Beta
×

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!

FreeBSD used to generate Matrix effects

CowboyNeal posted more than 15 years ago | from the forget-titanic dept.

BSD 149

chris sent in a link to this story which reports on FreeBSD being used on 32 dual-processor machines to render special effects for The Matrix. With 32 dual-processor machines, I doubt there's much that they couldn't render.

cancel ×

149 comments

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

Linux software on freebsd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917475)

From my experience with running Linux apps under emulation on OpenBSD (not FreeBSD), is that the JDK and Quake2 ran faster. So I don't see where a performance hit would come in here. Since FreeBSD is probably more optimized for x86 than OpenBSD, I'd expect emulation of x86 linux apps to be even faster.

64 procs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917476)

It's 64 processors, though. And remember, that's in addition to the SGIs they already had. I believe Titanic only used SGIs for modelling. Anyway, water is hard to do; does "The Matrix" have a lot of that?

Other operating systems, NT means licenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917477)

Not that there aren't other reasons to stay
away from NT, but 32 licenses for 32 machines
would probably make quite a dent in petty cash.

Other operating systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917478)

Considering that Irix is a BSD derivative, perhaps their code used some heavy BSDisms. At any rate, it would probably have taken significantly longer to get things up to speed on NT.

You have no clue. It's not emulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917479)

It's ABI compatibility.
That means it runs full speed, son.
There is 0 emulation done, as their is no need for it.
In fact, Linux threads run FASTER on FreeBSD than on linux because of FreeBSD's kernel.

So maybe you could explain how they take a major performance hit?
Oh wait, i'll just refer to some article that doesn't exist or was written 57 years ago.
That's the ticket.

x86 is taking the lead over other archs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917480)

The fact is that x86 is becoming so powerful lately and the price is so attractive....

You wind up paying 2-5x more for non-x86 hardware for perhaps a 10% increase in speed, and that's only sometimes. In this case the people at "The Matrix" explained that the PII systems were actually faster than the SGI machines.

The funny thing is that if they had announced that they HAD used mostly SGI/Irix boxes, you'd be whining that they _hadn't_ used Linux.

Don't kid yourself.

afaik, ABI == Application Binary Interface (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917481)

ABI means how things are setup in the system, specifically, let's say you want to call a function in libc that the compiler knows nothing about which registers are destroyed and other funky platform specific nits...

An ABI specifies how to pass arguments to function, how the stack is to be setup, which registers are considered volitile and must be restored after a function call. It also specifies the size and alignment of structures.

Is this helpful?

Sour grapes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917482)

:)

Whatever!!x86 is taking the lead over other archs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917483)

Oh yeah those dual PII's are soooo powerfull.
Whatever!

www.alphalinux.org

That wasn't FreeBSD's quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917484)

That wasn't FreeBSD's quote, and what's wrong with enjoying your OS?

Where is misinformation? Please expand on your FUD, there really isn't enough here to mock you successfully.

Just as a fact: it is REALLY easy to script a FreeBSD install, this makes it ideal for a setup and teardown clustering system.

Something must've changed between 2.2.x and 3.x... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917485)

You are correct, most major releases of operating systems show _some_ change. For instance, the new 2.2 Linux kernels finally have a somewhat working NFS impelementation... :)

There are major, MAJOR improvements with 3.x and 4.x, if you want an interesting and harrowing experiance, try 4.0-current, it's quite a trip.

Hardware kiddie, thanks, but not impressed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917486)

Please, you have to be kidding me, here's two things make Alpha a bad platform:

1) gcc/egcs has terrible optimization for it
2) price/performance trade off

If you are going to build a cluster system, why grab the most the overpriced system for a measly gain in performance.

Like I said, other archs may have more performance, but at what cost?

oh, and if you do have alpha...

http://www.freebsd.org/

The alpha port is alive and well.

That wasn't FreeBSD's quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917487)

There's a difference between 'not being able to do it' and 'I believe would do it better'. Being objective, the software used was for *linux*. Now, I understand it isn't really emulation, but the thing is, I dont setup Linux on a sparc to run Sun bins. Just as I wouldn't setup Linux on a x86 box to run windows bins. As for script installs, redhat has had that feature avaible for a while (kick start installation), not sure about other distributions.... Exchanging the 'not possible on other os's' with price comparisons of costs on other os's would have been a better idea in my opinion. Sure it wouldn't beat Linux, but it would kill NT and SGI, and that is the goal at the momment.

API - not the same thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917488)

Please read the:

"afaik, ABI == Application Binary Interface"

for the correct answer.

an API just defines how one is expected to use the programming enviornment, ABI specifies how structures are to be aligned, how to pass arguments to function, what registers mean what...

