Linux everything! Who's Interested?

[JurijTurnsek]

There's a fairly new (since 2011) cross platform open source video editor: Shotcut - http://www.shotcut.org

Seems like it is in early stages so far, but it looks promising.

Thanks for the link. I am using Kdenlive and I only miss a more sophisticated clip speed feature - variable speed, interpolating etc. Does Shortcut have it? Also, I need proxy clips, since my current setup struggles with AVCHD files (don't laugh) that have effects applied.

[IronFilm]

HitFilm on Linux would be great!!

Post your thoughts about this over in the HitFilm user group as well:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/426174967509293/

[sunyata]

And Lightworks is available for Ubuntu or Fedora/RHEL/CentOS as a $25 per month pro license option with no obligation, just quit when the job is done. I just used it for a show (using CentOS 6) where I had to go through a season of episodes, primarily to make batch lists for pulls. It allows you to create rolling cue points with name and timecode, then you can use those cues to create subclips or export a spreadsheet, which was exactly what I needed for editorial. I was also able to create custom clip overlays as templates with my reference name, source timecode in h:m:s, subclip runtime in frames, source reel name etc. Very intuitive interface.

[dahlfors]

Thanks for the link. I am using Kdenlive and I only miss a more sophisticated clip speed feature - variable speed, interpolating etc. Does Shortcut have it? Also, I need proxy clips, since my current setup struggles with AVCHD files (don't laugh) that have effects applied.

I honestly don't know, I just found out about the software and it seems useful, so I thought I'd post it here. Since I have CC at work I'm a Premiere user myself.

[tupp]

FYI, there is no free version of Resolve for linux, not even the $995 one. The only Resolve that works with linux is the full blown setup which is well beyond free. 

Oh my! It appears that you are right. That could be a deal breaker for me. Let's hope Resolve 12 is different.

 

A Linux beta of Resolve 12 is available as a free download.

[tupp]

As a desktop replacement, it's still very rough and has an amateur / unpolished look and feel compared to Windows and OSX. Desktop business apps are also far behind Windows and OSX.

Not really.

 

I first used Linux when it initially came out (mostly Redhat)- it was pretty cool being able to use a Unix-like OS on a PC. After a while interest wore off as it wasn't that useful except for mostly back end tasks or Unix-only apps. Cygwin brought Unix elements to the PC, and OSX is a Unix flavor (Mach/Darwin).

Yes.  This is the typical FUD scenario -- early adopter of Red Hat, then got disinterested.  I've never used Red Hat.

 

 

As a developer, I think it's important for people to pay for software, even on-going 'rental' fees as long as there are frequent updates. We need to pay for rent/mortgage/food/insurance/utilities/gas etc. too.

That's fine.  I would rather have open source and free software.

 

 

While it's possible to 'get by' with free software, the best software is paid software.

Disagree wholeheartedly.  With open source and free software, I can do almost anything that can be done with proprietary software.  Furthermore, open source software often can do more than proprietary software, as a lot of the innovation occurs in open-source code.

 

I would rather use software from a coder who is enthusiastic than from one who is merely drawing a paycheck.

[sunyata]

I think jcs is speaking from the perspective of writing commercial desktop software and trying to sell copies, which is not the only way to make a living as a programmer. You could use GNU/Linux and work for Google for example and retire at 30 with stock options? Okay, maybe 40.

[jcs]

Money isn't real- it's simply an accounting system to track who puts valuable energy into the system of society. Work is converted to energy (money) which may then be converted into goods and services, or back to work by others. In the case of open source software, written by people in their spare time or contributed to by professionals using the software in commerce, there isn't currently any open source software which matches or exceeds purely commercial software for productivity and/or business applications. If GIMP works for you that's cool, but it's not nearly as powerful as Photoshop. For NLEs, Premiere is the fastest and most powerful right now, with FCPX being the best bang for the buck. Avid is still very valuable in some markets. Resolve is pretty cool, but still a long way from being able to replace Premiere or FCPX (unless one is doing fairly simple edits and audio). Audacity is a long ways from Audition and Protools. There's still nothing that can compete with the Microsoft Office Suite. The online google apps are pretty cool, but unfortunately buggy. If there's a single open source / free package that matches or exceeds the best commercial software, it would be interesting to hear about it, as it would put the paid software out of business.

