there (5, Interesting)

boboroshi (239125) | more than 13 years ago | (#2131248)

At least in the 3d (renderfarms) and compositing (e.g. Shake [] ) world it's been there a while

Pixar's Renderman runs on Linux, and due to the wonderfully low cost of Linux and the cheap method of build your own machine, renderfarms in racks tend to run linux at many post houses.

Also, Square has entered the arena with one amazing ray tracer. For the white paper inclined, this is pretty sweet. It explains Maya and how it works with their custom app on Linux using Parallel proessing via the Pthread library. [httpp]

I thought Loki's demise = death of desktop Linux (3, Interesting)

tenzig_112 (213387) | more than 13 years ago | (#2131855)

Okay lighten up.

It's time for Slashdot to have a laugh at its own expense. []

Re:I thought Loki's demise = death of desktop Linu (0, Redundant)

franksbiyatch (227234) | more than 13 years ago | (#2128985)

This is classic. The link is an article making fun of how people at Slashdot mod down any anti-Linux posts and he's (or she's) been modded down.

Does anyone else see the crushing irony here?

Make fun of /. - get on the "banned" wagon (1)

franksbiyatch (227234) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142249)

Hurray for slashdot, having the guts to do its own thing and not be pressured to practice what it ceaselessly preaches.


Blah blah blah and old news (3, Interesting)

tolldog (1571) | more than 13 years ago | (#2131856)

I think SGI likes it.
SGI sells linux boxes that can work as a renderfarm just as much as any other rackmount linux solution.
But this is where they should really like it. Hollywood has trusted SGI for years. SGI has major name recognition based on hardware quality and support.
Linux has been in Hollywood for a while now, chances are that the 3D that you see in current titles has had some Linux involvement along the way.
I know we are heading that direction.
All the studios I have talked with are heading that way, if they haven't all ready.
In my opinion, this is a place where VA could have made a name for themselves. Now, I think that the big Linux battle will be between HP, SGI, and the next person to have a killer 3D desktop. If I had to place money on it, I would be pulling for HP.

Linux goes to Hollywood? (4, Troll)

4n0nym0u$ C0w4rd (471100) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132034)

Hopefully it won't end up like 90% of the people who go down that road, drugged-out, bimbo starlet doing softcore porn (and the director) to support it's escalating Coke addiction :)

Who wants to bet they'll still manage to put out multi-billion dollar "master pieces"....generally with nice fancy roman numerals next to the title to exploit the success of a previous successful movie (Jurassic Park II or III), or based on a video game that never really had much of a plot (Streetfighter).

Re:Linux goes to Hollywood? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 13 years ago | (#2110215)

Hey, Linus' brother was killed in a hollywood movie. Remember Swordfish?

sgi doesn't care (1)

two_tone (74882) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132200)

sgi could care less as long as they are running linux on sgi workstations and servers what is the diference to them?

IRIX mainly used for the design. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2132821)

IRIX on SGI Boxen is mainly used for design using Alias and such. SGIs are too expensive to waste for the backend rendering horsepower.

They Design on SGIs, then use the most cost effective solution on the backend for the rendering. (Of course most cost effective often means Sun saying, "Hey, will give you a ton of sun boxes to render on if you give us a big credit at the end.") Though these days more and more folks are using Linux for such things.

Re:IRIX mainly used for the design. (2)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#2114023)

This is almost completely false. Pixar used many Sun computers as their renderfarm, but I doubt Sun donated 1000 computers to them, and I didn't see a credit at the end. As for SGI's not being used in render farms .... ex.html [] There is a picture on that page which proves you very wrong.

wonder how SGI feels... (0, Offtopic)

bbh (210459) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133399)

"Wonder how SGI feels about that."

Checking Yahoo finance today, SGI's stock is at 60 cents today. In 12 to 18 months, IBM may own SGI. The best of both worlds maybe....


new version of the /. effect (2, Interesting)

4n0nym0u$ C0w4rd (471100) | more than 13 years ago | (#2110216)

uh oh, u did posted a cheap stock price on 60c tomorrow $1000.....seriously.

Re:wonder how SGI feels... (1)

well_jung (462688) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143336)

It occurs to me that it may cheaper to buy a shitload of SGI stock and get an Origin 3000 gratis than to actually buy one retail. :)

Anyway, There was a quote from an SGI rep in the referenced article. He basically said "What's new. IBM's been knocking on that door for years".

Try *THIS* Special Effect!! (-1, Offtopic)

egg troll (515396) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133465)

Fellow Slashdotters, I have tried this and I must say it does work pretty well.


The other day I found an amusing and informative text file on some BBS or other, explaining how to make a lifelike, artificial vagina "out of common household products." Hey, I thought, I've tried that. (Bet you have, too. Be honest.) I was intrigued. The guy who wrote it calls his device Porta-Pussy. It involves a mailing tube, a string, and a balloon. Basically, you lower the balloon into the tube, stretch the neck of the balloon to overlap the outer edge of the tube, then use the string to stretch the balloon down the length of the tube. He suggests taping the tube to the edge of a table, kneeling down and licking it for a while, then standing up and fucking it.

