Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
chdh subimt it's project. (same as graz, but better :-)
cyrille
Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Yves Degoyon wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
What's the relevance of saying this?
Or are you just trying to say that you're one of their friends and they invited you?
sorry, i couldn't resist.
I know, I know.
Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
but, I know you know this, Yves ;)
cheers -gisle
sorry, i couldn't resist.
cheers, sevy
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit :
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps and the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme extremists... ;-) -- Marc
If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then things like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to have to deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as long as the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts...
Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately.
Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my AMD64/Debian mobo.
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit :
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps and the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme extremists... ;-) -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
It's easy: LGPL software is free, but can be used or linked with non-free software. The first letter is "L", for "Lesser", because it protects less; its only purpose is to distribute libraries that might become de-facto standards.
In the case of applications, hybrids don't only promote the free parts; for example, pixelTango is optimised for OSX because it is mainly developed on OSX, so it promotes OSX more than GNU/Linux. But I promote pixelTango to OSX users when I can, hoping they might eventually want use a free OS.
Happy Piksel!
Marc
Le 16 Août 2005 11:45, B. Bogart a écrit :
If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then things like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to have to deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as long as the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts...
Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately.
Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my AMD64/Debian mobo.
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit :
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps and the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme extremists... ;-) -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hey Marc,
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
PixelTANGO is actually not at all optimized, but is really a set of interfaces. Its first task was video performance and so the OSX was chosen, it was developed on OSX simply because my linux machine was far to slow to be of any use working with DV files (Duron 800).
But this is a digression.
The bottom line is that everything in pixelTANGO is free and multi-platform BUT those non-free components that get linked with Gem on OSX make it perform much better for certain operations. We just need ffmpeg (or something) function as well as quicktime and decoders that are very fast and optimized...
Say anyone know of anyone using the GPU to do some decoding work with pixelShaders?
Free software on any OS can't help but promote free software.
B.
PS: Showing the weaknesses of one OS in one respect is not the same as promoting the alternative OSs.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
It's easy: LGPL software is free, but can be used or linked with non-free software. The first letter is "L", for "Lesser", because it protects less; its only purpose is to distribute libraries that might become de-facto standards.
In the case of applications, hybrids don't only promote the free parts; for example, pixelTango is optimised for OSX because it is mainly developed on OSX, so it promotes OSX more than GNU/Linux. But I promote pixelTango to OSX users when I can, hoping they might eventually want use a free OS.
Happy Piksel!
Marc
Le 16 Août 2005 11:45, B. Bogart a écrit :
If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then things like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to have to deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as long as the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts...
Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately.
Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my AMD64/Debian mobo.
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit :
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
>Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps and the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme extremists... ;-) -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I wish to react to the short discussion about bringing your mac to piksel or not :) I want to ask you, PLEASE drag along your your athlons 800 instead of your powerbook this time ( I brought a duron 700 pc last year and did my performance on it :) )
Here's my motivation about it, read it if you're interested.
I wrote this up in dutch. I am not entirely happy about my english, therefore I'll be sending the dutch version at the bottom of this mail, for any of you dutch guys out there. The english is shorter, tho.
here it is:
A fast and free dv-decoder is something every artist in the linux community could use. It is one of those things that keeps linux as an adult platform for art and media one step behind the commercially available alternatives. Linux as such a platform needs more attention in order to make the usergroup, and with a usergroup the incentive ( or reward, or prestige, or eternal fame) for developers bigger in order to force a breaktrough these sort of issues.
If this doesn't happen, linux will live a marginal existence as a multimedia platform and implicitly as a platform for art. The GNU started out by making free tools for developers. The emphasis has shifted towards free available user tools. As Stallman once said, a compiler is not enough. You also need an editor, a build system, a debugger and a whole range of tools to be comfortable as a developer with the platform. All of these things wich the free software has by now. This is just as valid, and maybe even more, to say this about end users, and in special the typical group of end users that wish to produce creatively. The use of computers has improved the tools to produce creative output immensely, and by doing so, inspired and stimulated the computer industry to improve. This kind of interaction ( or, translated from dutch: cross-conception) could exist with the developers in the opensource community( well it already does but maybe not enough) as well. And this might be very valuable for both worlds. These are strong arguments for me to (keep) using linux, even if it puts me into a vurnerable position as an artist sometimes, since I have to rely on the help of developers sometimes, for even the most trival issues. This also makes me bump into a lot of mis-understanding from my fellow artists. An artist, in the view of many, chooses the most optimal means to create his 'image' ( art, goal, idea). I think this is an opportunistic way of thinking that is ( inherent | part of the way we) think (in | about) art in the post-modern (art | world). ( <- crist I'm happy I'm not a translator). Nevertheless, there are advantages not to think in such a way, somtimes, even within art. Collaborations sometimes create better stuff then simply choosing the most opportunistic option at the time. I see myself as a pioneer - I mean without trying to make anything better out of myself than I am - and as a Young Artist I like trying to improve something about the world. Piksel as a festival is even more pioneering, and it is needed badly. This is why I think that a little puritanism is not wrong on a festival like piksel. It'll help to create an athmosphere where we can look for shared solutions, where we find the important limitations and bottlenecks for the artistic process, and where nobody has to be ashamed for a badly edited movie, since we simply don't have adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash or final cut pro.
So hereby I ask everyone coming, to *especially* bring their old junk, and not their fast OSX or MSOS to piksel, to discuss about free software as a creative platform. Not out because of dogma's, and especially not against the live and let die of LGPL, but out of pure practical reasons. Come on, and show us.
Cheers, Matthijs.
---- dutch stuff below
Een snelle en vrije dv-decoder is wat iedere kunstenaar in de linux gemeenschap zou kunnen gebruiken. Het is een van die dingen die linux als volwassen media en kunst platform vaak een stap doet achterlopen op de commercieel beschikbare alternatieven. Er zal dus meer aandacht voor linux als dit platform moeten komen, om de groep gebruikers, en zo de uitdaging( en beloning, en prestige, en eeuwige roem) naar ontwikkelaars toe groter te kunnen maken, en een doorbraak te forceren in dit soort kwesties.
Als zoiets niet gebeurt, zal linux als multimediaal platform, en dus als platform voor de kunst een marginaal bestaan moeten leiden. De GNU begon ooit met het maken van vrij beschikbaar gereedschap voor ontwikkelaars. De zwaarte is inmiddels verschoven naar vrij beschikbare gebruikers gereedschappen, zoals rijke grafische omgevingen, complete burea applicaties, beeld bewerkings software, software om video en geluid mee af te spelen, en rijke communicatie mogelijkheden. Zoals Stallman zelf al eens aangaf, een compiler is niet genoeg. Je hebt ook een debugger nodig, een editor, een build systeem, een hele berg van gereedscappen om je als ontwikkelaar comfortabel te voelen met het platform. al deze dingen heeft vrije software inmiddels.
Dit geld net zo hard, en misschien wel meer voor eindgebruikers, en in het bijzonder voor de typische eindgebruikers die willen komen tot een creatief product. Het gebruik van computers heeft voor deze laatste groep gebruikers een ongeevenaaarde hoeveelheid mogelijkheden gecreeerd om zich te kunnen uiten, en daarmee de computer industrie vele impulsen gegeven om zichzelf telkens weer te verbeteren, en deze wisselwerking zou het ook kunnen aangaan met de wereld van de vrije software. Een kruisbestuiving die voor beide groepen wel eens hele interessante voordelen zou kunnen hebben.
Dit is voor mij een belangrijke reden om linux te gebruiken, ook al sta ik als artiest in een zeer kwetsbare positie, omdat ik telkens weer de hulp moet inroepen van de ontwikkelaars voor de soms meest onzinnige dingen. Daarom blijf ik helaas bij mijn mede artiesten op onbegrip stuiten. Een kunstenaar kiest toch in de ogen van velen de optimale middelen om zijn beeld te bereiken. Ik denk dat dat een opportunistische manier van denken is die inherent is aan de opvattingen in de post-moderne kunst. Toch zijn er de voordelen om soms niet zo te denken, ook binnen kunst, en leveren samenwerkingsverbanden soms misschien wel meer op dan het kiezen voor dat wat de meest logische optie op het moment lijkt.
Ik zie mezelf dan ook als een pioneer, zonder mezelf daarbij op de borst te willen kloppen. Ik ben als beginnend kunstenaar niet helemaal vies van het gevoel de wereld te willen verbeteren. Het piksel festival pionieerd nogmeer en dat is hard nodig.
Daarom ben ik de mening toegedaan, dat wat puritanisme niet verkeerd is op een festival als piksel. Het helpt om een atmosfeer te creeeren waarin naar oplossingen gezocht wordt, waarin de beperkingen worden gevonden, en waar niemand zich hoefd te schamen voor een filmpje dat klungelig geedit moet worden omdat we nu eenmaal niet beschikken over adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash of final cut pro.