Designing and writing quality software is hard. Open source software is very useful, however the code quality and especially the product design can't match paid professionals. If this was possible, all commercial software would become obsolete. This could happen with a worldwide change in 'accounting for work exchanged for energy (money)', however software developers still need to eat and can't do so working for free software. Google makes its money from ads, so a side effect is being able to work on software which it can give away for "free" except it's not really free. Everyone pays for it ultimately through products and services they must pay for, which uses advertising and those costs are factored into the purchase price. Resolve isn't free either- it's advertising for Blackmagic's software and hardware (the full versions cost $$$).

If one invests time and money (energy) into a film, with the intention of recovering their costs and them some (to pay for food, shelter, etc., and fund future movies), it makes sense that they would seek to sell the work vs. giving it away. Many people feel it's OK to steal music, movies, and software too. Because it's easy to do so and the chances of being caught are negligible. How would such people feel if armed men came to their homes and started taking their food, material possessions, and kicked them out of their homes? In some parts of the world this happens and there's no stable order to protect the citizens, so the people deal with it the best they can (ultimately risking their lives to fight the 'pirates'). It's not honorable to steal, since possessions and money are only held via accounting, there's no difference between stealing physical objects or digital objects, as people put energy into the system to create them, and it makes no difference if there is no cost to 'copy' vs. haul something away in a truck. If everyone adopted a pay for nothing attitude then no one would be left to do any work to create anything interesting (such as movies, music, software) or necessary (like food, water, shelter).

I never stopped using Linux for work projects. I currently using Ubuntu and Debian, working with the ffmpeg libraries and other video and image processing libraries. This is where Linux and open source shine. For productivity and desktop apps, Windows and OSX provide much higher quality software, especially for image, audio, and video content creation.

Free is an illusion. Just like money. Nothing is free and money isn't real.

[tupp]

In the case of open source software, written by people in their spare time or contributed to by professionals using the software in commerce, there isn't currently any open source software which matches or exceeds purely commercial software for productivity and/or business applications.

Saying it doesn't make it so.  Sorry, but I gotta call BS.  There is plenty of open source software which exceeds proprietary software in commerce -- open source is usually more concise, efficient and more innovative.

 

Furthermore, there are countless of professionals working full time on tons of open source software.

 

Let's consider one of the most proprietary software providers in "commerce" -- Oracle.   Ask users of Oracle software if they would rather use open source alternatives, and see what kind of response you get.

 

Productivity?  Please name features (exactly) of proprietary business software that are superior to those in open source.

 

 

If GIMP works for you that's cool, but it's not nearly as powerful as Photoshop.

You mean powerful features in Photoshop, such as Content Aware Fill, 32-bit editing and raw capability?  All of those fundamental features were available in GIMP years before they appeared in Photoshop... YEARS BEFORE.

 

For NLEs, Premiere is the fastest and most powerful right now, with FCPX being the best bang for the buck. Avid is still very valuable in some markets. Resolve is pretty cool, but still a long way from being able to replace Premiere or FCPX (unless one is doing fairly simple edits and audio).

I concede that the proprietary outfits got a head start in NLEs, but open source will catch up fairly soon.

 

Furthermore, Linux proprietary NLEs, compositors (and other production software) have dominated in the past -- Piranha, Maya and Ant (the first RED/4K optimized NLE) come to mind.

 

Also, I wouldn't classify Resolve as an NLE.

 

 

Audacity is a long ways from Audition and Protools.

Please.  Audacity is not as robust as Protools, but free and open sourced Ardour certainly is.

 

 

There's still nothing that can compete with the Microsoft Office Suite.

I hear this a lot, but I have yet to find anything that can be done in Microsoft Office that is not possible in Libre Office.

 

 

If there's a single open source / free package that matches or exceeds the best commercial software, it would be interesting to hear about it, as it would put the paid software out of business.

I just named a few, and there are plenty more (Firefox, Chrome, Android, Linux Distros, BSD projects, etc).

 

 

Designing and writing quality software is hard. Open source software is very useful, however the code quality and especially the product design can't match paid professionals.