I just tried fucking it. It wasn't bad. I decided not to try the advanced applications, though, which include sticking a dildo up your ass and drinking the cum as it leaks out of the tube. Another time, maybe. But I did admire his imaginative design; simple to make, reasonable facsimile, easy cleanup (throw away the balloon). His description made fun reading, too; "How I Spell Relief." I encourage others to download his file (called IWACK1.ZIP).

So, in a spirit of sharing, here's my technique. It doesn't look as authentic as his, and it takes more preparation, but I think it feels MUCH closer to the real thing. Close your eyes and the PseudoCunt (this name just occurred to me; snappy, huh?) feels just EXACTLY like a warm, wet, tight pussy. You think I'm kidding, right? Nope. Read on, if you're so inclined.


1- Registration

2- Materials & Ingredients

3- Construction

4- How to Use

5- Hints & Techniques

6- Troubleshooting

7- Why I Created PseudoCunt


Ha, ha. Get it? It's software. Real soft. If you figure out who I am, send me some money. PseudoCunt is not shareware, by the way. It's recommended for use alone.


* Cylindrical container (see below)

* Large pot (3-4 quart capacity)

* Butter or margarine (2-3 tablespoons)

* Vegetable oil (just a drop or two)

* Saran Wrap or equivalent

* Spaghetti or fettucini (lots; two boxes)

* Sturdy rubber band

* Several big, firm sofa cushions (optional)

* Your favorite masturbation fantasies in magazine, video, gif, or virtual form


1- Find a suitable container. This is the tough part. The best one I've found is an overlarge Mason-type jar (about 11" tall), though these are hard to find. Second choice would be a length of PVC pipe sealed at one end, or a mailing tube, but it should be at least five inches in diameter. A half-gallon cardboard milk carton might work, with clever modifications.

2- In a large pot, bring two or three quarts of water to full boil. Add a tablespoon of vegetable oil and a pinch of salt. Boil spaghetti to aldente texture (about 8 minutes). Any pasta will do, but I find spaghetti and fettucini most satisfactory.

3- Drain spaghetti, but do not rinse. Mix in A FEW DROPS of vegetable oil (be CAREFUL not to use too much; use just enough to keep the spaghetti from sticking together) and stir well. Set aside in colander until cool enough to handle.

4- While spaghetti is cooling, melt some butter (not much; about 1/3 of one of those little butter pats you get with toast in a diner is enough). Don't let it boil; 15-30 seconds in the microwave should do it.

5- Stuff spaghetti into the container described in Step 1. Really pack it in tightly; as tight as you can cram it in. This is crucial to success. I use wooden cooking implements to tamp it down. When the jar is about 3/4 full, bore a hole down the center with something long and moderately thin (I use the long handle of a wooden stirring spoon) and continue packing spaghetti around it, up the brim. Remember to pack tightly; spaghetti will compress a lot more than you'd think.

6- At this point, remove the rod or dowel or whatever, and pour a SMALL amount of melted butter down into the little hole to lubricate it. (By the way, I've found that butter or margarine feels much more like the creamy inside of an aroused cunt than any kind of oil; and I've tried quite a few). Stick your finger in and work the lubrication down into the little hole. Feels interesting, doesn't it? Close your eyes and probe, slowly; does that feel just EXACTLY like a wet pussy hole, or what?

7- Now, use something wider and slightly tapered to widen the mouth of the surrogate vagina (I use the neck of a wine or beer bottle). Do this gently, and don't widen it to your full dick diameter; you want it to be nice and tight.

8- Cut a generous length of Saran Wrap and stretch it tightly over the mouth of the jar. Fasten it tightly with the rubber band. Now punch a hole in the Saran Wrap in the obvious place. (Use a pencil, or a spoon handle, not a knife; a sharp cut will make the Saran Wrap tear.)


1- Pile two or more big, thick sofa cushions on top of each other. Make an identical pile next to the first, leaving a 12-inch space between the two piles.

2- In the space between the cushions, spread a towel (or newspaper) on the floor. If properly constructed, your PseudoCunt should not make a mess unless you really get carried away, but it's a good idea to protect against this possibility.

3- Position the PseudoCunt jar on the floor between the two cushion piles.

4- Lie across the cushion piles, chest on one, thighs on the other, dick dangling in the space between. Now, gaze lovingly at whatever fantasy object you prefer, tease the head of your dick against the warm, slick mouth and begin fucking.


* Before you get started, check with your finger to make sure your PseudoCunt has cooled to the proper temperature. You don't want to burn yourself. Optimum temperature should be obvious if you're a reasonably sexually active person. Push your finger in as deeply as you can; the bottom of the jar may be too hot even though the mouth is a nice, warm, cuntlike temperature.