Daarom wil ik bij deze een oproep plaatsen, om vooral OSX en MSOS op piksel dit keer thuis te laten, en dan desnoods op onze oude machines en zonder quicktime te discussieeren over vrije software als creatief platform. Dus niet vanuit een stomzinnig dogma, en al helemaal niet tegen het gevoel van 'live and let live' van de LGPL in, maar vanuit praktische redenen. come on, and show us.
B. Bogart wrote:
Hey Marc,
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
PixelTANGO is actually not at all optimized, but is really a set of interfaces. Its first task was video performance and so the OSX was chosen, it was developed on OSX simply because my linux machine was far to slow to be of any use working with DV files (Duron 800).
But this is a digression.
The bottom line is that everything in pixelTANGO is free and multi-platform BUT those non-free components that get linked with Gem on OSX make it perform much better for certain operations. We just need ffmpeg (or something) function as well as quicktime and decoders that are very fast and optimized...
Say anyone know of anyone using the GPU to do some decoding work with pixelShaders?
Free software on any OS can't help but promote free software.
B.
PS: Showing the weaknesses of one OS in one respect is not the same as promoting the alternative OSs.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
It's easy: LGPL software is free, but can be used or linked with non-free software. The first letter is "L", for "Lesser", because it protects less; its only purpose is to distribute libraries that might become de-facto standards.
In the case of applications, hybrids don't only promote the free parts; for example, pixelTango is optimised for OSX because it is mainly developed on OSX, so it promotes OSX more than GNU/Linux. But I promote pixelTango to OSX users when I can, hoping they might eventually want use a free OS.
Happy Piksel!
Marc
Le 16 Août 2005 11:45, B. Bogart a écrit :
If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then things like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to have to deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as long as the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts...
Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately.
Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my AMD64/Debian mobo.
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit :
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
> Mathieu Bouchard a écrit : > >> Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps and the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme extremists... ;-) -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
honestly I would really love to bring only free software (damn, my nvidia driver would break the rules anyhow...) to piksel.
Too bad my AMD64 & Duron machines are.... Desktops!!!! (not little ones at that). I can't transport such large heavy things all the way from Canada. If I had a linux laptop I would bring that. I don't own such a thing.
For the recond this powerbook of "mine" is on loan from the SAT. I only "own" linux machines.
I do think you bring up some great points about access to technology and this crazy drive for the newest and fastest. I bought the new machine for installation projects so I could leave my duron at home to do everything normal (like typing this email).
I could not find a shuttle with enough drive bays for my future disk-arrays...
The SAT did some work on getting a "tele-presence" application really working well using an openGL version of xdvshow, using a low latency kernel and all. It took a year of development for a normal machine to stream one DV copy (DVTS) and receive a second and display it with little packet loss and latency.
We REALLY do need better faster decoders/encoders in linux... I agree.
www.tot.sat.qc.ca for more info on the research project.
What is/are the geurilla approach(s) to increase linux visibility? Other than just using it.. (all my recent installations are linux powered!)
Ok I'm done with the cross-posting. For all those interested in continuing more messages are on the piksel mailinglist (piksel@bek.no).
b>
Matthijs van Henten wrote:
I wish to react to the short discussion about bringing your mac to piksel or not :) I want to ask you, PLEASE drag along your your athlons 800 instead of your powerbook this time ( I brought a duron 700 pc last year and did my performance on it :) )
Here's my motivation about it, read it if you're interested.
I wrote this up in dutch. I am not entirely happy about my english, therefore I'll be sending the dutch version at the bottom of this mail, for any of you dutch guys out there. The english is shorter, tho.
here it is:
A fast and free dv-decoder is something every artist in the linux community could use. It is one of those things that keeps linux as an adult platform for art and media one step behind the commercially available alternatives. Linux as such a platform needs more attention in order to make the usergroup, and with a usergroup the incentive ( or reward, or prestige, or eternal fame) for developers bigger in order to force a breaktrough these sort of issues.
If this doesn't happen, linux will live a marginal existence as a multimedia platform and implicitly as a platform for art. The GNU started out by making free tools for developers. The emphasis has shifted towards free available user tools. As Stallman once said, a compiler is not enough. You also need an editor, a build system, a debugger and a whole range of tools to be comfortable as a developer with the platform. All of these things wich the free software has by now. This is just as valid, and maybe even more, to say this about end users, and in special the typical group of end users that wish to produce creatively. The use of computers has improved the tools to produce creative output immensely, and by doing so, inspired and stimulated the computer industry to improve. This kind of interaction ( or, translated from dutch: cross-conception) could exist with the developers in the opensource community( well it already does but maybe not enough) as well. And this might be very valuable for both worlds. These are strong arguments for me to (keep) using linux, even if it puts me into a vurnerable position as an artist sometimes, since I have to rely on the help of developers sometimes, for even the most trival issues. This also makes me bump into a lot of mis-understanding from my fellow artists. An artist, in the view of many, chooses the most optimal means to create his 'image' ( art, goal, idea). I think this is an opportunistic way of thinking that is ( inherent | part of the way we) think (in | about) art in the post-modern (art | world). ( <- crist I'm happy I'm not a translator). Nevertheless, there are advantages not to think in such a way, somtimes, even within art. Collaborations sometimes create better stuff then simply choosing the most opportunistic option at the time. I see myself as a pioneer - I mean without trying to make anything better out of myself than I am - and as a Young Artist I like trying to improve something about the world. Piksel as a festival is even more pioneering, and it is needed badly. This is why I think that a little puritanism is not wrong on a festival like piksel. It'll help to create an athmosphere where we can look for shared solutions, where we find the important limitations and bottlenecks for the artistic process, and where nobody has to be ashamed for a badly edited movie, since we simply don't have adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash or final cut pro.
So hereby I ask everyone coming, to *especially* bring their old junk, and not their fast OSX or MSOS to piksel, to discuss about free software as a creative platform. Not out because of dogma's, and especially not against the live and let die of LGPL, but out of pure practical reasons. Come on, and show us.
Cheers, Matthijs.
---- dutch stuff below
Een snelle en vrije dv-decoder is wat iedere kunstenaar in de linux gemeenschap zou kunnen gebruiken. Het is een van die dingen die linux als volwassen media en kunst platform vaak een stap doet achterlopen op de commercieel beschikbare alternatieven. Er zal dus meer aandacht voor linux als dit platform moeten komen, om de groep gebruikers, en zo de uitdaging( en beloning, en prestige, en eeuwige roem) naar ontwikkelaars toe groter te kunnen maken, en een doorbraak te forceren in dit soort kwesties.
Als zoiets niet gebeurt, zal linux als multimediaal platform, en dus als platform voor de kunst een marginaal bestaan moeten leiden. De GNU begon ooit met het maken van vrij beschikbaar gereedschap voor ontwikkelaars. De zwaarte is inmiddels verschoven naar vrij beschikbare gebruikers gereedschappen, zoals rijke grafische omgevingen, complete burea applicaties, beeld bewerkings software, software om video en geluid mee af te spelen, en rijke communicatie mogelijkheden. Zoals Stallman zelf al eens aangaf, een compiler is niet genoeg. Je hebt ook een debugger nodig, een editor, een build systeem, een hele berg van gereedscappen om je als ontwikkelaar comfortabel te voelen met het platform. al deze dingen heeft vrije software inmiddels.
Dit geld net zo hard, en misschien wel meer voor eindgebruikers, en in het bijzonder voor de typische eindgebruikers die willen komen tot een creatief product. Het gebruik van computers heeft voor deze laatste groep gebruikers een ongeevenaaarde hoeveelheid mogelijkheden gecreeerd om zich te kunnen uiten, en daarmee de computer industrie vele impulsen gegeven om zichzelf telkens weer te verbeteren, en deze wisselwerking zou het ook kunnen aangaan met de wereld van de vrije software. Een kruisbestuiving die voor beide groepen wel eens hele interessante voordelen zou kunnen hebben.
Dit is voor mij een belangrijke reden om linux te gebruiken, ook al sta ik als artiest in een zeer kwetsbare positie, omdat ik telkens weer de hulp moet inroepen van de ontwikkelaars voor de soms meest onzinnige dingen. Daarom blijf ik helaas bij mijn mede artiesten op onbegrip stuiten. Een kunstenaar kiest toch in de ogen van velen de optimale middelen om zijn beeld te bereiken. Ik denk dat dat een opportunistische manier van denken is die inherent is aan de opvattingen in de post-moderne kunst. Toch zijn er de voordelen om soms niet zo te denken, ook binnen kunst, en leveren samenwerkingsverbanden soms misschien wel meer op dan het kiezen voor dat wat de meest logische optie op het moment lijkt.