Again, just saying that doesn't make it so.  I have given examples in which open source code is superior and more advance than proprietary.

 

There are countless examples in which people are frustrated with proprietary bloatware. and all of the crap that goes with it.  We who use open source software don't suffer any of those problems.

 

Of course, we are not even touching on security, in which open source software has a huge advantage.

 

 

If this was possible, all commercial software would become obsolete.

If that were only true.  Unfortunately, that's not the way it works.  For one thing, you are neglecting FUD.

 

 

This could happen with a worldwide change in 'accounting for work exchanged for energy (money)', however software developers still need to eat and can't do so working for free software.

Again, there are thousands of paid developers who work full time on open source software, plus there are the really ones who code out of enthusiasm for the product.

 

 

Google makes its money from ads, so a side effect is being able to work on software which it can give away for "free" except it's not really free. Everyone pays for it ultimately through products and services they must pay for, which uses advertising and those costs are factored into the purchase price. Resolve isn't free either- it's advertising for Blackmagic's software and hardware (the full versions cost $$$).

As earth shattering as these revelations are, they have no bearing on the quality of software.

 

 

If one invests time and money (energy) into a film, with the intention of recovering their costs and them some (to pay for food, shelter, etc., and fund future movies), it makes sense that they would seek to sell the work vs. giving it away.

Sometimes one invests time and money (energy) in to a film, without the intention of recovering their costs.

 

I do it all the time, because I think that a project is worthwhile or I think that I might get some good footage from the deal.

 

 

 Many people feel it's OK to steal music, movies, and software too. Because it's easy to do so and the chances of being caught are negligible. How would such people feel if armed men came to their homes and started taking their food, material possessions, and kicked them out of their homes? In some parts of the world this happens and there's no stable order to protect the citizens, so the people deal with it the best they can (ultimately risking their lives to fight the 'pirates'). It's not honorable to steal, since possessions and money are only held via accounting, there's no difference between stealing physical objects or digital objects, as people put energy into the system to create them, and it makes no difference if there is no cost to 'copy' vs. haul something away in a truck.

What is your point here and how does it apply to open source software?

 

Are you seriously implying that users and developers of open source software are stealing?

 

 

If everyone adopted a pay for nothing attitude then no one would be left to do any work to create anything interesting (such as movies, music, software) or necessary (like food, water, shelter).

Well, for one thing, those who currently develop open source software would continue creating interesting things.  There are plenty of interesting movies and musical projects which are done on spec.

 

In regards to food, water and shelter, that is another matter which is probably better discussed some philosophy site.  We are talking about open source and Linux production software here.

 

 

Free is an illusion. Just like money. Nothing is free and money isn't real.

Open source software is free.

 

 

[jcs]

Thanks for the tip on Ardour, it looks decent and so is Reaper (more on the midi/recording side; not quite free but almost). However my working professional colleagues won't give up Protools (and can't really- required for high-end features). If Ardour was as good as or better than Protools they'd drop Protools immediately and start saving money.

If Libre Office was better than MS Office, the same thing- anyone in business would save money and stop paying MS. That hasn't happened.

If GIMP was in the same league as Photoshop, all the professionals would save the now monthly fees and stop paying Adobe. That hasn't happened.

Open source hasn't taken over solely due to FUD? Can you share a double-blind study showing that is a statistically significant hypothesis?

When I work in Ubuntu, the UI looks like something designed by non-professionals. It works, but it's clunky and was clearly designed by folks with little or no cognitive science background. OSX has issues as well; Windows surprisingly is looking the best these days. As a developer I use them all, and call the best the best based on design and functionality, no agenda or religious attachment; as close to the scientific method as possible. OSX and XCode development tools are far advanced compared to Android Studio (mobile Linux). Android Studio's emulator is so slow it's necessary to use a third party solution (Genymotion, etc.). Linux is great for backend (webservers, etc.) and tools (ffmpeg etc.), OSX and Windows are currently better than Linux for desktop apps. If that changes, I'll stop paying Adobe and switch too. Who wouldn't?

