Thought Experiment: The Ultimate Creative Content OS 226
Dave Girard has written a lengthy description of how to design the best possible operating system for creative pursuits (video editing, photo manipulation, and sound editing, in particular) — at least the the best possible one he can imagine by selecting from the best tools and behaviors that he finds in Mac OS X, Windows, and (mostly Ubuntu) Linux. He makes a compelling case for the OS (or at least a GUI on top of it) having baked-in support for a wide range of image formats and codecs, and makes some pointed jabs along the way at what each of these three big players do wrong.
the best os for creative people (Score:5, Insightful)
is paper-and-pencil-OS, or PPOS.
Re: (Score:3)
is paper-and-pencil-OS, or PPOS.
Kudos to Microsoft then as Windows 8 is widely regarded as POS. Just one more P to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking in terms of images, then you mean bitmaps. They're very simple, but they're also a complete waste of space in most situations. JPEGs, GIFs and PNGs are also pretty much "universally readable". GIF is about the only format that desperately needs a replacement right now.
Re: the best os for creative people (Score:5, Informative)
PNG is already a replacement for GIF.
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet, there's not wide support for animated PNGs in either of their incarnations.
Re: (Score:2)
APNG is reasonably well supported.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox for Android, 3rd party app on iOS, none for Windows Phone, and not on Internet explorer, Safari, addon for desktop chrome.
It has a long way to go (IMO).
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking in terms of images, then you mean bitmaps.
Or not [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Creative people don't use JPEGs for work, and rather than PNG I'm sure they use PSD or some other layered file format.
They don't? I think about 90% of the web's images are JPEG. PNG is great for replacing non animated GIF. For lossless images it can be used, but it will be 10x the size of JPEG, and that is still not acceptable. Isn't JPEG with maximum quality lossless as well? Even that is less than half the filesize of a similar PNG.
Think about this: what is better - a 6400 dpi high quality JPEG, or a 1600 dpi lossless PNG, both similar in size?
Re: (Score:3)
They don't? I think about 90% of the web's images are JPEG. PNG is great for replacing non animated GIF
Actually, there's animation in the png spec too.
Think about this: what is better - a 6400 dpi high quality JPEG, or a 1600 dpi lossless PNG, both similar in size?
Almost certainly the png. Less, useful information is better than more, noisy information in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't use JPEG for work. They use lossless formats, and only produce a JPEG as a particular output for the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They _export_ to jpeg. The working file never sees release. The working file is what would be in psd (or if you use gimp xcf).
Just like when they author blu-rays, the working file would be some form of lossless, end result h264, you never see the working file.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Now I want you to render on paper a preview of the video I'm cutting.
Do you want a storyboard or flip book?
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, my good fellow, indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a good comparison. Audio is audio, regardless of duration. Compression of audio is governed mainly by the type of content, how it'll be delivered, and the resources available for playback. e.g. spoken word content for local iPhone playback.
Video, in the context of compression, can be compressed more efficiently through interframe compression. With this approach, each frame may not actually be stored as a discrete image, although it may be rendered this way during playback. e.g. what's the point in
Re: (Score:2)
But compression, especially video compression, tends to be lossy, as well as inducing inter-dependencies between frames. Great for distribution in capactiy-limited mediums, but either one renders a format largely useless during the production phase, and is thus largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right. I forgot the context and conflated codecs with formats.
So he wants KDE? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from a couple of things (not sure how 30 bit monitor support would work here), it sounds like he's describing KDE.
Of course, in the real world, KDE is awesome for more advanced tasks like creative designs, but the limited support for the most used quality creative software keeps it down a lot...
Re:So he wants KDE? (Score:4, Insightful)
~sigh~ have you read the article. KDE/Linux doesn't have the image formats built into the OS. It's one of the things OS X does right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is merely due to the fact that the definition of "OS" varies from OS to OS. In the GNU/Linux world, the "OS" generally refers only to the kernel and the minimal set of command-line utilities necessary to get a basic system up and running, whereas in Windows and OS X the definition of "OS" also includes the desktop environment and many programs that come installed by default. If Windows or OS X were to be split into a desktop environment and kernel, then their support for these image formats wou
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible that the author is a pony-tailed ponce with ridiculous earrings and a tiny dog that he takes everywhere? You know, the kind who calls the monitor "a TV".