Ik zie mezelf dan ook als een pioneer, zonder mezelf daarbij op de borst te willen kloppen. Ik ben als beginnend kunstenaar niet helemaal vies van het gevoel de wereld te willen verbeteren. Het piksel festival pionieerd nogmeer en dat is hard nodig.
Daarom ben ik de mening toegedaan, dat wat puritanisme niet verkeerd is op een festival als piksel. Het helpt om een atmosfeer te creeeren waarin naar oplossingen gezocht wordt, waarin de beperkingen worden gevonden, en waar niemand zich hoefd te schamen voor een filmpje dat klungelig geedit moet worden omdat we nu eenmaal niet beschikken over adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash of final cut pro.
Daarom wil ik bij deze een oproep plaatsen, om vooral OSX en MSOS op piksel dit keer thuis te laten, en dan desnoods op onze oude machines en zonder quicktime te discussieeren over vrije software als creatief platform. Dus niet vanuit een stomzinnig dogma, en al helemaal niet tegen het gevoel van 'live and let live' van de LGPL in, maar vanuit praktische redenen. come on, and show us.
B. Bogart wrote:
Hey Marc,
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
PixelTANGO is actually not at all optimized, but is really a set of interfaces. Its first task was video performance and so the OSX was chosen, it was developed on OSX simply because my linux machine was far to slow to be of any use working with DV files (Duron 800).
But this is a digression.
The bottom line is that everything in pixelTANGO is free and multi-platform BUT those non-free components that get linked with Gem on OSX make it perform much better for certain operations. We just need ffmpeg (or something) function as well as quicktime and decoders that are very fast and optimized...
Say anyone know of anyone using the GPU to do some decoding work with pixelShaders?
Free software on any OS can't help but promote free software.
B.
PS: Showing the weaknesses of one OS in one respect is not the same as promoting the alternative OSs.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
It's easy: LGPL software is free, but can be used or linked with non-free software. The first letter is "L", for "Lesser", because it protects less; its only purpose is to distribute libraries that might become de-facto standards.
In the case of applications, hybrids don't only promote the free parts; for example, pixelTango is optimised for OSX because it is mainly developed on OSX, so it promotes OSX more than GNU/Linux. But I promote pixelTango to OSX users when I can, hoping they might eventually want use a free OS.
Happy Piksel!
Marc
Le 16 Août 2005 11:45, B. Bogart a écrit :
If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then things like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to have to deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as long as the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts...
Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately.
Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my AMD64/Debian mobo.
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit :
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
>> Mathieu Bouchard a écrit : >> >>> Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ? > > > > don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps and the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme extremists... ;-) -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
B. Bogart a écrit :
honestly I would really love to bring only free software (damn, my nvidia driver would break the rules anyhow...) to piksel.
haha, this is an important point : how many people at pixel will use free driver? moreover : and how many people will use free HARDWARE? i don't think there is a lot's of diference between hardware and software : it's just an other job, but same problematic.
using free software and free OS is just the BEGGINING. you can't be happy only because you run linux.
cyrille
Too bad my AMD64 & Duron machines are.... Desktops!!!! (not little ones at that). I can't transport such large heavy things all the way from Canada. If I had a linux laptop I would bring that. I don't own such a thing.
For the recond this powerbook of "mine" is on loan from the SAT. I only "own" linux machines.
I do think you bring up some great points about access to technology and this crazy drive for the newest and fastest. I bought the new machine for installation projects so I could leave my duron at home to do everything normal (like typing this email).
I could not find a shuttle with enough drive bays for my future disk-arrays...
The SAT did some work on getting a "tele-presence" application really working well using an openGL version of xdvshow, using a low latency kernel and all. It took a year of development for a normal machine to stream one DV copy (DVTS) and receive a second and display it with little packet loss and latency.
We REALLY do need better faster decoders/encoders in linux... I agree.
www.tot.sat.qc.ca for more info on the research project.
What is/are the geurilla approach(s) to increase linux visibility? Other than just using it.. (all my recent installations are linux powered!)
Ok I'm done with the cross-posting. For all those interested in continuing more messages are on the piksel mailinglist (piksel@bek.no).
b>
Matthijs van Henten wrote:
I wish to react to the short discussion about bringing your mac to piksel or not :) I want to ask you, PLEASE drag along your your athlons 800 instead of your powerbook this time ( I brought a duron 700 pc last year and did my performance on it :) )
Here's my motivation about it, read it if you're interested.
I wrote this up in dutch. I am not entirely happy about my english, therefore I'll be sending the dutch version at the bottom of this mail, for any of you dutch guys out there. The english is shorter, tho.
here it is:
A fast and free dv-decoder is something every artist in the linux community could use. It is one of those things that keeps linux as an adult platform for art and media one step behind the commercially available alternatives. Linux as such a platform needs more attention in order to make the usergroup, and with a usergroup the incentive ( or reward, or prestige, or eternal fame) for developers bigger in order to force a breaktrough these sort of issues.
If this doesn't happen, linux will live a marginal existence as a multimedia platform and implicitly as a platform for art. The GNU started out by making free tools for developers. The emphasis has shifted towards free available user tools. As Stallman once said, a compiler is not enough. You also need an editor, a build system, a debugger and a whole range of tools to be comfortable as a developer with the platform. All of these things wich the free software has by now. This is just as valid, and maybe even more, to say this about end users, and in special the typical group of end users that wish to produce creatively. The use of computers has improved the tools to produce creative output immensely, and by doing so, inspired and stimulated the computer industry to improve. This kind of interaction ( or, translated from dutch: cross-conception) could exist with the developers in the opensource community( well it already does but maybe not enough) as well. And this might be very valuable for both worlds. These are strong arguments for me to (keep) using linux, even if it puts me into a vurnerable position as an artist sometimes, since I have to rely on the help of developers sometimes, for even the most trival issues. This also makes me bump into a lot of mis-understanding from my fellow artists. An artist, in the view of many, chooses the most optimal means to create his 'image' ( art, goal, idea). I think this is an opportunistic way of thinking that is ( inherent | part of the way we) think (in | about) art in the post-modern (art | world). ( <- crist I'm happy I'm not a translator). Nevertheless, there are advantages not to think in such a way, somtimes, even within art. Collaborations sometimes create better stuff then simply choosing the most opportunistic option at the time. I see myself as a pioneer - I mean without trying to make anything better out of myself than I am - and as a Young Artist I like trying to improve something about the world. Piksel as a festival is even more pioneering, and it is needed badly. This is why I think that a little puritanism is not wrong on a festival like piksel. It'll help to create an athmosphere where we can look for shared solutions, where we find the important limitations and bottlenecks for the artistic process, and where nobody has to be ashamed for a badly edited movie, since we simply don't have adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash or final cut pro.
So hereby I ask everyone coming, to *especially* bring their old junk, and not their fast OSX or MSOS to piksel, to discuss about free software as a creative platform. Not out because of dogma's, and especially not against the live and let die of LGPL, but out of pure practical reasons. Come on, and show us.
Cheers, Matthijs.
---- dutch stuff below
Een snelle en vrije dv-decoder is wat iedere kunstenaar in de linux gemeenschap zou kunnen gebruiken. Het is een van die dingen die linux als volwassen media en kunst platform vaak een stap doet achterlopen op de commercieel beschikbare alternatieven. Er zal dus meer aandacht voor linux als dit platform moeten komen, om de groep gebruikers, en zo de uitdaging( en beloning, en prestige, en eeuwige roem) naar ontwikkelaars toe groter te kunnen maken, en een doorbraak te forceren in dit soort kwesties.
Als zoiets niet gebeurt, zal linux als multimediaal platform, en dus als platform voor de kunst een marginaal bestaan moeten leiden. De GNU begon ooit met het maken van vrij beschikbaar gereedschap voor ontwikkelaars. De zwaarte is inmiddels verschoven naar vrij beschikbare gebruikers gereedschappen, zoals rijke grafische omgevingen, complete burea applicaties, beeld bewerkings software, software om video en geluid mee af te spelen, en rijke communicatie mogelijkheden. Zoals Stallman zelf al eens aangaf, een compiler is niet genoeg. Je hebt ook een debugger nodig, een editor, een build systeem, een hele berg van gereedscappen om je als ontwikkelaar comfortabel te voelen met het platform. al deze dingen heeft vrije software inmiddels.
Dit geld net zo hard, en misschien wel meer voor eindgebruikers, en in het bijzonder voor de typische eindgebruikers die willen komen tot een creatief product. Het gebruik van computers heeft voor deze laatste groep gebruikers een ongeevenaaarde hoeveelheid mogelijkheden gecreeerd om zich te kunnen uiten, en daarmee de computer industrie vele impulsen gegeven om zichzelf telkens weer te verbeteren, en deze wisselwerking zou het ook kunnen aangaan met de wereld van de vrije software. Een kruisbestuiving die voor beide groepen wel eens hele interessante voordelen zou kunnen hebben.