When debating the merits of open source and free software vs. commercial software, the topic of content piracy comes up frequently. Many folks who are ardent supporters of free software don't believe in paying for any content either, and happily pirate everything. Especially as a software developer and content creator, I believe it's important to pay for software as well as content. Do you believe it's important to pay for content or should that be free too? How do you propose independent software developers and content creators make money to pay for food and shelter? The little guys putting out quality software and content without any bloat?

The simple answer was if open source software was better than commercial software, everyone would immediately stop buying commercial software and there would only be open source software. This may happen someday, but as of 8/20/15 it's not even close.

[JurijTurnsek]

 

A Linux beta of Resolve 12 is available as a free download.

Looks amazing, going to give it go!

[tosvus]

Seems to me some of the best open source or free software is given out by commercial companies as a means to make money other ways. (Android, Chrome, Resolve for instance).

 

[sunyata]

We're mixing different topics, again. If you're comparing free software to commercial software for graphic design, then what you get for free with GNU/Linux, or any other OS, is clearly not going to be on par with Photoshop or Illustrator in terms of viability in a commercial setting, but that's a silly way to judge all of free vs commercial software and GNU/Linux in general. In science and engineering, open source is often better than commercial software and is constantly winning new ground from students and teachers that want to be free to do research. For example, in statistical computing, data mining and genetic research, Julia and it's growing list of free packages are gaining huge ground over MATLAB and R, benchmarks are comparable to C even though it's dynamic; it's released under the MIT/GPL V2 license. In web development obviously GNU/Linux and open source is ubiquitous, the point has already been made about Oracle above, which has just been found to have a fresh sql injection exploit. As for non-free commercial software for video editing, Lightworks is now on parity across all platforms including Ubuntu and Fedora. Take a look at a professional editor that has been using it for many years now and see if there is a comparison to Premiere (the comparison would likely be to Avid). I didn't mention this either because it's prohibitively expensive, but flame and lustre run on RHEL or Centos exclusively. So I think we're comparing just the free graphic design stuff and consumer level NLE's above, but that's not the whole picture. 

[tupp]

If Ardour was as good as or better than Protools they'd drop Protools immediately and start saving money.

One would think so, but they probably have never heard of it, and, again, FUD (such as this very point that I'm countering).

 

 

If Libre Office was better than MS Office, the same thing- anyone in business would save money and stop paying MS. That hasn't happened.

Actually, it has happened.  There are countless examples of businesses who have dropped MS Office for Open/Libre Office and have saved a bundle, without suffering any productivity.  Heck, there are entire governments who have switched to open source soaftware.

 

Once more, we are dealing with FUD and user conditioning.  People resist change, even if the alternative is better.  The FUD makes it much worse.

 

Again, I ask you, please give specific examples of how Microsoft office is better than Libre Office.

 

If GIMP was in the same league as Photoshop, all the professionals would save the now monthly fees and stop paying Adobe. That hasn't happened.

In the first place, GIMP isn't the only open source image editor.   Secondly, yes, that too has happened.

 

Again, I ask you, what features, specifically, in Photoshop are superior to its open source counterparts?

 

Also, FUD and user conditioning.

 

Open source hasn't taken over solely due to FUD? Can you share a double-blind study showing that is a statistically significant hypothesis?

 No, but it has a lot to do with folks' resistance.

 

Can you share a double-blind study to the contrary (that is not sponsored by Microsoft).

 

 

When I work in Ubuntu, the UI looks like something designed by non-professionals. It works, but it's clunky and was clearly designed by folks with little or no cognitive science background.

Not sure what a science background has to do with GUI design, except maybe it helps when field testing.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is all you are putting forward.  In my opinion, Windows is clunky, unprofessional, quirky and full of crapware/bloatware.

 

I would also like to point out that whatever the desktop environment you were using on Ubuntu, it is only one of zillions that are available on Linux/Unix systems.  Any design elements specific to Ubuntu probably went through Canonical -- the corporation that started and maintains the Ubuntu distro.  Canonical is owned by billionaire Mark Shuttleworth.

 

If you want a UI that is not clunky, I suggest you go with one of the many tiling open source window managers.  Power users with  tiling window managers invariably run circles around Windows, Mac and Linux desktop users.

 

 

 

As a developer I use them all, and call the best the best based on design and functionality, no agenda or religious attachment;

No doubt.

 

 

When debating the merits of open source and free software vs. commercial software, the topic of content piracy comes up frequently.