Re:So he wants KDE? (Score:5, Interesting)
~sigh~ have you read the article. KDE/Linux doesn't have the image formats built into the OS. It's one of the things OS X does right.
Given that (especially for 'creative' type use cases, who get the oddball formats) you may have a change of format before you have an OS version bump, why would you want to couple image formats directly to the OS?
A mechanism for the OS to do some useful things with formats it understands, and a plugin mechanism for vendors to tell the OS about theirs(with a few common ones preloaded so jpeg and whatnot work out of the box for normal users), certainly; but don't basically all modern graphical shells do some degree of that already?
This can lead to issues, like the blasphemous nightmare that is fucking around with a directshow filter graph after half a dozen shovelware media-viewer programs have had a fight over it; but it's really the only alternative to either treating images purely as files, nothing more, or assuming that your OS vendor will be always accurate and always timely for every little subcommunity's oddball file format of choice.
Well-documented file format (Score:2)
or assuming that your OS vendor will be always accurate and always timely for every little subcommunity's oddball file format of choice.
That's why MPEG documents its file formats thoroughly, even if MPEG-LA ends up paywalling the right to actually use them.
Re: (Score:3)
~sigh~ have you read the article. KDE/Linux doesn't have the image formats built into the OS. It's one of the things OS X does right.
What is "built into the OS" supposed to mean? If you mean that the typical linux distribution doesn't come with libraries for parsing images, you're wrong. If you mean something else, what else could you possibly mean?
Re: (Score:3)
Operating environment independent of kernel (Score:3)
Of course, KDE isn't an operating system.
That depends on how you define "operating system". I'm aware that some define OS as kernel, but I was under the impression that KDE on Linux felt like KDE on FreeBSD. I read the article, and only a few items related to video drivers or multitasking performance would need direct support from a kernel.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's just wait another 15 years and we might see a *working* color management solution under linux. THEN, KDE will be great for creative stuff. This already makes me stick to apple for now.
He wants Adobe CREATIVE suite (Score:2)
Either the OP wants Adobe Creative suite or is complaining that something like this isn't freely available in a modified Ubutntu install out-of-the box.
Who else would redefine "creative" in this way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
KDE is really second to none for scripting support in nearly any language throughout the interface and system.
So, no, I didn't miss it, you missed it.
As for your comment on 'automator'. I would say I like automator (I use Mac OS about 90% of the time), but I like Sikuli better.
Re:So he wants KDE? (Score:4, Funny)
iAgree
Beos was a media OS, went out with a sputter. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS [wikipedia.org]
"BeOS was optimized for digital media work and was written to take advantage of modern hardware facilities such as symmetric multiprocessing by utilizing modular I/O bandwidth, pervasive multithreading, preemptive multitasking and a 64-bit journaling file system known as BFS. The BeOS GUI was developed on the principles of clarity and a clean, uncluttered design.
The API was written in C++ for ease of programming. It has partial POSIX compatibility and access to a command-line interface through Bash, although internally it is not a Unix-derived operating system."
There's a reimplementation, Haiku
https://www.haiku-os.org/ [haiku-os.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod parent up. I came here to say this. BE is still used today to mix audio since its a real-time OS and very capable of doing things other OSes of the its day just plain were not up to.
The interface is ultra minimalistic and it follows a lot of what an awesome OS should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's a thought experiment, and it's slashdot... I think all this, running on a Raspberry Pi. ;-)
Re:Beos was a media OS, went out with a sputter. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to say BeOS as well. One interesting thing was their codec API. All you needed to do was drop a codec binary in a directory and any program could now open that file. So if you wanted to play mp4 files through your favorite video player, you simply dropped an mp4 codec in there and any video player could now open those files. The idea was to move all media processing into the OS API so building applications was more modular.