Dit is voor mij een belangrijke reden om linux te gebruiken, ook al sta ik als artiest in een zeer kwetsbare positie, omdat ik telkens weer de hulp moet inroepen van de ontwikkelaars voor de soms meest onzinnige dingen. Daarom blijf ik helaas bij mijn mede artiesten op onbegrip stuiten. Een kunstenaar kiest toch in de ogen van velen de optimale middelen om zijn beeld te bereiken. Ik denk dat dat een opportunistische manier van denken is die inherent is aan de opvattingen in de post-moderne kunst. Toch zijn er de voordelen om soms niet zo te denken, ook binnen kunst, en leveren samenwerkingsverbanden soms misschien wel meer op dan het kiezen voor dat wat de meest logische optie op het moment lijkt.
Ik zie mezelf dan ook als een pioneer, zonder mezelf daarbij op de borst te willen kloppen. Ik ben als beginnend kunstenaar niet helemaal vies van het gevoel de wereld te willen verbeteren. Het piksel festival pionieerd nogmeer en dat is hard nodig.
Daarom ben ik de mening toegedaan, dat wat puritanisme niet verkeerd is op een festival als piksel. Het helpt om een atmosfeer te creeeren waarin naar oplossingen gezocht wordt, waarin de beperkingen worden gevonden, en waar niemand zich hoefd te schamen voor een filmpje dat klungelig geedit moet worden omdat we nu eenmaal niet beschikken over adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash of final cut pro.
Daarom wil ik bij deze een oproep plaatsen, om vooral OSX en MSOS op piksel dit keer thuis te laten, en dan desnoods op onze oude machines en zonder quicktime te discussieeren over vrije software als creatief platform. Dus niet vanuit een stomzinnig dogma, en al helemaal niet tegen het gevoel van 'live and let live' van de LGPL in, maar vanuit praktische redenen. come on, and show us.
B. Bogart wrote:
Hey Marc,
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
PixelTANGO is actually not at all optimized, but is really a set of interfaces. Its first task was video performance and so the OSX was chosen, it was developed on OSX simply because my linux machine was far to slow to be of any use working with DV files (Duron 800).
But this is a digression.
The bottom line is that everything in pixelTANGO is free and multi-platform BUT those non-free components that get linked with Gem on OSX make it perform much better for certain operations. We just need ffmpeg (or something) function as well as quicktime and decoders that are very fast and optimized...
Say anyone know of anyone using the GPU to do some decoding work with pixelShaders?
Free software on any OS can't help but promote free software.
B.
PS: Showing the weaknesses of one OS in one respect is not the same as promoting the alternative OSs.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
It's easy: LGPL software is free, but can be used or linked with non-free software. The first letter is "L", for "Lesser", because it protects less; its only purpose is to distribute libraries that might become de-facto standards.
In the case of applications, hybrids don't only promote the free parts; for example, pixelTango is optimised for OSX because it is mainly developed on OSX, so it promotes OSX more than GNU/Linux. But I promote pixelTango to OSX users when I can, hoping they might eventually want use a free OS.
Happy Piksel!
Marc
Le 16 Août 2005 11:45, B. Bogart a écrit :
If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then things like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to have to deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as long as the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts...
Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately.
Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my AMD64/Debian mobo.
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit :
> Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon: > >>> Mathieu Bouchard a écrit : >>> >>>> Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ? >> >> >> >> >> don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows >> users )) > > > > > total bollocks ;) > > we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as > OSX, as > long as the user-space apps is open-source.
It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps and the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme extremists... ;-) -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I hope in the future the biggest change to car culture will be the FLOSS car. You want gas and can afford it, then contribute it to the design, fuel-cell, solar, hybrid, you name it.. Tweak the pickup with your opensource PDA connected to the car's ethernet (or wireless)
I have a high heart for such things...
I think the biggest issue with free HW is that trickle down effect, Its cheap to build A because its made out of cheap mass produced part B, which is made out of part C. How come part C is so cheap? Because some R&D company spend $1,000,000 developing the production process for it. To recoup they better make a 1,000,000 units to make $10,000,000 to make the investors happy they contributed $1000 each.
geurilla investing?
Once the production process (the machine to built the other machine) can be built cheap by anyone at home, then we're talking!
Homemade IC fabricator? :)
I think the (global) culture is getting pretty tired of companies telling them what they can do, and so there are a lot of hackers out there, whether they write software, tweak their honda civic fuel injection by buying a hacked chip, hack their ipod to be a personal recorder. Despite the GPL legealease, hacking does require responsibility, even when there is no "warranty".
-b-
cyrille henry wrote:
B. Bogart a écrit :
honestly I would really love to bring only free software (damn, my nvidia driver would break the rules anyhow...) to piksel.
haha, this is an important point : how many people at pixel will use free driver? moreover : and how many people will use free HARDWARE? i don't think there is a lot's of diference between hardware and software : it's just an other job, but same problematic.
using free software and free OS is just the BEGGINING. you can't be happy only because you run linux.
cyrille
Too bad my AMD64 & Duron machines are.... Desktops!!!! (not little ones at that). I can't transport such large heavy things all the way from Canada. If I had a linux laptop I would bring that. I don't own such a thing.
For the recond this powerbook of "mine" is on loan from the SAT. I only "own" linux machines.
I do think you bring up some great points about access to technology and this crazy drive for the newest and fastest. I bought the new machine for installation projects so I could leave my duron at home to do everything normal (like typing this email).
I could not find a shuttle with enough drive bays for my future disk-arrays...
The SAT did some work on getting a "tele-presence" application really working well using an openGL version of xdvshow, using a low latency kernel and all. It took a year of development for a normal machine to stream one DV copy (DVTS) and receive a second and display it with little packet loss and latency.
We REALLY do need better faster decoders/encoders in linux... I agree.
www.tot.sat.qc.ca for more info on the research project.
What is/are the geurilla approach(s) to increase linux visibility? Other than just using it.. (all my recent installations are linux powered!)
Ok I'm done with the cross-posting. For all those interested in continuing more messages are on the piksel mailinglist (piksel@bek.no).
b>
Matthijs van Henten wrote:
I wish to react to the short discussion about bringing your mac to piksel or not :) I want to ask you, PLEASE drag along your your athlons 800 instead of your powerbook this time ( I brought a duron 700 pc last year and did my performance on it :) )
Here's my motivation about it, read it if you're interested.
I wrote this up in dutch. I am not entirely happy about my english, therefore I'll be sending the dutch version at the bottom of this mail, for any of you dutch guys out there. The english is shorter, tho.
here it is:
A fast and free dv-decoder is something every artist in the linux community could use. It is one of those things that keeps linux as an adult platform for art and media one step behind the commercially available alternatives. Linux as such a platform needs more attention in order to make the usergroup, and with a usergroup the incentive ( or reward, or prestige, or eternal fame) for developers bigger in order to force a breaktrough these sort of issues.
If this doesn't happen, linux will live a marginal existence as a multimedia platform and implicitly as a platform for art. The GNU started out by making free tools for developers. The emphasis has shifted towards free available user tools. As Stallman once said, a compiler is not enough. You also need an editor, a build system, a debugger and a whole range of tools to be comfortable as a developer with the platform. All of these things wich the free software has by now. This is just as valid, and maybe even more, to say this about end users, and in special the typical group of end users that wish to produce creatively. The use of computers has improved the tools to produce creative output immensely, and by doing so, inspired and stimulated the computer industry to improve. This kind of interaction ( or, translated from dutch: cross-conception) could exist with the developers in the opensource community( well it already does but maybe not enough) as well. And this might be very valuable for both worlds. These are strong arguments for me to (keep) using linux, even if it puts me into a vurnerable position as an artist sometimes, since I have to rely on the help of developers sometimes, for even the most trival issues. This also makes me bump into a lot of mis-understanding from my fellow artists. An artist, in the view of many, chooses the most optimal means to create his 'image' ( art, goal, idea). I think this is an opportunistic way of thinking that is ( inherent | part of the way we) think (in | about) art in the post-modern (art | world). ( <- crist I'm happy I'm not a translator). Nevertheless, there are advantages not to think in such a way, somtimes, even within art. Collaborations sometimes create better stuff then simply choosing the most opportunistic option at the time. I see myself as a pioneer - I mean without trying to make anything better out of myself than I am - and as a Young Artist I like trying to improve something about the world. Piksel as a festival is even more pioneering, and it is needed badly. This is why I think that a little puritanism is not wrong on a festival like piksel. It'll help to create an athmosphere where we can look for shared solutions, where we find the important limitations and bottlenecks for the artistic process, and where nobody has to be ashamed for a badly edited movie, since we simply don't have adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash or final cut pro.
So hereby I ask everyone coming, to *especially* bring their old junk, and not their fast OSX or MSOS to piksel, to discuss about free software as a creative platform. Not out because of dogma's, and especially not against the live and let die of LGPL, but out of pure practical reasons. Come on, and show us.