Other operating systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917489)

I saw the marketshare figures for the last three years. Each year FreeBSD has declined in marketshare. Only NT and Linux have shown growth. Overall, FreeBSD continues to be in freefall as other platforms and systems continue to eat away at what little marketshare freebsd had. The ongoing rise of BeOS may well be the final death knell for FreeBSD.

Could you elaborate on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917490)

Could you elaborate on this?

>
> Exchanging the 'not possible on other os's' with
> price comparisons of costs on other os's would
> have been a better idea in my opinion. Sure it
> wouldn't beat Linux, but it would kill NT and
> SGI, and that is the goal at the momment.

FreeBSD has been known to outperform Linux even when emulating Linux appliacations...

Think of it as OS/2 VS Windows, except that FreeBSD is here to stay.

Chill Out! and RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917491)

To both Linuxers and BSDers, chill out. Why is it that we can't have a positive article about one OS without the other camp bashing it? So they chose BSD, good. Apparently it did the job.


Linuxers: But the article is pure FUD. Certainly FreeBSD couldn't be the best for the job!!!

Well, that's not what was said. From the article: Working with Dell, we purchased 32 of these systems on a Wednesday, and had them rendering in production by Saturday afternoon. It was truly an amazing effort on everyone's part, and I don't believe it would've been possible had we chosen to go with any other Operating System solution.

What they're saying is they couldn't have had things up and running that quickly with any other OS.

Now, as others have mentioned, the guy who set this up is a *BSD guru. I don't doubt for a second that he'd be much better at getting FreeBSD up and running than, say, Linux. Hell, he'd be a fool to try. If they'll both do the job (and I bet they would) go with the one you'll get up and running fastest.


BSDers: Well they chose it because even Linux programs run faster under *BSD's Linux "emulator" than under Linux itself because it has a superior kernel.

This may or may not be true. I doubt it is, but even if it were, we need some evidence. According to one friend of mine who was a Linux->BSD convert, the "emulation" was slightly slower. Not much, but it was. I don't know if it's slower, faster, or the same. Show me some evidence! I want real numbers from real applications. Benchmarks are not acceptable.


In summary, FreeBSD was probably the best choice for them. (RTFA to find out why.) Is it the best choice for everyone? Of course not. Neither is Linux. Neither is WinNT/98/95. Neither is IRIX, AIX or Solaris. It's just good we've got a choice. Let's focus on making that choice more fair (more drivers, software, etc.) and stop worrying so much about whose choice has the fastest this, or the best looking that...

OpenSource Renderings... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917492)

Of course, it could be worse...

They might decide to commit blasphemy and run Linux or FreeBSD on their Suns!

The horror!

SGI Linux turnkey rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917493)

SGI is using Linux as the key to its growth strategy. SGI has some big announcements coming up including Linux/SGI based render farms and animation systems. SGI wants to be one-stop shopping for all your animation needs. Expect the first announcements this week.

Never thought of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917494)

Wow, true or not it does make for an interesting reason to choose *BSD.

Maybe this is why.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917495)

Maybe you should grow up.

Chill Out! and RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917496)

The one item that hasn't been addressed is why freebsd is in so much trouble. That seems to have been glossed over.

Yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917497)

Hey Hey Hey, Teletubbies rocks!!!!

BSD speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917498)

In my experience with OpenBSD (never tried FreeBSD) everything was slower. I switched from Linux to OpenBSD for a few months to try out a free BSD OS.

I did like OpenBSD quite a bit, but I was not very impressed with the speed. Everything seemed to run noticably slower, especially linux apps.

I would have tried FreeBSD, but the install process was not as easy to figure out as the one for OpenBSD (unless installing directly off the net, which was not an option at home over modem)

After a few months, I switched back to linux to be more productive, mainly because I was already used to it and good at most of the things I was using linux for, and was having to spend more time relearning and less time being productive when using OpenBSD.

Overall I enjoyed BSD. But I don't see any real advantages of using OpenBSD instead of linux.

Having multiple OSes to choose from is very good though.

FreeBSD != OpenBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917499)

Could you explain why you chose to look like a clueless weenie on such a large forum...

Unlike Linux, *BSD does NOT have the same kernel, please don't judge FreeBSD with a non related system.

This would be akin to me saying how dog-slow Minix is and saying "but perhaps Linux is better."

Overall I enjoyed Minix. But I don't see any real advantages of using Minix *cough* er, Linux over FreeBSD...

Put down the crackpipe please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917500)

Trouble??? Where???

*notices horde of linux users approaching spitting FUD*

ohhhhhhhh.....

"run away! run away!"

OpenSource Renderings... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917501)

That must be why so many of the new suns are using PC architecture....

Hardware kiddie, thanks, but not impressed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917502)

> 1) gcc/egcs has terrible optimization for it

Right now Alpha doesn't have the compilers to do the job well but in the very near future compaq will be releasing their ported DU compilers for Alphalinux and their cost will range from very little to nothing. So that's on the way.