Another interesting thing was that audio CD's were mounted as a directory full of wav files with CDDB data that you could simply encode or play directly or drag and drop into another folder.
It also used a microkernel (Though JBQ once told me directly that it was marketing BS and wasn't much of a microkernel) and ran most of the OS in user space including drivers. You never had to worry about trying to run new beta drivers, just copy them over and restart the corresponding server. If the driver crashed you were informed via a message box with a humorous Damn button instead of an Ok button. Though, it was also a drawback as the networking server in user space was notoriously slow. So slow that 100mbit cards couldn't push more than 10Mbps. Though its strong point was multithreading and parallel processing built into the API. It scaled nicely with multiple CPU's (I ran mine on an Abit P6 with dual 333MHz celerons OC'd to 450MHz) and there were reports posted of it running on quad and octal Xeon systems playing two dozen videos and all the demo apps without the machine breaking a sweat. You also had the pretty sweet Pulse application which was a CPU monitor which also allowed you to switch CPU's on and off. Before R3 you could actually turn off all of the CPU's and crash the system :-).
Some of this might sound trivial by todays standards but they were doing this in 1998. Before Microsoft got its shit together with 2000 (NT 5) and before MacOS X. In fact, Be was founded by ex Apple employees and BeOS was supposed to be an alternative to MacOS on the old PowerPC Macs. It was very efficient and made old Pentium 133MHz systems with 32MB RAM feel fast. But its closed source nature coupled with user space networking made it slow to adopt new technology. It was a nice OS with a pretty cool community. Too bad its pretty much dead.
Re:Beos was a media OS, went out with a sputter. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the driver crashed you were informed via a message box with a humorous Damn button instead of an Ok button.
Sounds like XV. Not officially updated since 1994 and still one of the best image viewers out there. It had "Bummer!" and "That sucks!" buttons for write errors such as disk full or permission denied.
And they were right. It's not OK.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The codec directory was an idea that I think they got from AmigaOS' "Datatypes" mechanism.
I remember that Amiga was the first platform where all* web browsers would support PNG, because someone had written a PNG datatype and released it as free software.
*: Yeah, yeah, Lynx did not technically view images, but it could download an image and launch an external image viewer ... which would usually support datatypes.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall Mac OS from around the same time doing this. I fail to see what's so special about that.
I'm going from memory here, but I'm fairly sure that audio CD tracks could not be dragged from an audio CD. Mac OS presented the files as AIFF, but they couldn't be copied over. You'd either play with Apple CD Audio Player (if that's the name of the application?) or would need something like SoundJam to rip them.
On the codec thing, Mac OS and QuickTime had this capability for a long time. Any application using QuickTime APIs could use codecs installed in to QuickTime. I'm pretty sure that's been the case si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you could simply copy *.wav files from CDs on old Macs running OS 6 to OS 7, not sure about later versions.
Hm, never checked on my Mac Book Pro what OS X is doping with them.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I had a hierarchical structure of video files, I'd have to drag the codec file into every single subdirectory!? What a stupid design.
Yes, that would be a spectacularly stupid design, which is why BeOS didn't use it. There was a single codecs directory which contained the codec files.
Protip: If you read something and it doesn't make sense, chances are you read it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"There was a single codecs directory which contained the codec files."
Well then, I must be reading this wrong, because it makes no sense how this was special in any way. It's exactly how QuickTime has *always* worked. I'm not even sure I could come up with a different way to do this... put some codec extensions in the Desktop directory and others in the Trash... that will fool them!!!
Re: (Score:2)
So if I had a hierarchical structure of video files, I'd have to drag the codec file into every single subdirectory!? What a stupid design. Even I can think of several methods superior to that, with no downsides (e.g. drag the codec file onto the application icon, or copy it to the same directory as the application, to enable support globally).
I should have been more specific and said a single specific directory for codecs. I forget the correct path but as an example it would have been something like /usr/l
Re: (Score:2)
There was one manufacturer who was selling BeOS preinstalled, Hitachi. But I believe it was only in Japan.