* The PseudoCunt is not recommended for quickies. Choose a time when you're absolutely certain you'll be alone and undisturbed. PseudoCunt takes some time to prepare, and a fair amount of what's called in cinema and theater circles 'suspension of disbelief.' It can't be fully enjoyed if you're worried about your wife or girlfriend walking in and finding you fucking a jar of spaghetti.

* Size of the container is important. Make sure it is at least two inches deeper than your dick is long, and wide enough so that your dick is surrounded by a generous cushion of pseudo cuntflesh. You don't want to bang up against the hard sides or bottom of the thing at a crucial moment.

* Shape of the container is important, too. I like the jumbo jar configuration because the "shoulders" of the jar where the neck narrows help to keep the spaghetti in place when you withdraw on the out-strokes.

* Don't use too much butter. A very small amount should suffice. Remember that your own secretions will increase the lubricating effect. It's not generally recognized that grease and oils actually DE-sensitize erectile tissue. A thin coat of oil on your dick is like wearing a condom. I find that the absolutely perfect effect is achieved by adding just a *tiny* amount of butter, then slathering saliva all over my dick just before first penetration. The combination of butter, saliva and natural lubrication that leaks from your dick feels closer to authentic vagina arousal than any oil I've ever tried.

* Make adequate preparations. Arrange your favorite magazines on the floor in front of you, or display a particularly fascinating GIF, or make sure the VCR is cued up and the remote is handy. One of the real joys of using PseudoCunt is that it leaves both hands free to work the VCR remote or languidly browse through magazines, savoring the tight cunt sucking wetly at your dick with each slight movement of your hips. With careful preparation it's a damned comfortable position, and you can just lie there for as long as you please, indulging as many fantasies as your self-control will allow.

* For best results, fuck slowly and gently on first penetration. This allows the PseudoCunt hole to adjust to the proper diameter.

* Don't ram your dick in to the bottom at first. Go slowly, and try to restrain yourself as long as possible, fucking a just a little deeper at a time. Each time you stroke a little deeper, the PseudoCunt is a little tighter, and incrementally warmer. The sensation is fabulous if prolonged. I like to keep the last inch or so unpenetrated until I'm just at the point of cumming, then grunt and howl and plunge to the bottom and blast my sperm into the tight warmth deep down inside.

* Sound effects, if authentic, can really heighten the effect. Porn videos just don't do it for me. Too contrived. I have a few audio tapes that do, though, and once in a while I'll put on the headphones while fucking my Pseudocunt. One is a tape I made by concealing the microphone in the headboard of the bed before fucking my wife doggy-style (you should consider trying this; it's incredibly arousing to hear the rutting grunts and screams of a woman you know). The rest are recordings of phone-sex conversations with two former girlfriends -- one in particular, whose panting and gasping and whimpering as she masturbates is truly phenomenal.

* Shed all inhibitions. Admit to yourself that, while this may seem truly bizarre behavior, it feels incredibly good. Get hedonistic. Get totally naked. Or wear leather, or panties and a bra, or clothespins on your scrotum, whatever makes your dick throb and ooze.


If you experience problems with your PseudoCunt, the fault most likely lies in your choice of materials, or lack of attention to proper construction techniques.

Commonly experienced problems usually have simple solutions:

Too hot for comfort

If too hot, allow to cool at room temperature. Don't get impatient and put it in the freezer, or outside in a snowbank. If it cools unevenly, you're in for a very unpleasant surprise.

Not warm enough

If too cool, place jar in a pan of water on the stove and simmer for at least 30 minutes. To spread heat more evenly, make sure the water covers at least 2/3 of the jar, and place a wire rack beneath the jar to raise it off the bottom of the pan. If a glass jar is used, you can heat it in a microwave oven for a minute or so. [This procedure is not recommended if using a waxed cardboard milk carton.]

These heating techniques, by the way, are handy for repeated use of your PseudoCunt between washings, unless you're too squeamish for sloppy seconds.

It's also occurred to me that a hair dryer might be a quick alternative, but I haven't tried this. I'm not sure I could maintain a hardon or a straight face kneeling there naked and blow-drying a jar of spaghetti.

Bits of greasy spaghetti cling to your dick on withdrawal

This is normal. While the problem cannot be eliminated entirely, the effect can be minimized by several means:

1- Make sure spaghetti is packed in VERY tightly.

2- Use a high-shouldered jar (see above) to help keep the spaghetti in place on the out strokes.

3- Make sure hole in Saran Wrap is not too large. Punch, do not cut, this hole to prevent tearing.

PseudoCunt makes distracting slurping noises

You used too much butter, or oil, or both. Or you've gang- banged your PseudoCunt one too many times and you need to clean it out and start over again at Step 2.

Of course, if you want to fantasize about oral sex, this could be regarded as a design feature rather than a problem.