2) price/performance trade off

How does complete Alpha systems running at 500 -
800 Mhz starting at under $1000 sound? It'll be
a reality very soon.

>If you are going to build a cluster system, why >grab the most the overpriced system for a measly >gain in performance.

Measly? Yeah, tell the guys at Digital Domain that.

>Like I said, other archs may have more >performance, but at what cost?

The cost is comming down drasticly. You're gonna
see Alpha's for around the same price a PII 450 system real soon.

>oh, and if you do have alpha...
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/

I like *BSD and I've used Alphas for years. I like to have a X server too ;)

Teletubbies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917503)

Teletubbies are cool. You can plug a keyboard and ethernet to them and use their built-in monitor.

FreeBSD Ad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917504)

It's a Press Release, didn't you see? That's how PRs are written, and that's their purpose. Read a few Linux PRs and tell me it's any different...

BSD speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917505)

Well, you need to understand that Free|Net|OpenBSD all use a different kernel. It's not like different Linux distros which all use the same kernel and a different set of userland tools.

That said, the entire FreeBSD system from the kernel to the userland tools has been optimized for x86 machines.

I personally have used Free|Net|Open all on a 486 DX2/80. Open was the slowest, painfully so. Free was by far the fastest, and Net fell somewhere in between.

Finally, understand that each of the BSD's has a different focus. FreeBSD is optimized toward the x86 machines, specifically towards server applications (although it still makes an excellent desktop OS), NetBSD's goal is to run on every different arch under the sun, and finally Open's goal is to provide the most secure, out of the box BSD (or any UNIX) for that matter that you can find.

Knowing that you should go and give them all a second look.

http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.netbsd.org/
http://www.openbsd.org/

Good luck.

Actually, it was Renderman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917506)

Actually, the 3D Rendering software they used was Renderman, not POVray.

It's about getting up to speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917507)

The line refers to how fast they could get from receiving the computers to have them all working. It must have something to do with not having to tweak arcane nameless settings in /proc to optimize memory usage, or something. Obviously, a Linux guru could get them up and running just as fast, but there is a steep curve in learning how to tweak Linux.

Me, I think tweaking FreeBSD is much easier, but that's just IMHO. My point is that they thought it easier, and that makes it so for them.

It is true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917508)

Read again. They couldn't have the computers up and running so fast with any other OS. NT? Installing and tuning NT might be easy, doing so for 32 identical machines is quite tedious. Linux? Don't get me wrong, but Linux requires much more tuning than FreeBSD, and /proc is not exactly accessible or user-friendly. Same goes for Solaris, though because of the shear amount of tuning required.

it's cause they make money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917509)

Linux is generating profits for the some of the most important names in computing hardware and software. Here is a very incomplete list of Linux moneymakers: Corel, IBM, Informix, Oracle, Sybase, SGI, HP, Dell, Compaq, Cisco, Cobalt, Red Hat, Cyclades, Caldera, Pacific High Tech, Applixware, and Star Office. Companies from Hilton Hotels to the U.S. Postal Service, to the German National Lottery, to Virgina Power, are among the thousands of customers that rely on the power and rock-solid performa> Linux in mission critical systems.

There is no need for kludgey ``emulation layers'', because Linux software is supported by its vendors natively on the the raw hardware. This native software support devoid of kludges ensures that the Linux customer has the most stable and bugfree system possible. Linux is the Enterprise OS thanks to its support by the biggest and most respected names in enterprise computing. When it's time to make money, it's time to check out Linux. Linux. [calderasystems.com]

FreeBSD not that stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917510)

For some applications it is important that your OS be rock stable. It has been our experience that FreeBSD device drivers are not as mature as they should be. Due to system crashes under FreeBSD we were forced to move our mission critical server to Linux. So far Linux RAID drivers have proven much more stable. We have never had a crash under Linux (something that we can not say about our trouble with FreeBSD).

FreeBSD Ok... I'll give it a try... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917511)

As a result of getting lashed out at as a result of my OpenBSD observations, I'm downloading the lastest stable FreeBSD. (3.1) and am going to try it out.

Then I'll see for myself if all the ranting and raving is just hot air, or if you guys are really serious. If I like what I see performance wise on a workstation, I give it a try on a firewall/ internet router. (Currently that machine is a Linux IP masquerading box)

it's cause they make money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917512)

Have you *EVER* read the GPL? -- You need a lawyer
to understand it and even that may not help to
evaluate it's impact on your project.

Have you *EVER* read a BSD-style licence?
And have you *EVER* read Gartner's analysis about
Linux and BSD?

FreeBSD Ad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917513)

Odd.. having talked to people, and knowing people at USWest, I have never heard freeBSD mentioned.. I have however talked to the admins of several hundred (4-500 i belive) linux workstations at USWest.. (http://nerp.net/ufwest.mp3) (sorry.. had to plug that.. the phone company is allways a love/hate relationship :)

Linux software on freebsd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917541)

Here is a quote of a quote by pestal on the last /. article.