I used BeOS for audio analysis (Score:3)
I mostly used BeOS in grad school because I liked alternative operating systems, but several times I'd try to port my work to Windows or Windows NT and find myself astonished at how impossible my this stuff was to do on other computers at the time (late 1990s.) NT's architecture and event processing often prohibited the sort of real-time audio and video apps I was writing, and the API standing between me and the data was much more restrictive.
In retrospect, I think a number of my research successes were ac
BeOS (Score:5, Funny)
Thought experiment, what if we completed the pro feature list of the main linux multimedia apps and optionally ported them to a BeOS derivative (haiku)?
You see, thinking is easy.
Creative? (Score:2)
Since when does creative = audio & visual pursuits only.
Why isn't the title simply something like "ultimate audio-visual os"
say what you mean. mean what you say.
Re: (Score:3)
~sigh~ this is addressed in the first paragraph of the article. I guess it was too easy just to jump on that fairly minor point though rather than actually comment on the article at length. Slashdot at it's worst.
Pickle Juice (Score:2)
Oh, sorry. When you read this, somewhere in the first part of my post I actually mean that "Pickle Juice" means that I am talking about not expressing yourself accurately and you need to read an article just to see how some prat has redifined a word or phrase that most people would assume means something else.
"Slashdot at it's worst" indeed!
Headlines have a maximum length (Score:2)
Intent-aware OS and I/O bottleneck aware kernel (Score:5, Interesting)
If I copy huge files, while doing video processing, running a VM, and switching from one tab to another in the web browser, the system become quite unusable...
He could still be responsive with dynamic I/O priority handled by GUI and kernel.
What we lack most is some intention-aware GUI and OS kernel, working together so that the right process get the right priority and that I/O bottlenecks are handled gracefully.
Content creation activities are often I/O and CPU demanding, and even on creativity praised OS such as Mac OS we have this big problem of I/O channel unawareness.
Example:
One need to be able to start a huge file copy with a background intent so it will be throttled when the user starts a video effect preview which writes temporary files on one of the same disks of the copy.
The GUI gives the video preview higher priority, even on I/O, and the kernel detects the bottleneck on one of the disks and decide to almost freeze the file copy.
But then the user start the full video rendering in background, the GUI assigns the lower priority and the file copy resume to full I/O speed.
Re: Intent-aware OS and I/O bottleneck aware kerne (Score:2)
If you want a good kernel and good file management, then you want Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
The Linux kernel is not responsible for lousy device drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
The main scheduler is for servers. Want a more desktop-centric scheduler? Just change the scheduler setting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Linux scheduler under-prioritizes user interaction (keyboard\mouse\remote input and monitor\serial output) over disk and memory i/o by design since it's a server OS. There are out of tree schedulers that resolve all that and even a few Real Time ones that can guarantee interaction but Linus (justifiably) rejects them since Linux IS a server kernel.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's been done. Unfortunately, it was done in the Synthesis [valerieaurora.org] kernel, which was made out of self modifying 68k assembly, and thus subsequently forgotten about. Apparently by going with adaptive scheduling they ended up with a soft-realtime system.
Re:Intent-aware OS and I/O bottleneck aware kernel (Score:4, Interesting)
All that exists in Linux. Both processes (nice) and I/O (ionice) have priority levels you can manipulate -- a normal user can decrease the priority of any task they own.
Experience shows that we don't know enough about usage patterns to make it automatic
And yet it doesn't seem like anyone is even trying. Why don't file copies get launched at a low I/O priority by default, just a notch down? Why doesn't the foreground app get a boost, just one point? Etc.
Not enough (Score:2)
- OS level handling of color information and an OS API/CMM which every application accesses and uses (no app-specific color management and no app-specific algorithms and "rules". Same for printer drivers
- specialized file system which offers the possibility to actually have "asset" folders. Not the possibility to create a folder and name it assets, but an actual logic to files stored in it's parent folder which d
Re: (Score:3)
OS level handling of color information and an OS API/CMM which every application accesses and uses
Who doesn't have this? All major operating systems include OS-level color correction.
specialized file system which offers the possibility to actually have "asset" folders. Not the possibility to create a folder and name it assets, but an actual logic to files stored in it's parent folder which different applications again can understand and access
So far you have utterly failed to explain the difference.