Greasy stains on sofa cushions

My wife responds to greasy stains on upholstery by immediately dumping a big pile of talcum powder on the spill, letting it sit for a while, vacuuming it off later, then calling in a professional furniture cleaner to finish the job. I try to avoid stains by making sure the Saran Wrap is tightly secured with the rubber band, and by spreading a towel over the leading edge of the sofa cushion pile. I'd rather not have to explain PseudoCunt stains to my wife.

Fetid stench

Throw away the spaghetti and wash the damn thing. Unless mold and bacteria growth play an essential role in your sexual fantasies, repeated use of the PseudoCunt is not recommended beyond, say, 24 hours. Refrigerate after use.


No, I'm not a social outcast or a phobic recluse. I have a normal sex life (pretty fabulous, actually) so I should explain why I continued to experiment with masturbation techniques in adulthood, long after abandoning the clumsy remedies most teens invent to draw off excess spunk. One reason is simply that I'm a very sensuous person with a vivid imagination. I've found that I can occasionally attain amazing heights of sexual arousal when I masturbate. At the risk of sounding immodest, I've induced some of the best orgasms I've ever had. Another reason is that I am aware of absolutely no physical or psychological reasons not to masturbate, and can't help wondering if the world might not be a better place if more people did. Whether they use fists or balloons or spaghetti.

Finally, it provides a fabulous way to indulge certain sexual fantasies that just can't be shared no matter how skilled and understanding one's lover may be. Know what I mean? If you're inclined to give this thing a try, I hope it enhances your own secret fantasies as much as it does mine. If you have a technique of your own, write it up and post it for others to share. If you find the whole concept disgusting, why did you read this far?

Author Stephen King, dead at 54 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2133576)

I just heard sad news on talk radio - Horror/fiction writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine house this morning. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't read his books you've probably enjoyed one of his movies. Truly an American icon.

Re:Author Stephen King, dead at 54 (2)

The Gline (173269) | more than 13 years ago | (#2154547)

Yes, just like the last six times he died. Tsk.

Actually, the sad thing is... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135149)

He's only 53 still.

Huh? (3, Informative)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 13 years ago | (#2134277)

Wonder how SGI feels about that.

SGI was the first major company to offer Linux with their systems. Also, I heard from a co-worker that SGI is working on an Itanium-based cluster (64x64)... probably for a redering farm. I don't have any URLs for this, however.

I think if IBM plans to "penetrate" the rendering market, they will have to compete with SGI still. Not because of the O/S (since they will both run Linux), but the fact that SGI has always had superior I/O and bus speeds compared to most other machines. The first x86-based SGI machines used Intel Xeon processors, but they redesigned the I/O. They were able to get a 50% performance increase from the system by tweaking the I/O.

Linux and Digital Content Creation (3, Informative)

WombatControl (74685) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135148)

Already Alias|Wavefront has ported Maya (their flagship 3D software and the most commonly used package for movie animation) to Linux. The Pixar Renderman rendering engine is already ported to Linux. Basically, everything a studio would need is already ported to Linux. Softimage also has ported their software to Linux as well.

In other words, IBM is *way* behind the curve on this... Linux is already an integral part of 3D animation, and with the release of Maya 4 and it's Linux port, this trend is definately going to continue. Using off-the-shelf, inexpensive hardware for both workstations and render farms makes a lot of sense, and Linux is perfect as an extensible UNIX-based OS for animation purposes.

Re:Linux and Digital Content Creation (1)

The Ape With No Name (213531) | more than 13 years ago | (#2124661)

Another cool thing: Renderman uses Perl for scripting and (I beleive) Python too.

Good article in Linux Journal This month (1, Informative)

sp0rch (470244) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135752)

DreamWorks Features Linux and Animation [] /me wants one of those renderfarms (try and keep up with my seti packets :) )

SGI will be fine (3, Interesting)

xwred1 (207269) | more than 13 years ago | (#2135845)

There's a guy that goes to my LUG who works for SGI, some sort of promotional manager or something.

He told us SGI is very dedicated to Linux because it provides a standardized OS across platforms, which is what alot of their customers have wanted over the years.

Its also supposed to play into their Intel strategy, because as a customer grows, and moves up SGIs product line, they pretty much just need to recompile their apps to have them run on the faster hardware.

I suspect that Sgi will like having the rendering move onto Linux, although they may dislike having Sgi boxes replaced by IBM boxes.

Wonder how SGI feels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2136012)

Well, SGI IS moving towards Linux too, so I think they might be pleased! Now, their reacation to _IBM_ rendering farms is a bit different.

fuck it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2137989)

yup I think so

DVD support (5, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 13 years ago | (#2138845)

If the hollywood studios use the dvd's in their linux rendering boxes to view their latest CG work, will they have start writing themselves threatening e-mails?

SGI probably feels just fine. (5, Interesting)

Raptor CK (10482) | more than 13 years ago | (#2138987)

As the article says, and we should all remember, SGI's also selling Linux boxes now.