According to Charles Henrich who works for Manex he chose FreeBSD over Linux because he prefers it and found it more stable. I was trying to find his post describing this but the mailing list archive on www.freebsd.org hasn't been updated recently enough. Ooops - I found it, at least one of them. Here's a quote:

Basically we used a collection of 32 Dual Proc P-II/450 systems w/ 1GB of memory and 9GB Ultra2/LVD drives (Dell Precision 410's), as well as 40 MIPS R10k processors (the P-II's in general outperformed the fastest R10k). We used Pixar's Renderman under Linux emulation (yeech, maybe next time I can get them to give me a native FreeBSD port) on the FreeBSD systems. With the exception of some wackyness caused when our renders started to exceed 1GB of memory (FreeBSD got real grumpy then) things were pretty darn smooth. Easily as good as the IRIX machines, , and infinitely more simple to maintain IMHO.

It is a Press Release. It is not a News Report. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917542)

It would be helpful if the students running Slashdot took a journalism course as an elective. People who run "news" sites should know the difference between an advertisement/press release and a true news story. An example of a responsible news site that knows the difference is the Linux Weekly News [lwn.net] . There you will find the hype press releases segregated from true news stories. It is made clear to the reader so that the reader knows s/he is not being suckered by advertizer/advocacy agit prop.

it's cause they make money. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917543)

I'm surprised nobody's commented on the fact that a big reason why a lot of companies like bsd's for their projects like this is that the effects house can take their whole freebsd-based shooting-match, box it up, and SELL it to the next bunch of people who want to buy their rendering-farm franchise.

It's the license. Depending on what you want to do with the product down the line, your choice of operating systems just might come down to "can i sell a product i produced based on this?" With GPL, an entrepeneur's options are limited... especially if the BSD can run the same (non-gpl'd) linux software under emulation... renderman's not gpl'ed...

The Matrix is Awesome! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917544)

The Matrix is the coolest because of the people involved and not because of pieces of hardware or software.

Let's not forget the human factor!

It's the Hong Kong and Kung Fu movie style with the sci-fi and human elements that made this film a successful film.

Maybe this is why.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1917545)

Ummm... might we recall Titanic... I don't remember seeing many (if any) posts on here saying "Guys, this really doesn't mean anything. This could be done on other OSs."

In fact, quite a few people who post on here seem to feel Linux is THE one perfect OS and everything else is worthless and/or flawed.

The media happened to choose Linux as the OS to focus on and consequently it's gotten much more popular. They may have choosen Linux over *BSD at random, there are multiple flavors of *BSD which could make it difficult to focus on one, or because Linux is an entire new thing developed more recently... while *BSD has older roots (although they are all based off of UNIX to some extent). Basically, what I am saying is that this site, and a lot of people on here may be using and advocated *BSD over Linux if it wasn't for all of the media exposure it got. As far as I can tell from using Linux and several BSDs, there really is no large difference between the two that would justify one being much more superior to the other (I am in no way an expert though). Meaning all of the recent things going on could have just as well happened on FreeBSD.

And anyone who judges the quality of an OS by it's more outspoken and biased advocates is a fool. There are plenty of Linux bigots, Mac, bigots, Windows bigots, *BSD bigots, Solaris bigots, etc. The wise thing to do is evaluate the OS for your own personal needs. Does it do what you want it to do? Does it do it better than the other choices available? Does it have the software available for you to do that? (This last one is an unfortunate one for BeOS which may never be able to get off the ground now that Mac OS X, Windows 2000, Win NT5, more user friendly Linux, revival of Amiga (?) are all around the corner).

Good for FreeBSD! (1)

palpatine (94) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917548)

This is definitely good news for FreeBSD. I long to try it out and see its advantages for myself. I currently use Linux, and looking into FreeBSD is always a good idea. Linux helped render Titanic's CGI, and now FreeBSD helped render the Matrix's CGI. This is great for both operating systems!

I don't care too much for the differences between Linux and *BSD. They're both Unix-like systems (*BSD more so), they're both completely Free Software, and they're not Microsoft!

The only thing I noticed about the press release was the fact that they said it wouldn't be possible with another OS. It would probably be possible with Linux, but not practical if the people they hired are more familiar with FreeBSD.

Something must've changed between 2.2.x and 3.x... (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917549)

...because, for example, running the linux binary of Netscape on freebsd 2.2.x was *extremely* slow. Not to mention the shockwave plugin, which was at least 10 times slower than it was on my Linux box (it got like 1 frame per second. I could watch it redraw). I imagine things have changed, though.

(Before people tear my head off for dissing their OS, yes, I did do everything right with regards to setting up binary compatibility, no, the slowness wasn't my fault, and, no, I haven't used 3.x much.)