The OS has to understand what we are working on, and not give us the possibility to think up our own project folder structure
What? Seriously? That was the dumbest thing I expect to read all day... and it's 0350. The fact that Unix doesn't understand what you're working on, and gives you the possibility to think up your own project folder structure is a benefit, not a weakness. Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to make dumb suggestions about operating systems.
integrated, transparent versioning of projects, their main files and assets
Finally, something you
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that Unix doesn't understand what you're working on, and gives you the possibility to think up your own project folder structure is a benefit, not a weakness. Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to make dumb suggestions about operating systems.
Welcome to GNOME and the new world order!
Go to a terminal, cd into some project directory heirachy. Start a program which uses the gnome based file dialog boxes (openoffice, inkscape, and so many more) to edit a file using the commandline.
Now go to sa
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to GNOME and the new world order!
Go to a terminal, cd into some project directory heirachy. Start a program which uses the gnome based file dialog boxes (openoffice, inkscape, and so many more) to edit a file using the commandline.
Now go to save as.
Where are you? Certainly not in $PWD, that's for sure. Quite possible in the last place you were when you used such a program.
I will readily agree that there are many things about GNOME which reasonably piss users off. Now, name any OS or distribution without stuff that pisses you off. I'll wait.
Who needs directory heirachies anyway?
Until someone gets the intestinal fortitude to actually deliver an OS based around a next-generation filesystem, everyone. Sure, there's ACLs and extended attributes and structured metadata functionality available at the OS level in several operating systems, but nobody's making better use of that than Windows, which is not making very goo
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't have this? All major operating systems include OS-level color correction. ... never saw any option fro that (and I just checked the PC I'm working ong for it)
Windows seem to lack it
Finally, something you said makes sense. All operating systems should include a versioning filesystem. What year is it, anyway?
Makes sense, and in some regard Macs have that now with time machine and the auto saving features of "modern" Applications.
However making a solid "versioning" filesystem is not as easy as you
Color management algorithms are patented (Score:2)
And no OS I know of implements the needed algorithms for serious color management.
How much of that is because "the needed algorithms for serious color management" were invented less than 20 years ago, and the patent holders price a license too high for an operating system intended to cover both home users and professional graphic artists?
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, since you're incompetent and can't set up the right software and subsystems for your workflow, you need the OS to mandate it for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Report to the project manager that the interaction with your colleagues is inefficient, and ask him to set standards for the team.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your ideal OS isn't my ideal OS.
Everyone's needs are different.
Just set up your work environment to be what you need to be the most productive. It's the same for all other fields of work, including those that do not include interaction with a computer.
This article makes no sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is stupid.
The best OS for creative editing is the OS that supports all of the software that you plan to use. Typically, it would be Windows, since some critical software only runs on that operating system.
More and more software gets ported to Mac and Linux though, so it's mostly a matter of what you need to use in your workflow.
Video Editing (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now is Windows. Final Cut Pro was bastardized into Imovie pro. and Linux has absolutely nothing that is useable.
Windows has a lock on it as the only platform that runs AVID and Sony Vegas for the only two professional platforms for video editing and After Effects as the ONLY EFX software platform that is useable.
And this makes me sad. All the Linux options are utter garbage or for making videos of your cat, none are usable for a feature length film or even a professional looking TV show.
The only good option is to use Blender, a 3D graphics program to do some video editing by using one of it's side functions, but it is unusable for anyone doing professional work or needs to collaborate with others OR work with large projects, Blender chokes hard on anything large. And the problem is that 99% of all the developers out there are far more interested in ooooh shiny features and not basics that need to be 100% reliable.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Lightworks for Linux? www.lwks.com
Re: (Score:2)
Lightworks for Linux? www.lwks.com
Where is the linux download? It's not under 'download'
Re: (Score:2)
It's very powerful, but it has a truly bad UI. UI doesn't stand for unintuitive. And why should you have to drag a shark onto a window to close it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh dear...