It's easier to go with something that's being worked on by the Open Source community, since you can be pretty sure that any Open project with sufficient momentum will get the major kinks out over time. Besides, it's easier for SGI than to keep on supporting IRIX, which has had its own fair share of disaster stories.

It's going to go back to a hardware battle, and this is where IBM may not be ready to compete. Using Linux is nice, but what about render times? What about the overall architecture? Are these IBM boxes going to beat out SGI in price and performance?

If so, then SGI should worry. Linux has nothing to do with it.

Re:SGI probably feels just fine. (2)

bfree (113420) | more than 13 years ago | (#2120115)

SGI probably feels a lot better than fine considering they have been working and porting on Linux for years. What is the alternative, watch everyone move to Windows (I can see them forking out $200,000 for Win 200 licences for their 1024 PC render farm). SGI stated a long time ago that they liked Linux and that they were going to work with it. I think SGI and IBM are in competition here alright, but never forget that while IBM will provide lots of hardware, SGI has the high-end software expertise that Hollywood needs so they will be secure for a long while to come. I imagine you could see design houses with SGI workstations, IBM fileservers and a large cluster of commodity machines to do the dog work. This is roughly what happened (can't remember who provided the fileservers though) for Final Fantasy. IBM and SGI are targeting slightly different markets here still and I am fairly confident they will work extremely hard to ensure cross-compatability (where feasible) because they both want this market and would much rather share with each other than see themselves swamped if MS ever got a foothold.

OT: Death of Loki (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2139401)

Loki, a company devoted to porting popular Windows games to the Linux platform, filed for bankruptcy protection early this week. Although this may look like the official death of Linux as desktop alternative, posters on Slashdot insist that this is all "good news" for Linux enthusiasts.
Owing millions of dollars in licensing fees to various game developers, Loki failed to find a market selling games to people who are not used to paying for software. It seems the company could not convince enough game enthusiasts to shell out another fifty bucks for a Linux version of a game they already own for Windows.
Most of the posts on Slashdot mourned the loss of a another Linux-friendly company. Although this was one of many Linux bankruptcies in the past few months, users of the operating system maintain that the desktop OS war has already been fought and won ... by Linux ... dammit.
Slashdot prides itself on the open-mindedness of its readership and the lively egalitarian debates held on its pages. For example, in response to one post questioning the need for Linux as a mainstream desktop operating system, a user responded with a mature and reasoned post:
"Fuck the shut up, all of you! I'm writing a bot to make sure that any anti-Linux poster gets banned from /. or at least modded down. All of your negativity is getting in the way of our free and open forum."
It is fortunate that the Linux community has such an open and democratic forum to vent their frustrations [if they were frustrations, which they certainly aren't]. Just as Henry Ford offered the public a panoply of colors for his early automobiles as long as they were black, Slashdot accepts the entire spectrum of opinion on issues of open source and the free software movement.
"You are all a bunch of ridiculous fucktards," wrote a user named Anonymous Coward. "To all of you FUD-mongers who see Linux only as a server OS only, you should troll someplace else. You are not wanted here in our welcoming community. Slashdot is all about freedom of speech. So, shut the hell up before I use my various /. Logins to flame you into oblivion!"
The quality of opinions expressed on Slashdot have remained high even as the quantity of posts grows exponentially. The reason for the sudden rise in traffic may have something to do with the increase in the amount of free time the average dot-com worker has these days.
Since Slashdot as much a game as message board [users are objectively "scored" on every post], some have devised tricks to get their comments moderated up. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to pick a random quotation and plug in the appropriate proper nouns for instant wisdom.
"Loki is dead." wrote one poster. "Long live Loki."
"I come here to bury Loki, not to praise them."
"Forst Pist," added another. "All your base are belong to us!"
All told, the Linux community is upbeat [and not at all defensive] about the recent round of set-backs [if you want to call them that, because they're not "set-backs" at all].
In the aftermath of Loki's demise, however, Linux users will always have their old stand-by to fall back on: playing stolen Windows games.

Re:OT: Death of Loki (1)

franksbiyatch (227234) | more than 13 years ago | (#2114025)

A -1 for offtopic? Wow. Somebody's got some issues. You can bury the post, but you can't bury the truth!

You're welcome (2)

tenzig_112 (213387) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143635)

When you post material verbatim from, you should at least say "thank you" and include the paragraph tags to make it easier to read.

News? (4, Interesting)

jfedor (27894) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139580)

AFAIK, both Titanic and Shrek were rendered on Linux. (They were using Alphas in Digital Domain and Intels at PDI to do it.)

Furthermore, PDI is using Linux *on the desktop* since early 2001.


Re:News? (1)

M-G (44998) | more than 13 years ago | (#2133797)

Yep. Linux Journal just did a cover story [] on the rendering for Shrek. Went into pretty good detail on the custom tools that Dreamworks is using.