- A.P.
--


"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

Well... (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917550)

The line that goes something like "we couldn't have done it with any other operating system" seems a little suspicious.

- A.P.
--


"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

Other operating systems (1)

Jeff Lightfoot (413) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917551)

"I don't believe it would've been possible had we chosen to go with any other Operating System solution."

I wish they would have elabortaed on this a bit so that I could understand where Linux would have not worked or explained why FreeBSD shined.

Maybe this is just PR and I should remember that.

Only 32? (2)

HoserHead (599) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917552)

Is that the evolution of rendering algorithms, of computer systems, or the fact that the Matrix required less computational power than Titanic? After all, weren't 100+ Alphas used for Titanic?

POV? I heard it was Renderman. (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917553)

As the subject says. You sure it was POV?

Yay. (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917554)

Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

I don't know if getting credit for such movies as Titanic and The Matrix is really all that great. What's next? Teletubbies?

oi (1)

valis (947) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917555)

[quote]With 32 dual-processor machines, I doubt there's much that they couldn't render.[/quote]

Actually thats a very small amount of power considering the effects in "The Matrix."

Very interesting...

Linux not stable enough (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917556)

Having worked with video on Linux, I see why they went with FreeBSD. Linux got really fast with the memory management in 2.2 but at the expense of stability. Any video compositing, large memory usage, or sneezing for that matter around a Linux box crashes it.

I'd like to see.. (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917557)

I'd like to see a comparison of NetBSD, Linux and even Solaris x86, amongst others, for use in rendering farms.. I'm not sure how much the OS actually MATTERS in these cases, and it would more depend on the software running on the OS then the OS itself.. Most OS's could connect to a network and do something over and over without much of a problem..

Other operating systems (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917558)

I'd like to know what basis there is for that as well.. I'm betting NT could have done it, not to mention Linux, Solaris x86, etc..etc..

FreeBSD Ad? (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917559)

Tell me about it.. I'd like to see some technical information as was published when they used Linux on Alpha's to do the Special Effects for Titanic.. The guy in charge must have been a BSD lover to start with..

Dust in a dirt pile.. (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917560)

Lesse, 32 x 200$, that'd be 6,400$? Now, what was the budget for the matrix? Millions you say? ;-P

Why FreeBSD? Maybe Ports? (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917561)

The 3d Rendering software they are refering to is PovRay, and is available on every platform imaginable, so that was a pretty dumb thing to say..

POV? I heard it was Renderman. (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917562)

Software used = Renderman. Software refered to with 'Thousands of freely available ports, includeing 3D software' = Povray..

Why FreeBSD? Maybe Ports? (1)

BadlandZ (1725) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917563)

The FreeBSD operating system is a powerful, completely open-source system based on the Berkeley Software Distribution of UNIX. It is available free of charge from numerous Internet websites and also on CD-ROM from Walnut Creek CDROM, and includes thousands of ported applications including 3-D graphics rendering and many other equally powerful tools.

That's my guess why. Even if it was just source in ports, something as complex as 3-D graphics rendering software can be a bytch to compile... But, port's always seem to compile.

Linux on the other hand... :-) Well, I must say it's getting a little better lately, and I'll just shut up now...

PovRay Did all of it? (1)

BadlandZ (1725) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917564)

Sorry, didn't know. Didn't read that. Never used it.

Suddenly I Understand.... (3)

BadlandZ (1725) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917565)

"was truly an amazing effort on everyone's part, and I don't believe it would've been possible had we chosen to go with any other Operating System solution."

*SMACK*, suddenly, I understand EXACTLY what FreeBSD users feel like when they read about Linux in the news....

This is impressive, and, they deserve the credit, both the Manex Visual Effects and FreeBSD. If I might add, SGI deserves historic credit for pioneering this stuff (hope they can make a comeback to the way I remember them with thier new Linux/Intel project, and porting OpenGL, etc...)

Dell, well, uh... Dell did deliver the boxes speedy, I guess :-)

Figures... (1)

Exanter (2171) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917566)

You know, it figures that some good press for FreeBSD gets into slashdot, and half of the idiot posters either put the OS or the movie down, because dammit, IT WASN'T LINUX!!

Cripes.

When are idiots like these going to learn that just because the OS name isn't Linux that it doesn't suck. I myself am happy just using Unix, whether it is *BSD, Linux, Solaris, etc... some of you idiots are beginning to sound like Microsoft advocates ("Everything but our OS SUCKS!!!").

Screw world domination for any platform, I'm glad I have a choice.

OpenSource Renderings... (1)

Exanter (2171) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917567)

(start sarcasm)

Yeah, because we all know that solaris is EVIL, and that the PC architecture is SO MUCH BETTER than that of a Sun machine.

(end sarcasm)

cripes...