Most of those switching from FCP7 went over to Premiere or Avid MC on OSX.
I think you meant unusable and what is "EFX"?. AE is a motion graphics tool that evolved into a compositor
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please, FCP X is better than ever but that didn't stop AVID from going all out with the FUD. Once you get used to the FCP X workflow everything else just seems antique. Usually the people hating FCP X are aging baby boomers who will hopefully be forced out of the industry in the next round of lay-offs. Then they can sit around the house editing home videos of their grand kids using AVID crap and complaining about age discrimination.
Also even Premier Pro is a hell of a lot better for video than fucking Ve
An OS for that? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need an OS for that. What would be needed would be an application suite that handles everything on his wish list seamlessly. It could run on any OS.
Re: (Score:3)
So tell me again how an application suite solves the issue of kernel level multi-tasking support?
The problem is a suite of applications for doing anything creative ever would be infinitely harder than simply creating the correct OS to run a creative application to begin with. The alternative is to create an overly complex super application with hooks directly into kernels to allow it to run it's own multitasking stack, a system that trawls through the filesystem and indexes everything the OS already does be
Kernel issues are a slim minority (Score:2)
So tell me again how an application suite solves the issue of kernel level multi-tasking support?
That and video hardware support issues were the only kernel-level issues I found when I summarized the article [slashdot.org]. The vast majority of mentioned points could fit into a new desktop environment targeted at creative professionals.
Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
With a dual-boot setup, this machine was also my first foray into Linux outside of a virtual machine.
He also just kind of lumps all Linux distros into one, it's not until the last page that you get to this:
Things that are coming in Ubuntu are meaningless to me because all the programs I use that have Linux versions require RHEL-based distros.
First, some specific examples would be nice. I've never had this problem and unlike most Linux users, I deal with the world of making "creative content" more than maintaining servers or hacking out code. Most Linux programs don't seem to care about what distro you're using. Ubuntu Studio is my OS of choice for the creative stuff. I used to use Mac OS X but it's just pointless now because there's a free alternative for everything I do on Linux.
I use Mint for the standard OS stuff. The Red Hat distros I always viewed as more server-oriented, which is why I found this statement to be so bizarre. Ubuntu Studio is tailored to the creative types so he should have reviewed that distro specifically. He mentions Ubuntu here and there throughout the article, but from his statements it's very apparent that he's using the standard distro with the Unity interface. The applications that Studio comes preinstalled with can be manually installed on Ubuntu, and the XFCE interface it uses can also be installed on Ubuntu, but what makes studio unique is its low-latency kernel.
That's not to say that Ubuntu Studio is the uber-creative OS this guy seeks. I'm an amateur musician and when I need to do image manipulation professionally it consists of little things (I'm not creating 3D models, animations, etc.). Maybe the professional creator who "works efficiently at an almost pathological level" needs some of the advantages of Mac OS X and the propriety software available on it, but it would have been nice if he had at least singled out the Linux distro that's attempting to compete and only used that one as a comparison.
As an amateur, Ubuntu Studio fits my needs perfectly and allows me to avoid the high costs of buying OS X software. The OS X software does look nicer but that's not worth anything to me as it doesn't alter the end result. Comparing Ubuntu Studio to OS X for me is like comparing my made in Mexico Fender Jaguar to a custom shop American Jaguar. Sure, I had to change the pickups to get an optimal sound, I had to adjust the neck a little to get the action just where I wanted it, but it was still a way better deal than forking over several times as much cash for the custom shop guitar. The custom shop guitar would have all sorts of little cosmetic details that would really impress people who see it, but when people listen to the final recording they can't tell the difference.
This will be the next big thing (Score:2)
Screw your OS/X parametres (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing this has to do with tools is that it's cheaper to hire less talented people because the tools are easy to learn and there's a lot more of them now.
Anyone else bothered by the term "creativity"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is it that people think creativity applies exclusively to art? "Creative types"? I've seen scientists who are way more creative when doing science than most "creative types".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh great, an _additional_ item to install serially after you get a basic Windows running, with its own installer and set of annoying dialogs. Not like it wouldn't be better to have file formats supported natively, PDF support, something like VirtuaWin or Expose, and Microsoft dev tools included rather than a £17,000 extra to make WIndows within spitting distance of everything else.