It's not a surprise for SGI (1)

General888 (514690) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139613)

I don't think SGI likes that at all, but they have anticipated it. As probably everyone knows they've been developing their stuff on Linux for quite some time now getting ready for this kind of things.

Of course SGI would've liked everyone to use their machine and OS. They would get better profits that way (in a way it's a bit comparable to what Apple is doing, closed platform better revenues). But they saw this decline years ago and knew they gotta change. Probably everyone remembers they were supposed to build their own NT boxes. Good thing they got into their senses and got into Linux. I think this will make everyone happy. Linux will benefit from the push, and SGI has a good platform that's widely available on different architectures.

I thought it was a shame when SGI started to move to other OSs as I like IRIX and their machines had that geeky factor. But in retrospect, they did a very smart move.

Linux Yes, IBM....No. (2, Informative)

MrEntropy (75478) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140297)

I work in the FX industry and previously worked at SGI. IBM is correct, we are moving towards Linux. Partially because it is open source, perhaps more because it is Unix like and doesn't require a big workflow change. Mostly however, because it is cheap. FX is a little to no margin cutthroat business. If any of us makes a 5% profit, it's been a pretty good day. Commodity hardware like Intel platforms will help keep costs down, but they typically won't be name brand machines. They will be build it yourself, pick your graphics card and keep it cheap type machines. I have seen some major companies use HP, as they were one of the first to have support for Linux and partnered with Side Effects Software. However, there is no loyalty and I'm sure that those companies on the next round of buying will be purchasing generics. It has to be, economics dictates it.

As far as SGI, I don't think any in the big FX houses will ever take them seriously again after the 320/540 Visual Workstation debacle. It is hard to say if they will be supporting the product you just bought in six months because they change their business model so often.

Entropy Rules

SGI says this... (2, Insightful)

kirkb (158552) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140388)

IRIX is the most scalable, feature-rich, high-performance OS available. For high-end scalability, big I/O performance, real-time performance, and superior graphics capabilities, IRIX is the premier choice. No OS, including Windows® 2000, Linux®, or Solaris®, is capable of matching IRIX in these respects.

(from .html)

Re:SGI says this... (2, Informative)

dmelomed (148666) | more than 13 years ago | (#2114604)

These applications are CPU bound. The OS of choice won't be doing much at all. As long as your machine is fast enough, the OS choice becomes a matter of preference. Solaris, *BSD, Linux, IRIX, HP/UX, even Mac OS X will do fine here. It's a cluster where application for rendering is parallelized (MPI/PVM type libraries). Or distributed, where the same application runs on a different data set on each machine. In any case, the OS is not a bottle neck, the hardware is. You only run a handful of processes, and you're not doing much I/O (unless it's fluid dynamics you're modeling, where I/O is important).

Re:SGI says this... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2132832)

In any case, the OS is not a bottle neck, the hardware is.

Yep, that's why the move to Linux is smart for a lot of these companies. They can get a bunch of dirt cheap intel boxes and throw linux on them, instead of purchasing a less than cheap SGI box. True, the SGI box is real hardware and will perform better, but now that Intel boxes are so cheap and the performance difference isn't that great, Linux on cheap hardware makes sense.

Replacing Unix systems - what about NT?! (1)

hey (83763) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140458)

OK, so Linux is replacing some Unix boxes. That's a no brainer. I want to hear about it replacing NT boxes - now that would be exciting.

And this is good? (5, Interesting)

karmawarrior (311177) | more than 13 years ago | (#2141984)

This is the same hollywood that's absolutely 100% against any mainstream efforts to allow Linux users to watch DVDs, because of an obsession with protecting the long term copyrights of movies that, normally, are profitable within two years of the scriptwriter tapping out the first line? (A profitability unheard of in virtually any other industry, where it's rare that a company is making more than it spends within 3 years of opening, and even longer to return the initial investment.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favour of copyright infringement, but the notion that it should be illegal to watch Dr Strangelove on a Linux box because movie makers are obsessed that someone might use knowledge gained from the movie playing software to make a copy of the film, is absurd in the extreme.

I don't want to see Linux helping an industry that is so negative about open source and ideologically committed to its destruction. I don't want to see Linux helping an industry that lobbied for laws that effectively put the major art form of the 20th Century behind an electronic curtain leading to a situation where we may even lose much of what's important by the end of the 21st. An industry that has consistantly lied, even in court, about the motives of those wanting to break the encryption, and whose products appear to be increasingly designed to prevent consumers having any control or rights whatsoever of things they've paid money for.

I can't prevent it from happening, that's what a free operating system is all about after all, but I can say that those who help Hollywood in this fight and provide open source solutions to them, are a bunch of slimeballs, and insofar as we have a community, they should be blackballed from it.

Sorry, strongly expressed I know, but it's something I feel particularly angry about.