OpenSource Renderings... (1)

Exanter (2171) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917568)

Um, one word: price. They didn't make the "ultra" sparcs have ide drives and pci buses because they are better than SCSI and S-BUS, respectively. They wanted to get more sparcs on the desktop, and dropping the price (and crippling the systems, in my book) was a good way to do that.

Actually, he's got a point... (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917569)

However, it's one which I see in a lot of platforms. They claim many things but won't (can't?) back it up with anything specific. *BSD users aren't the only culprits of this; all of the Unices do it to each other (though Linux is better about this than most). The Windoze crowd sort of does it too (they do say stuff to back their claims up; it's just that all of it's wrong).

Synopsis (1)

luqin (3559) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917573)

This article appears to be based on a different article that I saw about two weeks or so ago. The original article said that they specifically didn't use linux because it couldn't handle the load or something to that effect. If i find the url, I'll post it.

---

Hardware kiddie, thanks, but not impressed. (1)

Alfred Perlstein (3926) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917575)

note to self, quoting a message on slashdot stinks... :)

>> 1) gcc/egcs has terrible optimization for it
> Right now Alpha doesn't have the compilers to do the job well but in the very near future compaq
> will be releasing their ported DU compilers for Alphalinux and their cost will range from very little to nothing.
> So that's on the way.

That's nice, and the makers of "The Matrix" should have waited for the new compilers or written them themselves?

>> 2) price/performance trade off
> How does complete Alpha systems running at 500 -
> 800 Mhz starting at under $1000 sound? It'll be a reality very soon.

"The Matrix" is already a reality, in business you just can't wait.

>> If you are going to build a cluster system, why
>> grab the most the overpriced system for a measly
>> gain in performance.
> Measly? Yeah, tell the guys at Digital Domain that.

Perhaps the performance gain isn't "measly" but it just can NOT compete price/preformance ratio

>> Like I said, other archs may have more
>> performance, but at what cost?
> The cost is comming down drasticly. You're gonna
> see Alpha's for around the same price a PII 450 system real soon.

Interesting, "The Matrix" came out 2 weeks ago right? So instead of promising all these features... how about using a platform that offers it all right now? Sure alpha is faster and really cool, but when people are concerned about price and performance.....

>> oh, and if you do have alpha...
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/
> I like *BSD and I've used Alphas for years. I like to have a X server too ;)

diffs to get XFree to compile on alpha:
http://www.freebsd.org/~dfr/

Stop with the hype, you can't beat cheap intel hardware for clustering, get over it.

Please research or think twice about responding to my posts. It'll make for more interesting conversation. :)

-Alfred

Other operating systems (1)

Alfred Perlstein (3926) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917576)

Perhaps FreeBSD isn't keeping up with the internet growth, but I doubt that the userbase of FreeBSD is shrinking.

Here, have a cookie, can I have some real statistics now?

Good to see some a BSD "success" (1)

Daeron (4056) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917577)

Feels good to see a BSD-related "success"-story again ... ;-))

It's hard for the Daemon .. to Live in the Shadow of the Penguin ...

and would this actually be my first chance to have an actual first post !?

Linux software on freebsd (1)

dvdeug (5033) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917579)

Charles Henrich uses FreeBSD in preference to Linux. He's contributed code/docs to the project, but he doesn't have commit access. This is a somewhat strange definition of "hardcore freebsd guy" you seem to be using.

No, it seems like a natural one. While contibuting code to a project doesn't mean you're "hardcore" (neither does commit access), it does indicate that's a definite possibilty.

http://advocacy.freebsd.org.... (1)

doomy (7461) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917580)

That URL states it all right :)

--

Linux software on freebsd (1)

doomy (7461) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917581)

If you follow the anonymous posting above by me (see one article above this) you might see the exect posting abot renderman. This was posted on the last freebsd posting (click on more freebsd postings here on slashdot to see that :) )
--

Linux software on freebsd (2)

doomy (7461) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917582)

If i'm nost mistaken the rendering software used was linux based and thus emulated on the freebsd machine. Doing so was just cause the main person in charge was a hardcore freebsd guy and didnt really like going linux. They did sacrifice a lot of preformance due to that (refering to an older /. article on this subject). Also, that article went on to state that if they had freebsd based tools it would have done a better job.


Now, the fact that freebsd was used was just cause the guy in charge has a hardon for it, nothing more nothing less. It would have been different if Rob was in charge of that project. (I believe he'd use Mac OS ;) )
--

Other operating systems (1)

sinator (7980) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917584)

AFAIK IRIX is System V.
I run a FreeBSD system and I have been very satisfied with the performance, btw.