Cheers, Matthijs.
---- dutch stuff below
Een snelle en vrije dv-decoder is wat iedere kunstenaar in de linux gemeenschap zou kunnen gebruiken. Het is een van die dingen die linux als volwassen media en kunst platform vaak een stap doet achterlopen op de commercieel beschikbare alternatieven. Er zal dus meer aandacht voor linux als dit platform moeten komen, om de groep gebruikers, en zo de uitdaging( en beloning, en prestige, en eeuwige roem) naar ontwikkelaars toe groter te kunnen maken, en een doorbraak te forceren in dit soort kwesties.
Als zoiets niet gebeurt, zal linux als multimediaal platform, en dus als platform voor de kunst een marginaal bestaan moeten leiden. De GNU begon ooit met het maken van vrij beschikbaar gereedschap voor ontwikkelaars. De zwaarte is inmiddels verschoven naar vrij beschikbare gebruikers gereedschappen, zoals rijke grafische omgevingen, complete burea applicaties, beeld bewerkings software, software om video en geluid mee af te spelen, en rijke communicatie mogelijkheden. Zoals Stallman zelf al eens aangaf, een compiler is niet genoeg. Je hebt ook een debugger nodig, een editor, een build systeem, een hele berg van gereedscappen om je als ontwikkelaar comfortabel te voelen met het platform. al deze dingen heeft vrije software inmiddels.
Dit geld net zo hard, en misschien wel meer voor eindgebruikers, en in het bijzonder voor de typische eindgebruikers die willen komen tot een creatief product. Het gebruik van computers heeft voor deze laatste groep gebruikers een ongeevenaaarde hoeveelheid mogelijkheden gecreeerd om zich te kunnen uiten, en daarmee de computer industrie vele impulsen gegeven om zichzelf telkens weer te verbeteren, en deze wisselwerking zou het ook kunnen aangaan met de wereld van de vrije software. Een kruisbestuiving die voor beide groepen wel eens hele interessante voordelen zou kunnen hebben.
Dit is voor mij een belangrijke reden om linux te gebruiken, ook al sta ik als artiest in een zeer kwetsbare positie, omdat ik telkens weer de hulp moet inroepen van de ontwikkelaars voor de soms meest onzinnige dingen. Daarom blijf ik helaas bij mijn mede artiesten op onbegrip stuiten. Een kunstenaar kiest toch in de ogen van velen de optimale middelen om zijn beeld te bereiken. Ik denk dat dat een opportunistische manier van denken is die inherent is aan de opvattingen in de post-moderne kunst. Toch zijn er de voordelen om soms niet zo te denken, ook binnen kunst, en leveren samenwerkingsverbanden soms misschien wel meer op dan het kiezen voor dat wat de meest logische optie op het moment lijkt.
Ik zie mezelf dan ook als een pioneer, zonder mezelf daarbij op de borst te willen kloppen. Ik ben als beginnend kunstenaar niet helemaal vies van het gevoel de wereld te willen verbeteren. Het piksel festival pionieerd nogmeer en dat is hard nodig.
Daarom ben ik de mening toegedaan, dat wat puritanisme niet verkeerd is op een festival als piksel. Het helpt om een atmosfeer te creeeren waarin naar oplossingen gezocht wordt, waarin de beperkingen worden gevonden, en waar niemand zich hoefd te schamen voor een filmpje dat klungelig geedit moet worden omdat we nu eenmaal niet beschikken over adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash of final cut pro.
Daarom wil ik bij deze een oproep plaatsen, om vooral OSX en MSOS op piksel dit keer thuis te laten, en dan desnoods op onze oude machines en zonder quicktime te discussieeren over vrije software als creatief platform. Dus niet vanuit een stomzinnig dogma, en al helemaal niet tegen het gevoel van 'live and let live' van de LGPL in, maar vanuit praktische redenen. come on, and show us.
B. Bogart wrote:
Hey Marc,
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
PixelTANGO is actually not at all optimized, but is really a set of interfaces. Its first task was video performance and so the OSX was chosen, it was developed on OSX simply because my linux machine was far to slow to be of any use working with DV files (Duron 800).
But this is a digression.
The bottom line is that everything in pixelTANGO is free and multi-platform BUT those non-free components that get linked with Gem on OSX make it perform much better for certain operations. We just need ffmpeg (or something) function as well as quicktime and decoders that are very fast and optimized...
Say anyone know of anyone using the GPU to do some decoding work with pixelShaders?
Free software on any OS can't help but promote free software.
B.
PS: Showing the weaknesses of one OS in one respect is not the same as promoting the alternative OSs.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
It's easy: LGPL software is free, but can be used or linked with non-free software. The first letter is "L", for "Lesser", because it protects less; its only purpose is to distribute libraries that might become de-facto standards.
In the case of applications, hybrids don't only promote the free parts; for example, pixelTango is optimised for OSX because it is mainly developed on OSX, so it promotes OSX more than GNU/Linux. But I promote pixelTango to OSX users when I can, hoping they might eventually want use a free OS.
Happy Piksel!
Marc
Le 16 Août 2005 11:45, B. Bogart a écrit :
If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then things like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to have to deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as long as the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts...
Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately.
Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my AMD64/Debian mobo.
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
> Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit : > >> Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon: >> >>>> Mathieu Bouchard a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows >>> users )) >> >> >> >> >> >> total bollocks ;) >> >> we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as >> OSX, as >> long as the user-space apps is open-source. > > > > > > It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps > and > the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on > non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but it's > far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: > "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working > with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime > processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free > softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme > extremists... > ;-) > -- > Marc > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
B. Bogart a écrit :
I hope in the future the biggest change to car culture will be the FLOSS car. You want gas and can afford it, then contribute it to the design, fuel-cell, solar, hybrid, you name it.. Tweak the pickup with your opensource PDA connected to the car's ethernet (or wireless)
or drive bicycle :-)
I have a high heart for such things...
I think the biggest issue with free HW is that trickle down effect, Its cheap to build A because its made out of cheap mass produced part B, which is made out of part C. How come part C is so cheap? Because some R&D company spend $1,000,000 developing the production process for it. To recoup they better make a 1,000,000 units to make $10,000,000 to make the investors happy they contributed $1000 each.
time = money so replace $ with developement time in your text and tell me the diference with software????? (to make real time sound (C), you nead a Operating System (B)...)
geurilla investing?
price of freedom.
Once the production process (the machine to built the other machine) can be built cheap by anyone at home, then we're talking!
Homemade IC fabricator? :)
FPGA...
I think the (global) culture is getting pretty tired of companies telling them what they can do, and so there are a lot of hackers out there, whether they write software, tweak their honda civic fuel injection by buying a hacked chip, hack their ipod to be a personal recorder. Despite the GPL legealease, hacking does require responsibility, even when there is no "warranty".
i did not mention haking in my mail. that's the main problem. hacking existing hadware is just like cracking not-free software : it's a good thing for hardware (software) seller.
lot's of people like to make there software, and there is a lot of peoples making free software. but only few realise that making hardware is not harder. and making free hardware is as much important for freedom than free software.
buildig a free computer is not harder than making a free OS for this computer. (i personlaly think you nead less developement time to build a computer than to code it's OS).
ok, making free software is easier as you just have to be on your chair, drinking beer and eating pizza. (sorry, it's just a joke...)
maybe we should have this discussion in a few years, when you will not be able to run linux on standart computer because M$oft will pay to protect hadware against linux.
conclusion : i really think it is ridiculus to say "use linux and be free".
cyrille
-b-
cyrille henry wrote:
B. Bogart a écrit :
honestly I would really love to bring only free software (damn, my nvidia driver would break the rules anyhow...) to piksel.
haha, this is an important point : how many people at pixel will use free driver? moreover : and how many people will use free HARDWARE? i don't think there is a lot's of diference between hardware and software : it's just an other job, but same problematic.
using free software and free OS is just the BEGGINING. you can't be happy only because you run linux.
cyrille
Too bad my AMD64 & Duron machines are.... Desktops!!!! (not little ones at that). I can't transport such large heavy things all the way from Canada. If I had a linux laptop I would bring that. I don't own such a thing.
For the recond this powerbook of "mine" is on loan from the SAT. I only "own" linux machines.
I do think you bring up some great points about access to technology and this crazy drive for the newest and fastest. I bought the new machine for installation projects so I could leave my duron at home to do everything normal (like typing this email).
I could not find a shuttle with enough drive bays for my future disk-arrays...
The SAT did some work on getting a "tele-presence" application really working well using an openGL version of xdvshow, using a low latency kernel and all. It took a year of development for a normal machine to stream one DV copy (DVTS) and receive a second and display it with little packet loss and latency.