No, it doesn't.

 

Many folks who are ardent supporters of free software don't believe in paying for any content either, and happily pirate everything.

What?!!

 

Wow!  Perhaps one of us has an agenda, after all.

 

 

Especially as a software developer and content creator, I believe it's important to pay for software as well as content.

That's fine.  That explains a lot about the notions you put forth.

 

Nevertheless, there are plenty software developers and content creators who use open source software and free content.

 

 

Do you believe it's important to pay for content or should that be free too?.

I don't think that it is "important" to pay for content.  There are a lot of ways that content sustain itself and make a profit.  Again, we are getting philosophical and departing from the topic of this thread, which is open source software for production.

 

How do you propose independent software developers and content creators make moneey to pay for food and shelter? The little guys putting out quality software and content without any bloat?

 I propose that they make money exactly as they currently doing it.  What's the problem?

 

 

The simple answer was if open source software was better than commercial software, everyone would immediately stop buying commercial software and there would only be open source software.

That is certainly the simple answer.

[tosvus]

 

That is certainly the simple answer.

Well, you may think it is a "simple" answer - but the fact remains, if free (or what you think is free) software was as good or better as commercial software, the market shares would be very different, wouldn't they.. Please share examples of free software that has more users than their commercial counter-parts. The only one I can think of that has a chance is Google Chrome, which was developed by Google and is used to drive people to their search engine among other things.

Having used both Linux (several distributions, and also recently) and Windows extensively, my clear favorite is Windows, sorry..

 

[tupp]

Well, you may think it is a "simple" answer - but the fact remains, if free (or what you think is free) software was as good or better as commercial software, the market shares would be very different, wouldn't they..

Nope... unfortunately, the world doesn't work that "simply."

 

Sometimes the best things succeed, but a lot of the time they don't (especially in this current age of mediocrity).  That's why Oracle is so prevalent in spite of mass dissatisfaction with its products... that's why lobbyists influence laws and government projects (in the USA)... that's why we have to listen to Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber and Kanye West, instead of artists as talented as the Beatles or Burt Bacharach.

 

 

Please share examples of free software that has more users than their commercial counter-parts. The only one I can think of that has a chance is Google Chrome, which was developed by Google and is used to drive people to their search engine among other things.

Nevertheless, Chrome is free and it has more users than its proprietary counterparts.  Since you mentioned a web browser, how about Firefox?  Off the top of my head, there's also Android, Thunderbird, Wordpress, Audacity, VLC, Handbrake and Blender, etc.  Of course, there is a bunch of open source software that dominates network and web installations, such as Apache, MySQL, SSL, Drupal  and PHP, etc., not to mention most of the prominent programming languages.

 

 

Having used both Linux (several distributions, and also recently) and Windows extensively, my clear favorite is Windows, sorry..

No need to apologize.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[jgharding]

One factor here is the size of company using the software. Another is the established working environment. Features are not the only reason large companies use commercial software.

i use REAPER for audio, and I pay for it because it's an honesty based license. Ithas a lot of features ProTools doesn't. In fact, it has a lot of features many others don't. MIDI is poor but I rewire FL Studio into it for that.

Now Avid recently locked out all but one plugin format in ProTools, purposefully trying to lock people in and make the software more exclusive.

so if you're one man band or a few people, there's no benefit to the Avid environment so you won't suffer that kind of bullshit, you use REAPER.

BUT back in video land if you have 100 edit stations all wanting to access pool of footage and have 3 or 4 on one project at the same time etc you'll choose Avid, regardless of price or various corporate dick waggling. Your turnover is millions, you need everything to work and you pay a large company to make sure it does.

Now if you're a one man band and someone says "hey freelancer, we have this edit, can you take up the slack in your suite" and you don't have it you have to say no. So some people will use the software even if it's clunky in order to take on other work.

This is the case in audio with ProTools, where studio sessions often come in ProTools format. If you can't open it, it's a bugger. Many studios will have at least one machine with Pro Tools just to open and convert projects.

in other words, many large commercial operations can't afford to develop their own software and need reliable ongoing support. Commercial is the only realistic option for that: and because of that, commercial software use rolls down to the rest of us.