Re:And this is good? (1)

gid (5195) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139722)

This is the same hollywood that's absolutely 100% against any mainstream efforts to allow Linux users to watch DVDs

No, it's not the same Hollywood. The one's against DVDs under linux are the MPAA. The one's who are going to/might use linux are the backend movie production people, or whatever. IBM are the people who are making it possible by releasing cool software.

I don't want to see Linux helping an industry that is so negative about open source and ideologically committed to its destruction.

On the contrary, I'd love to see Linux help the movie industry out. Because if they do, then the movie industry might actually see how great linux is and be much more kind to us (the linux community) in general. The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make friends with him, not through force and violence.

I can't prevent it from happening, that's what a free operating system is all about after all,

No you can't, thank god.

Also please try to keep in mind that Hollywood and the movie industry contains two types of people, lawyers, and not lawyers. So please just be mad at the MPAA, not whole damn industry.

They are different people (3, Insightful)

donutello (88309) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142511)

Firstly, "Hollywood", or rather the movie copyright holders are not against allowing users to watch DVDs on Linux. They are against the DVD protection being cracked. They are also against free players where they don't make any money out of the deal. They have created the format and expect to make money off any players. There are mainstream efforts to create Linux DVD players by companies who have licensed the format. Secondly, the people who hold the copyrights to those movies are NOT the same people that create the special effects. People get hired to do the special effects for films, which they do either for a flat fee or a cut of the profits or some combination thereof. They don't make any decisions about distributing the movie and leave that up to the distributors. Of course you could have learned all this if you had simply taking Thinking 101.

They are the same people (1)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 13 years ago | (#2119264)

Now - Since they are using Linux (GPL) to create software, why is a moive not GPL too? Yes - a moive is software. the hardware for a moive on film is the projector. (hw=projector, media=film, sw=moive) On DVD... hw=player, media=dvd, sw=moive

DreamWorks is already using Linux (1)

Count Fecal (416007) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142064)

According to Linux Journal:
  1. At PDI/DreamWorks the renderfarm used for Shrek has a 1,000+ processors, 80% Linux and 20% IRIX.

    DreamWorks Features Linux and Animation []

Great! (2)

Captain_Frisk (248297) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142112)

Its good to see big business start to recognize the power of open source. No when will i get to see some big name open source 3d rendering apps?

Re:Great! (2, Interesting)

Fizzlewhiff (256410) | more than 13 years ago | (#2124925)

Try Blender [] . It's a very good and very powerful 3D modeler and rendering tool. You might also want to take a look at BMRT [] . It is a very good rendering tool/ray tracer. You've probably seen it's work in A Bug's Life, Stuart Little, and Hollow Man [] .

There's probably other modelers and user interfaces from BMRT and POVRay. They may not be what George Lucas uses but they aren't shabby. I've seen some amazing stuff done in Blender and it is FREE.

Re:Great! (1)

General888 (514690) | more than 13 years ago | (#2125504)

Have you checked out OpenFX [] ?

It seems nice by the web-page, but I haven't taken a look into it yet. Would like to hear some opinions though.

when you get off your fat ass (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2139802)

and write one yourself

and this silly "guess how to get a post through the lameness filter" game sucks.

Re:when you get off your fat ass (0, Troll)

greenrd (47933) | more than 13 years ago | (#2128734)

It's not a good idea to tell people to "write one yourself" when they already exist, now is it, mr. troll?

Re:Great! (1, Flamebait)

FaRuvius (69578) | more than 13 years ago | (#2140896)

You will never see powerful 3D apps that are open source. There is too much money in the development, plus the licensing of codecs would make the most useful parts inaccessible.

If you want one, write it yourself. Oh you can't?
Well theres your answer.

Re:Great! (2)

Captain_Frisk (248297) | more than 13 years ago | (#2115704)

doesn't mean i can't dream. Seriously, are there any decent freeware 3d programs out there besides povray and its clones?

Re:Great! (3, Informative)

MikeTheYak (123496) | more than 13 years ago | (#2132852)

Radiance [] comes immediately to mind for open source. Not-so-open source programs like Blender [] and BMRT [] are also good.

Re:Great! (2, Informative)

B1 (86803) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139581)

Take a look at Blender [] .

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2141900)

Blue Mountain Rendering Tools (BMRT) is a Renderman compliant rendering solution.

BMRT is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2125505)

Blue Moon Rendering Tools

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2141983)

What you probably mean is "free software 3D rendering apps". Simply "open-sourceness" wouldn't made an app any more available for you. You could buy a commercial package right now.

Maya as open source? Probably not. (1)

Styx (15057) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142275)

Well, I doubt you'll see much from Alias/Wavefront [] as open source anytime soon :-)
Still, it'll be nice to see some good modelling packages (other than Blender [] ) on Linux.
But we might see some of the other software, developed by the studios/FX shops, used for modelling and rendering, released as open source.
That would be nice.

Re:Great! (-1)

l33t j03 (222209) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143249)

While we are offering our congratulations to IBM, worshipping them and what not, we should also thank them for dropping the AMD processor from their PC lineup. Now that they have an Intel-only product offering we'll all be a lot safer. The fewer marginal quality machines attached to the internet the better, I know I wouldn't want one running my favorite site.