We REALLY do need better faster decoders/encoders in linux... I agree.
www.tot.sat.qc.ca for more info on the research project.
What is/are the geurilla approach(s) to increase linux visibility? Other than just using it.. (all my recent installations are linux powered!)
Ok I'm done with the cross-posting. For all those interested in continuing more messages are on the piksel mailinglist (piksel@bek.no).
b>
Matthijs van Henten wrote:
I wish to react to the short discussion about bringing your mac to piksel or not :) I want to ask you, PLEASE drag along your your athlons 800 instead of your powerbook this time ( I brought a duron 700 pc last year and did my performance on it :) )
Here's my motivation about it, read it if you're interested.
I wrote this up in dutch. I am not entirely happy about my english, therefore I'll be sending the dutch version at the bottom of this mail, for any of you dutch guys out there. The english is shorter, tho.
here it is:
A fast and free dv-decoder is something every artist in the linux community could use. It is one of those things that keeps linux as an adult platform for art and media one step behind the commercially available alternatives. Linux as such a platform needs more attention in order to make the usergroup, and with a usergroup the incentive ( or reward, or prestige, or eternal fame) for developers bigger in order to force a breaktrough these sort of issues.
If this doesn't happen, linux will live a marginal existence as a multimedia platform and implicitly as a platform for art. The GNU started out by making free tools for developers. The emphasis has shifted towards free available user tools. As Stallman once said, a compiler is not enough. You also need an editor, a build system, a debugger and a whole range of tools to be comfortable as a developer with the platform. All of these things wich the free software has by now. This is just as valid, and maybe even more, to say this about end users, and in special the typical group of end users that wish to produce creatively. The use of computers has improved the tools to produce creative output immensely, and by doing so, inspired and stimulated the computer industry to improve. This kind of interaction ( or, translated from dutch: cross-conception) could exist with the developers in the opensource community( well it already does but maybe not enough) as well. And this might be very valuable for both worlds. These are strong arguments for me to (keep) using linux, even if it puts me into a vurnerable position as an artist sometimes, since I have to rely on the help of developers sometimes, for even the most trival issues. This also makes me bump into a lot of mis-understanding from my fellow artists. An artist, in the view of many, chooses the most optimal means to create his 'image' ( art, goal, idea). I think this is an opportunistic way of thinking that is ( inherent | part of the way we) think (in | about) art in the post-modern (art | world). ( <- crist I'm happy I'm not a translator). Nevertheless, there are advantages not to think in such a way, somtimes, even within art. Collaborations sometimes create better stuff then simply choosing the most opportunistic option at the time. I see myself as a pioneer - I mean without trying to make anything better out of myself than I am - and as a Young Artist I like trying to improve something about the world. Piksel as a festival is even more pioneering, and it is needed badly. This is why I think that a little puritanism is not wrong on a festival like piksel. It'll help to create an athmosphere where we can look for shared solutions, where we find the important limitations and bottlenecks for the artistic process, and where nobody has to be ashamed for a badly edited movie, since we simply don't have adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash or final cut pro.
So hereby I ask everyone coming, to *especially* bring their old junk, and not their fast OSX or MSOS to piksel, to discuss about free software as a creative platform. Not out because of dogma's, and especially not against the live and let die of LGPL, but out of pure practical reasons. Come on, and show us.
Cheers, Matthijs.
---- dutch stuff below
Een snelle en vrije dv-decoder is wat iedere kunstenaar in de linux gemeenschap zou kunnen gebruiken. Het is een van die dingen die linux als volwassen media en kunst platform vaak een stap doet achterlopen op de commercieel beschikbare alternatieven. Er zal dus meer aandacht voor linux als dit platform moeten komen, om de groep gebruikers, en zo de uitdaging( en beloning, en prestige, en eeuwige roem) naar ontwikkelaars toe groter te kunnen maken, en een doorbraak te forceren in dit soort kwesties.
Als zoiets niet gebeurt, zal linux als multimediaal platform, en dus als platform voor de kunst een marginaal bestaan moeten leiden. De GNU begon ooit met het maken van vrij beschikbaar gereedschap voor ontwikkelaars. De zwaarte is inmiddels verschoven naar vrij beschikbare gebruikers gereedschappen, zoals rijke grafische omgevingen, complete burea applicaties, beeld bewerkings software, software om video en geluid mee af te spelen, en rijke communicatie mogelijkheden. Zoals Stallman zelf al eens aangaf, een compiler is niet genoeg. Je hebt ook een debugger nodig, een editor, een build systeem, een hele berg van gereedscappen om je als ontwikkelaar comfortabel te voelen met het platform. al deze dingen heeft vrije software inmiddels.
Dit geld net zo hard, en misschien wel meer voor eindgebruikers, en in het bijzonder voor de typische eindgebruikers die willen komen tot een creatief product. Het gebruik van computers heeft voor deze laatste groep gebruikers een ongeevenaaarde hoeveelheid mogelijkheden gecreeerd om zich te kunnen uiten, en daarmee de computer industrie vele impulsen gegeven om zichzelf telkens weer te verbeteren, en deze wisselwerking zou het ook kunnen aangaan met de wereld van de vrije software. Een kruisbestuiving die voor beide groepen wel eens hele interessante voordelen zou kunnen hebben.
Dit is voor mij een belangrijke reden om linux te gebruiken, ook al sta ik als artiest in een zeer kwetsbare positie, omdat ik telkens weer de hulp moet inroepen van de ontwikkelaars voor de soms meest onzinnige dingen. Daarom blijf ik helaas bij mijn mede artiesten op onbegrip stuiten. Een kunstenaar kiest toch in de ogen van velen de optimale middelen om zijn beeld te bereiken. Ik denk dat dat een opportunistische manier van denken is die inherent is aan de opvattingen in de post-moderne kunst. Toch zijn er de voordelen om soms niet zo te denken, ook binnen kunst, en leveren samenwerkingsverbanden soms misschien wel meer op dan het kiezen voor dat wat de meest logische optie op het moment lijkt.
Ik zie mezelf dan ook als een pioneer, zonder mezelf daarbij op de borst te willen kloppen. Ik ben als beginnend kunstenaar niet helemaal vies van het gevoel de wereld te willen verbeteren. Het piksel festival pionieerd nogmeer en dat is hard nodig.
Daarom ben ik de mening toegedaan, dat wat puritanisme niet verkeerd is op een festival als piksel. Het helpt om een atmosfeer te creeeren waarin naar oplossingen gezocht wordt, waarin de beperkingen worden gevonden, en waar niemand zich hoefd te schamen voor een filmpje dat klungelig geedit moet worden omdat we nu eenmaal niet beschikken over adobe premiere, quicktime, macromedia flash of final cut pro.
Daarom wil ik bij deze een oproep plaatsen, om vooral OSX en MSOS op piksel dit keer thuis te laten, en dan desnoods op onze oude machines en zonder quicktime te discussieeren over vrije software als creatief platform. Dus niet vanuit een stomzinnig dogma, en al helemaal niet tegen het gevoel van 'live and let live' van de LGPL in, maar vanuit praktische redenen. come on, and show us.
B. Bogart wrote:
Hey Marc,
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
PixelTANGO is actually not at all optimized, but is really a set of interfaces. Its first task was video performance and so the OSX was chosen, it was developed on OSX simply because my linux machine was far to slow to be of any use working with DV files (Duron 800).
But this is a digression.
The bottom line is that everything in pixelTANGO is free and multi-platform BUT those non-free components that get linked with Gem on OSX make it perform much better for certain operations. We just need ffmpeg (or something) function as well as quicktime and decoders that are very fast and optimized...
Say anyone know of anyone using the GPU to do some decoding work with pixelShaders?
Free software on any OS can't help but promote free software.
B.
PS: Showing the weaknesses of one OS in one respect is not the same as promoting the alternative OSs.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
It's easy: LGPL software is free, but can be used or linked with non-free software. The first letter is "L", for "Lesser", because it protects less; its only purpose is to distribute libraries that might become de-facto standards.
In the case of applications, hybrids don't only promote the free parts; for example, pixelTango is optimised for OSX because it is mainly developed on OSX, so it promotes OSX more than GNU/Linux. But I promote pixelTango to OSX users when I can, hoping they might eventually want use a free OS.
Happy Piksel!