FreeBSD Ad? (2)

Accipiter (8228) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917585)

The FreeBSD operating system is a powerful, completely open-source system based on the Berkeley Software Distribution of UNIX. It is available free of charge from numerous Internet websites and also on CD-ROM from Walnut Creek CDROM, and includes thousands of ported applications including 3-D graphics rendering and many other equally powerful tools. FreeBSD is optimized for use on the Intel x86 processor line that is the heart of today's versatile commodity personal computers. Infinitely customizable, FreeBSD is at the heart of such Internet powerhouse applications as Yahoo! and U.S. West because is unencumbered by commercial license restrictions and can be copied and modified freely.

Is it my imagination, or does this 'article' seem to be more akin to advertising?

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

You have no clue. It's not emulation (1)

Chris M. Costello (8583) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917586)

Normally I hate it when people argue like you do. But at this point, I agree profusely.

It is a Press Release. It is not a News Report. (1)

Chris M. Costello (8583) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917587)

I hope you're not trying to say that there is false information being provided in the press release.

Figures... (1)

Chris M. Costello (8583) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917588)

45% of it is denial.
45% of it is ignorance.
5% is sheer and utter stupidity.
5% is unexplainable/unknown.

That's roughly correct regarding the posts that are against this press release.

I'd like to see more FreeBSD stories on slashdot. Hopefully one of these days those who knock FreeBSD without a very good reason will realize how wrong they were.

Yeah, screw being fair (1)

Chris M. Costello (8583) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917589)

Is it because you're in denial or is it because you're jealous that you (you being all of the people who have had negative comments) decide to post such things about this press release?

I hope to see more FreeBSD-related articles on slashdot.

OpenSource Renderings... (1)

Chris M. Costello (8583) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917590)

Don't worry, when FreeBSD finishes (or starts? I don't know anything about the sparc progress...) its Sparc port, we can have more quality movies made on quality hardware. :)

Teletubbies (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917591)

Aren't you talking about iMacs?


Or are they the same things? ;)

Linux software on freebsd (5)

nikc (11398) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917594)

If i'm nost mistaken the rendering software used was linux based and thus emulated on the freebsd machine.

Correct. Renderman.

Doing so was just cause the main person in charge was a hardcore freebsd guy and didnt really like going linux.

Charles Henrich uses FreeBSD in preference to Linux. He's contributed code/docs to the project, but he doesn't have commit access. This is a somewhat strange definition of "hardcore freebsd guy" you seem to be using.

They did sacrifice a lot of preformance due to that (refering to an older /. article on this subject). Also, that article went on to state that if they had freebsd based tools it would have done a better job.

False. A cite/URL for this /. article would be appreciated so I can respond to its FUD. If you don't have one, please don't bother repeating these allegations, because they're false.

And to others who've pointed it out; the description on this /. post is deceptive -- it's not a story about the Matrix, it's a Press Release (the words "Press Release" in the title of the web page and in the heading should have been a tip off to the more alert amongst you). This is why it's light on technical details. A more detailed story will hopefully be forthcoming for DaemonNews.

N
nik@freebsd.org

FreeBSD vs. Linux (1)

Rayban (13436) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917596)

It's good to see other open-source OS's getting some spotlight too. I love Linux, but BSD is also a really good OS to run. I just hope that one day the war between distros/Linux/BSD calms down to the point where we can all just get along. :)

ABI? (1)

saska (13691) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917597)

What's "ABI compatibility"?

--

OpenSource Renderings... (1)

Amoeba Protozoa (15911) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917598)

It will be a fantastic day when the next Pixar flick is done on an OpenSource platform. Somebody tell 'em to loose those Suns.


-AP

Very Funny (0)

Gerund (17746) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917599)

So many things to laugh about in this one...

The bizarre claim that freeBSD was the best possible OS choice. Somehow I think they might just have done a little better with IRIX/SGI. I mean, that's what it's for. Buy a couple of nice cray systems, go nuts. Why FreeBSD should outdo everything is beyond me. Am I missing something? Or many things?

Linux users (and I am one) getting irritable because someone elses OS gets praised. Stop me if I'm completely crazy, but if this looks to you like a blatant plug for FreeBSD, what must you think when people say nice things about Linux...damn advertising. Can't get away from it...

Any other OS (1)

webster (22696) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917601)

Meaning no criticism of FreeBSD itself, it does no good to an OS to include as absurd a statement as "I don't believe it would've been possible had we chosen to go with any other Operating System solution", even in an advocacy piece. This is so patently false that the kindest thing one could say about the speaker (assuming that he was quoted accurately) is that he had been carried away by his enthusiasm for his favorite OS.

Misinformation is not good advocacy. All it accomplishes is the destruction of credibility. I suggest it would be best for the entire Open Source community if we were to leave such tactics to the commercial world.

FreeBSD not that stable (1)

keepper (24317) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917602)

Just as future advice, for mission crital, and for ANY server that's inportant, you BUILD the machine for the OS, not the other way around.