The real advantage... (2)

The Gline (173269) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142500)

...comes from buying a whole slew of cheap machines, throwing Linux on them and BMRT, then using them as the render farm.

But what's most of the modeling being done on? That's what I want to know. Probably either SGI workstations or NT/2K...

fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2142592)

fuck linux

Re:fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Captain_Frisk (248297) | more than 13 years ago | (#2112871)

fuck linux

Sorry buddy. 3rd post for you! Fuck FP Wannabees. Linux is cool. If you don't like linux, why are you even bothering to try to get a first post?

Re:fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2140389)

mod parent offtopic. thanks.

Nope, I Don't Think So (-1, Troll)

egg troll (515396) | more than 13 years ago | (#2142709)

The unfortunate side-effect of trying to produce OpenSource software is that its never as good as commercial software. The reason for this is simple: Are you going to work harder at something you do for free, or something you're getting paid big bucks to do?

As a consequence, OpenSource software will always suck. I know that by going against the mainstream opinion on Slashdot, I'll be moderated down. After all, the truth hurts. Personally, I'd love it if MS went out of business because of Linux. Unfortunately, some Communist OS isn't going to put a dent in MS.

Its time we all click our heels together and head back to Kansas, before we see Linus of Oz for what he really is (and before the Flying Monkey of Alan Cox comes after us!)

Re:Nope, I Don't Think So (2)

michael_cain (66650) | more than 13 years ago | (#2129466)

Actually, what I work hardest on are tools that I need for myself for work/play. In the case of programmers at work, that would be... OS kernel, compilers, debuggers, etc. Areas where the available free software (Linux kernel, gcc) are most competitive with commercial stuff. I would agree with your position in the case of user interfaces-- people who could write a good integrated development tool can probably get by quite nicely without one, so they don't put their effort into the UI.

As for the animation field, I would bet that if there were lots of programmers who did animation as a hobby, there would be free software tools that came quite close to the commercial products in capabilities.

Upstart? (0, Redundant)

gregh76 (121243) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143235)

Why do articles like these still label Linux as an "upstart"? The Linux kernel just turned 10 for God's sake!

IRIX has outlived its sell-by date (1)

Cros13 (206651) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143237)

IRIXis a typical old fashioned unix.Itdoes not evolve at a fast enough rate to keep up with advances in software or the needs of its users. granted it may be extremly scalable but as third party companys scoff at developing software for an OS with a user-base as small as IRIXs the OS does not show its full potential. SGI has moved to wider user base by starting to use Intel IA-32 CPUs(soon IA-64s as well). They should it expand even more by using a mainstream OS. SGIs are incredibly desirable pieces of kit(i saw one when i was 5.dreamed about owning one since). Shame about the OS.

Re:IRIX has outlived its sell-by date (2)

bmajik (96670) | more than 13 years ago | (#2139628)

You are so full of shit.

IRIX has _never_ been typical. IRIX is probably the most advanced unix flavour out there.

So tell me which other unixes support this, out of the box:

1) graphics context management
2) grio
3) DSM
4) 512+ cpu single image

Do I need to go on ?

IRIX doesn't have the installed base of more popular oses for many reasons... however, none of those reasons are due to IRIX being old fashioned and technology-poor.

I'm betting you're still dreaming about owning an SGI, because your post indicates you've never spent much time with one.

duh (1)

Pru (201238) | more than 13 years ago | (#2143337)

wonder how sgi feels.... well my bet is that they just dont care... they will go with IBM and sell linux if thats what is selling...

The plural of "stuff" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2144493)

is still "stuff" because it's already plural. Get it? Was your college mail-order by any chance?

SGI should be pretty pleased about it (1)

mystery_bowler (472698) | more than 13 years ago | (#2145255)

They've already proven that their hardware can generate some pretty snazzy special effects. There will probably be a large contingent of studios that don't want to take the risk of getting the hardware from an unproven outfit, so they'll go with SGI.

Makes me wonder, though, if we'll start seeing more and more "Effects Experts" and companies like IBM sending teams of them to help studios out with getting the hardware going and adding in effects.

WTF is this shit? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2145449)

Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 277191 hours , 19 minutes ago. No need to try again.

The only way Slashdot could get any gayer is by heading out to the Castro in a pair of assless leather chaps and a bikers hat. I'm wicked pissed cause this bug cost me my first post!! :(

Re:WTF is this shit? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2117116)

It cost me a first post once too. I feel your pain ;).

It won't just be SGI that are miffed... (1)

Snootch (453246) | more than 13 years ago | (#2154228)

...if I remember from the credits, Toy Story 2 was rendered on Sun boxen...(I'm lame, aren't I? I read that stuff... ;-) )

Seriously, though, it's nice to see OSS out in the specialist fields too...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?