Marc
Le 16 Août 2005 11:45, B. Bogart a écrit :
> If it was so easy to draw the line between free and non-free then > things > like the LGPL would not have any purpose. I think we're going to > have to > deal with commercial/free hybrids, which is not at all bad as > long as > the hybrids highlight and promote the free parts... > > Seems like Darwin and Apple are not playing nice lately. > > Yes, I'm bringing the powerbook to piksel, and not lugging my > AMD64/Debian mobo. > > B. > > Marc Lavallée wrote: > >> Le 16 Août 2005 11:15, 220hex a écrit : >> >>> Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon: >>> >>>>> Mathieu Bouchard a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows >>>> users )) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> total bollocks ;) >>> >>> we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as >>> OSX, as >>> long as the user-space apps is open-source. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It'a getting difficult to draw a line between the user-space apps >> and >> the root-space os. Using "open source" (I prefer the term free) on >> non-free platforms is one way to promote freedom for users, but >> it's >> far from enough. The first words on the Piksel web site are: >> "Piksel is a yearly event for artists and developers working >> with Free Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) for realtime >> processing of video and sound." Since Windows and OSX are non-free >> softwares, the Piksel people should logically be extreme >> extremists... >> ;-) >> -- >> Marc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
ydegoyon@free.fr a écrit :
conclusion : i really think it is ridiculus to say "use linux and be free".
cyrille
i don't want to be too rude, but some philosophers before you wrote freedom did not exist at all, but think who they were and what they did.
maybee that why i'm not a fan of phylosophy. :-)
i'll build myself a free computer when i'll be able to. i'll will not be free then as i'll use not free chips, but i'll be more free than someone who use a non-free computer. looking for freedom is endless. you should not stop to your OS, your drivers, your bios...
in fact, you can stop wherever you want if you think you'll never be free. but don't be proud of ONLY using a free OS.
will you choose phylosophy or will you buy (build) a soldering iron?
a bientot cyrille
salut, sevy
Le 17 Août 2005 09:44, cyrille henry a écrit :
B. Bogart a écrit :
honestly I would really love to bring only free software (damn, my nvidia driver would break the rules anyhow...) to piksel.
haha, this is an important point : how many people at pixel will use free driver? moreover : and how many people will use free HARDWARE? i don't think there is a lot's of diference between hardware and software : it's just an other job, but same problematic.
Software can be modified, hardware can't. It's easier to sell and buy physical goods (like food), but it's easier to share ideas, so harware companies consider their drivers as being part of their hardware. They are so wrong... One day, we will build our own hardware based on shared ideas and software. -- Marc
Hey Marc,
you know better than this! I see no different between cutting a trace and soldering in a new wire (HW hacking) compared to changing a few lines of code...
Ideas ARE a lot easier to share, but then instructions for hacking commercial HW becomes the material...
IC's are pretty hard to hack...
HW companies think there software "reveals" certain secrets of their HW they don't want the comptetitors to know about. I imagine they could try harder to hide the secrets and create some 3rd party interface. Actually with the nv driver there open-src parts allow anyone to change the parameters of the driver using a documented protocol.. pretty neat... I still don't know what nvidia is trying to hide...
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 17 Août 2005 09:44, cyrille henry a écrit :
B. Bogart a écrit :
honestly I would really love to bring only free software (damn, my nvidia driver would break the rules anyhow...) to piksel.
haha, this is an important point : how many people at pixel will use free driver? moreover : and how many people will use free HARDWARE? i don't think there is a lot's of diference between hardware and software : it's just an other job, but same problematic.
Software can be modified, hardware can't. It's easier to sell and buy physical goods (like food), but it's easier to share ideas, so harware companies consider their drivers as being part of their hardware. They are so wrong... One day, we will build our own hardware based on shared ideas and software. -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
hi,
Am Mittwoch 17 August 2005 15:18 schrieb B. Bogart:
Hey Marc,
[...snip...]
parameters of the driver using a documented protocol.. pretty neat... I still don't know what nvidia is trying to hide...
thats easy to answer. it is the so-called "ip" (intellectual property) that they hide. and frankly, they _must_ hide it, because it is not their own ip. so they make contracts with nda's (non-disclosure-agreement), which just forbid them to tell details about the stuff.
modern, complex chips are only partially hardware, many have some kind of generic processor in it, that is fed with software to make it work. and it doesnt matter if the software is burned into the chip itself, or is loaded afterwards by a driver.
did you know that on p4's (and many other cpu's) you could, in theory, change the microcode inside that chip? that would mean, you could learn it new instructions! but surely they dont tell for free .....
you want to know whats going on? no problem, buy licenses for that stuff, sign an nda, and you will know. but you are not allowed to tell anyone.
the real problem is the patent system, which allows just too much to be patented.
for example, you can buy a chip that plays back mp3 data. but each time you buy such a chip (20 dollar), the fraunhofer institute gets license fees (5 dollar). and no, that doesnt include that you know whats going on in the chip.
another example: there are plenty of chips out there for stuff like en/decoding video, dv, dvd, etc. but to be able to use them, you need to buy the specs and licenses for them. and they are all, but not cheap. oh, and of course, again you are not allowed to tell anyone else!
we have to get rid of the patent system as it is nowdays. if there is no more senseless protection of the bare basics, things would become much easier.
what do you think why the chinese are cloning so much, even chips? ;-)
B.
greets,
chris
Le 17 Août 2005 09:18, B. Bogart a écrit :
Hey Marc,
you know better than this! I see no different between cutting a trace and soldering in a new wire (HW hacking) compared to changing a few lines of code...
I won't comment all the (very OT) thread I missed today... :-)
My point was that hardware is still designed, marketed, and sold in order to be used unmodified. On the other hand, free software is designed, marketed and used as a work in progress, not as a monolithic product loosing value while being used. Hacking free software is normal and legally protected for this usage. Hacking free software is ecological, but throwing away unmodified hardware because it is "obsolete" (like cell phones) is polluting. Hacking hardware should be a protected right. New laws in Europe are forcing manufacturers to design their products so they can be recycled; extending such laws could force them to let us modify and adapt their products. We want free drivers and free hardware... -- Marc
Hi all,
I try to follow the discussion and wonder about the most complementary positions of hardware and software guys. There are some points I don't understand:
Marc Lavallée wrote:
My point was that hardware is still designed, marketed, and sold in order to be used unmodified.
Pro: DSP in a monolithic design, hardware. Designed to be unmodified. Contra: no name personal computer, modular concept, hardware. Designed to be adapted for customer purposes.
???
On the other hand, free software is designed, marketed
and used as a work in progress, not as a monolithic product loosing value while being used.
Pro: open source software. Allowed to be modified. Contra: closed source software as a freeware product. Use it for free (free as free beer not free speech :-) but, you are not supposed to modify it until you get the sources and permission. Small example: microcode in your CPU Bigger example: adobe acrobat reader Any example: a lib/app/driver you are allowed to use but you won't get the sources.
Thus, ???
Hacking free software is normal and legally protected for
this usage. Hacking free software is ecological, but throwing away unmodified hardware because it is "obsolete" (like cell phones) is polluting.
Contra: Hacking free software instead of buying an existing solution is polluting due to the energy you waste. Re-using old PC as a server (file/mail/firewall...) is ecological. So, again: ???
Hacking hardware should be a protected right.
Modifying hardware is allowed, if the designer of the hardware allows to do that. Modifying software is allowed as well, only if the designer of the software allows to that. E.g. buy a no name PC, change the hard disk, and resell it. Get a copy of OOo, change some code lines, resell it (under another brand, of course). So, where is the difference? Just because modifying software is much easier? (try to hack a monolythic integrated chip :-)
products. We want free drivers and free hardware...
I think, there is one difference between software and hardware: the software is based on hardware (no software without hardware). Thus, you modify the software, because someone gave you specifications of the hardware and allowed to adapt the functionality of the total system, again, via the software. Thus, is it possible that the line between software and hardware is the border between "modify by customer" and "modify by designer"?
E.g.: think of the well known Z80, which specifications are very, very hard to modify. But, you could use an FPGA to emulate the Z80 in _software_ to allow easy modifications. In both cases you have (almost) the same system, the only difference is your freedom...
Would it be OK if the owner of the Z80-emulation doesn't allow to modify the code?
And, just to get the curve to the nvidia drivers, if, comparing to the Z80 example, the nvidia graphic card is the FPGA and the nvidia drivers the Z80-emulation: why is it evil to sell the drivers as closed source?
OK, that are my two cent,
Peter
Le 18 Août 2005 06:39, Piotr Majdak a écrit :
Contra: Hacking free software instead of buying an existing solution is polluting due to the energy you waste. Re-using old PC as a server (file/mail/firewall...) is ecological. So, again: ???
Users of free software don't have to hack their own; installing a gratis Gnu/Linux distribution requires less energy than buying a close OS plus all required software, and installing them one by one, clicking OK buttons on EULA dialogs. Humans are lazy and opportunistic, and this should be good for free software and hardware. Closed resources are not less polluting, I believe it's the opposite.
Hacking hardware should be a protected right.
Modifying hardware is allowed, if the designer of the hardware allows to do that. Modifying software is allowed as well, only if the designer of the software allows to that. E.g. buy a no name PC, change the hard disk, and resell it. Get a copy of OOo, change some code lines, resell it (under another brand, of course). So, where is the difference? Just because modifying software is much easier? (try to hack a monolythic integrated chip :-)
We can't open our hard drives and expect to fix them. This is a limitation and there's reasons for it. But because some hardware can't be hacked doesn't mean we should accept this situation, which is artificially transposed to products like graphic cards. NVidia (for example) have no good reasons (other than supposedly commercial) to close their drivers.