FreeBSD's raid is quite mature, just does not support every damn card. As a radi example, look at the 12terrabyte raid setup over at ftp.cdrom.com

FreeBSD Ok... I'll give it a try... (1)

keepper (24317) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917603)

You won't be sorry ;) btw, if you want help trying to setup a firewall, router for a small network, try FreeBSD Diary [freebsddiary.com] and also try FreeBSD Zine [freebsdzine.org]

FreeBSD not that stable (1)

keepper (24317) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917604)

Sorry i meant 1/2 terrabyte

Ok this is pathetic... (3)

keepper (24317) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917605)

What the hell has happenned to slashdot, this used to be an INFORMED forum. These days is nothing more than a bunch of kiddies arguing how linux is superior over something they HAVE NEVER USED.



DISCLAMER

( sorry if this offends the people that do not fit in the description above, i know there's a great deal of very smart and knowledgeable people still left here in slashdot and i hope that number grows
because we need you)


On the comparison of "LINUX" Vs " FreeBSD" you are all pretty wrong, FreeBSD is both a Distribution AND a kernel, not one like linux. if you want to compare distributions then go ahead, compare Redhat 5.2 versus fBSD 3.1-RELEASE.

The fact of the matter is that Linux distributions are for the most part ( with the exception of Debian all the way ) still bleeding edge and not the most stable systems without a GREAT deal of tweaking. As you can see from FBSD, this is way different as there are three current distributions
aimed at different purposes. ( -RELEASE , -CURRENT, and --STABLE )

Say all you may, but my experience with both a customized redhat with the 2.2.x kernell versus a 3.1 -RELEASE has shown me that FreeBSD still handles networking load quite better than a normall linux distribution. How can i tell this...
well, from about 25 hsoting servers that i administer. a great deal of them started as Linux boxes but, we only needed to test one freeBSD machine with the load of TWO linux boxes and we were converts.

as for the linux emulation in freeBSD....
first, is not "emulation " persay, is much more closer to what wine does, which is binary compability. To this day linux threads still perform better in FreeBSD. Of course some things are a bit slower, but , hey, this are things that were not originally aimed at freeBSD, is a god damn good show at the prowness of FreeBSD programmers.

I love linux, i use it a smy personal workstation at both home and work, but there's no question in my mind that in terms of squeezing that last drop of performance out of a x86 machine, fBSD does it much better than linux. Not only is the kernel more mature, but, even linux zealou shave to agree with this, linux distributions to date just plain suck ( for lack of a better word).
I mean, when was the last time you used a system as clean as the ports collection ... when was the last time you TOTTALY rebuilt all the programs in your system quite flawlessly with one command.

Linux has a lot of promise, but , FreeBSD still handles load better, because it is a kernel totally tuned for the x86 arch.

Maybe this is why.. (1)

rullskidor (27874) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917607)

Maybe this is why so many(at least some) feel BSD sux, not to bring up the previous BSD discissions again but BSD people are very bad at proving their os is as good as they say, and they never fail to promote it as THE BEST in the world.

I for one beleve it definitley could be done with any UNIX system, especielly linux but any would do just as well, hell maybe even NT or Win95 or MacOS could have done it, the BSD attitude is the thing that is damaging BSDs reputation most I would say...

Well, i guess I should know betten than get offended by this but...............

Good to see some a BSD "success" (1)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917609)

Agreed.
*BSD is an extremely valuable resource.
One size does NOT fit all.
Expect to see a transition: NT to Linux to *BSD.

API (1)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917610)

Application Program Interface.
This is how the application program interfaces to the operating system.
AFAIK, *BSD can be compiled to accept system calls from native SystemV and Linux binaries.

API - not the same thing. (1)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917611)

Thanks for the correction.

Software? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917612)

hi,
What type of software was used for these profesional projects? I heard they had renderman running on the freeBSD boxes. What did they use for the modeling? SGI stuff?

Linux software on freebsd (1)

schon (31600) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917613)

Can you tell me what software they used? - was it a commercial product,
or someting OSS-like?

Very nice..... (1)

flesh99 (32039) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917614)

Great article, and good pblicity for OpenBSD, however the length of the article was lacking, as was the whole of it. It lacks mention of the software used for the rendering, the technical aspects of the systems udes versus the SGI's. All around it look like a newsbyte not an article. Even though it was on the FreeBSD advocacy site, you'd think they would have hyped the programs used or maybe the technical superiority of FreeBSD.
________________________________________ ________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99

Other operating systems (1)

flesh99 (32039) | more than 15 years ago | (#1917615)

I know NT couldn't have done it. I work for a large company and all of our CAD and rendering work is done on Unix/Linux machines because our NT evaluation showed that it crashed to frequently, did not handle multiple processors as well as Unix/Linux based solutions. The software available for NT is by no means comprable to the software available for other OSs. So in answer to at least one of your suggestions, nope NT could not have handled it.
_____________________________________________ ___________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>