Re: Solution: Window Blinds theme (Score:2)
Besides trolling as AC you also put your lack of OS knowledge on display.
You came put every conceivable thing into an OS in a way which appeals to "everyone". For example some security guru might not want the "creative" OS described simply because previewing/thumbnailing PDF and RAW files (effectively rendering them) is a security risk.
Your mind seems to tell you that it's possible to construct the "perfect" OS'a'la'Deathstar so you dont have to tweak it but people's needs are too diverse to get such a beas
Re: Solution: Window Blinds theme (Score:2)
Apologies for the typos. The spellchecker and on-screen keyboard of my mobile OS lacks the rich features of my Desktop and the platform I am on wont let me tweak it to my needs ... ;-)
Re: OSs are supposed to be generic (Score:5, Insightful)
No they're not. They're meant for the tasks at hand.
You mean to tell me the OS running a point of sale terminal and the OS running the systems at the airport should both be set up to run nethack? Or that a Wii U is supposed to do actuarial tables?
Re: (Score:3)
As for the Wii U, I assume that if Nintendo felt like releasing a sequel to 'Dr. Mario', where you play as Actuary Wario and attempt to manage the risk pool of Dr. Mario's patients, it wouldn't be the OS that stops them
Refers to applications and libraries (Score:3)
An OS's primary goal should be to manage the hardware
The screen is hardware. A window manager application divides it into areas for applications. The disk drive is hardware. A file system divides it into areas for documents, and a file manager application allows arranging and locating these documents. The "OS" of the article refers not to the kernel [slashdot.org] as much as to window manager and file manager applications and system-wide libraries that support audiovisual creative use cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I could not agree more with that. An operating system is so basic that you can basically do nothing with it. The problem is that OS vendors started to make their default OS installation useful out of the box by adding applications. Yet that are applications on top of the Operating System, that they get shipped on the same disk as the OS is just an arbitrary decision of the OS vendor. The author of the article has totally no clue about what actually makes an OS.
Re:OSs are supposed to be generic (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry art folks, you shouldn't ask for a new OS for every different use case. What you want can and should be achieved with UI tweaks.
I agree. I actually RTFA and it feels like he's asking (and answering) the wrong question.
Like if you were to ask: "What is the best kind of paper to print targets on to improve your firearm accuracy?" instead of asking "What is the best ammo/gun/sight to use to improve your firearm accuracy?"
I don't think the OS is the thing to streamline, the actual creative software UI is more important.
I work in both Adobe Creative Suite, and Autodesk 'Smoke,' and they both have a fairly good interface for previewing and moving between applications and/or file/media types.
Smoke runs as a sort of single application, and you just click buttons or swipe between pages of apps. However you can easily move from paint to video editing to sound mixing, without leaving the main program. The UI is consistent from module to module. Smoke has (in the past) been ported for IRIX, LINUX and Mac OS.
In the Adobe CS you still have to launch different apps, but a good deal of file manipulation "common ground" is had in their 'Bridge' app. Moving media between apps is also streamlined, you don't need to render and export/import to move a project or media between apps.
Re: (Score:2)
For some uses, like A/V, a low-latency kernel is very helpful - but your average user doesn't want that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ooooh, pointy jabs at OSs (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
but each studio requires a small army of linux gurus to patch and modify the OS and kernel just to keep the OS from constantly falling over.
But isn't this because the installations are largely custom? Different studios seem to run different toolchains, have their 'special sauce' application that somebody wrote and, of course, have to deal with hundreds of different hardware configurations and even more wetware configurations. It's not like everyone is just installing Creative Suite (as much as Adobe would like that to happen) and letting it go at that.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used all three, and Mac OS X definitely has the best color management of those. If you have multiple screens, they each get their own color profile. You can manually tweak the color profile, but OS X has all of the setup screens needed to calibrate from with gamma for each channel.