Like I have no good reason to buy bottled water other than to make ColaCola richer and recycle (or throw away) more plastic, because I have perfectly good water supplied by the city. Modifying sofware is not always easier than modifying a patented plastic gizmo and resell it. It's the patent and copyright system that makes it harder...
I think, there is one difference between software and hardware: the software is based on hardware (no software without hardware).
Software can run on different hardware. Software can be expressed as ideas only, without being implemented. It's the same with hardware; a design is an idea that can be materialized in many ways, or not.
Thus, is it possible that the line between software and hardware is the border between "modify by customer" and "modify by designer"?
Design is a concept that applies to both hardware and software. "Commerce is the trading of something of value between two entities." says Wikipedia. We want to use our energy and money in a sustainable way, and closed design is less valuable than open design.
why is it evil to sell the drivers as closed source?
It's not evil, it's just bad. Because software is a technology that can be open, it should be sold as open. There's no technological reason to close software, and not enough good reasons to close hardware all the time.
We could talk about it for years, and I'm sure we will. ;-)
Marc
Hi Marc,
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Users of free software don't have to hack their own; installing a gratis Gnu/Linux distribution requires less energy than buying a close OS plus all required software, and installing them one by one, clicking OK buttons on EULA dialogs. Humans are lazy and opportunistic, and this should be good for free software and hardware.
I think that's only your point of view. Sometimes it's cheaper to go to a store and buy a $200 software than searching for a freeware version in internet for hours. That's my point of view - it just depends on the value of your time.
And by the way: going to a store gives the saleman a salary. So, in this example, freeware/OSS appears to be less social ;-)
However, what I wanted to show was that there is a very smeared border between hardware and software. And, it's very difficult to create a fair system of distributing hardware and software, or let's use a better differentiation, information and goods, as long as we have money. Anyhow, I'm very impatient for the time of Star Trek, where we'll don't need money anymore :-)
We could talk about it for years, and I'm sure we will. ;-)
Yes, we'll do, I'm sure about it. Because every month some OSS programers scream for that what they call "freedom". And forget, that what they really want is to restrict freedom of other individuals. So, why do _you_ want to force NVidia to do something your way? They are free to sell their driver - you are free to not buying their product if you don't like them.
Example: I don't like M$ and that's why I don't use MS Office. But, I need MS Windows as OS thus, I _buy_ MS Windows. Sorry for that, it's MS's and my freedom.
br,
Peter
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Piotr Majdak wrote:
However, what I wanted to show was that there is a very smeared border between hardware and software.
Maybe we should call them harderware and softerware.
or somewhat-soft-ware and somewhat-hard-ware.
But there's already the word firmware for that.
I think that what causes the border to be smeared is that computing is based on abstraction, that is, blackboxing, and so as one component you don't have to know another component intimately, just be able to speak one protocol. Therefore the other component could be any mix of hardware and software and you wouldn't notice the difference as long as it does its job.
Thus what we call hardware or software is mostly dependent on what we're used to call hardware or software. It's just a convention according to how things have been traditionally/originally.
And, it's very difficult to create a fair system of distributing hardware and software, or let's use a better differentiation, information and goods, as long as we have money.
What does money have to do with it, and what would you replace money with?
Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
What does money have to do with it, and what would you replace money with?
Because you wanted to get free hardware and as long as some people have to earn money for their work they want you to pay for that. "It's the economics, stupid!" (B. Clinton).
And, unfortunetaly, I don't have any solution for changing the system we live in :-). But, changing just _one_ rule (free "anything") won't work...
br, Peter
Diversity is the key here, the world should be a pretty good example of the fact that one solution does not work, that is after all the old utopian idea.
The more options the better, the more niches the more the opportunity. This is why monopolies are bad, which are the greatest investors in the crooked American pattent system.
Diversity is nature's law and we should follow it.
b.
Piotr Majdak wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
What does money have to do with it, and what would you replace money with?
Because you wanted to get free hardware and as long as some people have to earn money for their work they want you to pay for that. "It's the economics, stupid!" (B. Clinton).
And, unfortunetaly, I don't have any solution for changing the system we live in :-). But, changing just _one_ rule (free "anything") won't work...
br, Peter
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Interesting thread here. Remember it started with "Who's goin' to Piksel05"? (-:
I agree with you Ben.
I think that's a question of doing something you think is good according to your ethics and judgement. Quoting Yves here that said it was once said freedom didn' exist: I'd say freedom is a path rather than a detination. Thus, IMHO if one considers it as the destination it can well be said it doesn't exist. At least that's how I understand it.
Your walk through this path is then guided by your own judgement and ethics. I see discussion as a good thing to ask myself questions about what I'm doing and how I'm doing it. Nothing's obvious here, at least for me...
I really see sharing (ideas, knowledge...) as the key though.
++
Jé
B. Bogart a écrit :
Diversity is the key here, the world should be a pretty good example of the fact that one solution does not work, that is after all the old utopian idea.
The more options the better, the more niches the more the opportunity. This is why monopolies are bad, which are the greatest investors in the crooked American pattent system.
Diversity is nature's law and we should follow it.
b.
Piotr Majdak wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
What does money have to do with it, and what would you replace money with?
Because you wanted to get free hardware and as long as some people have to earn money for their work they want you to pay for that. "It's the economics, stupid!" (B. Clinton).
And, unfortunetaly, I don't have any solution for changing the system we live in :-). But, changing just _one_ rule (free "anything") won't work...
br, Peter
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
ola,
I think that's a question of doing something you think is good according to your ethics and judgement. Quoting Yves here that said it was once said freedom didn' exist: I'd say freedom is a path rather than a detination. Thus, IMHO if one considers it as the destination it can well be said it doesn't exist. At least that's how I understand it.
exactly ))
we all need shoes, but i don't feel like crafting them myself, but i will never buy a pair of Nike, i'm half free...
and, also, don't forget that there is noway peace, peace is the way..
OT??
sevy
hi,
Am Mittwoch 17 August 2005 16:03 schrieb Marc Lavallée:
Le 17 Août 2005 09:44, cyrille henry a écrit :
[...snip...]
Software can be modified, hardware can't. It's easier to sell and buy
objection!
i wouldnt say that hardware cant be modified. remember the good, old c64? how many were sold, and from that, how many were used unmodified? almost none, i would say.
admitted, with modern hardware it becomes harder to make modifications, but it is still possible. for example, on serveral occasions i modified wintv cards to have certain output jacks, that only higher-priced models had. all that was needed are readily available chips & jacks, and a calm hand to handle these smd beasts.
just recently i modified my dvd player to have a full set of jacks for the 5.1 audio output (it only had stereo and one digital output). that was even simpler, only some cap's and the jacks were needed, plus an op-amp.
or look at gfx cards.... its not long ago (or it still is) that there were serveral versions of the same card: with additional outputs, like video, or with higher speed dac's that allow for higher refresh rates and resolutions. it would be possible to change the dac chips, for example. or put the missing parts for the additional outputs on it......
once in munich we got a big batch of memory cards for some exotic hardware at a really low price (surplus like). that was in the time when 4-mbyte simm modules had high prices. now we desolderes the single chips, and soldered them on empty simm sticks. about 80 percent of them worked flawlessy afterwards.....
physical goods (like food), but it's easier to share ideas, so harware companies consider their drivers as being part of their hardware. They are so wrong... One day, we will build our own hardware based on shared ideas and software.
im hoping for that. and im already working towards that. after all, digital hardware is much easier to design and build than analogue hardware. in fact, one could look at it (the digital part) as "pd with real objects". its just that many people are not interrested in creating new hardware, for whatever reason. many are afraid to handle chips, a solder iron, etc, because they think its too complicated, and that the parts would be too sensitive (i.e. that they would be easily destroyed). but its not that complicated and sensitive as most people think. its pretty much the same as it was when computers became widely available. many people were afraid to touch them, because they thought they are too fragile. today we know better, and many people built their own pc's from single components. and whats the real difference between plugging a ram stick into your pc, compared to plug a chip into some pcb? to me, not much ....
-- Marc
greetings,
chris
Christian Klippel a écrit :
hi,
Am Mittwoch 17 August 2005 16:03 schrieb Marc Lavallée:
Le 17 Août 2005 09:44, cyrille henry a écrit :
[...snip...]
Software can be modified, hardware can't. It's easier to sell and buy
objection!
i wouldnt say that hardware cant be modified.
this is because you have never see free hardware. once you have the shematic of your hardware, it's easier (at least for me) to understand how does it work than to undestand how does a software work.
the good point of a hardware is that you can print the all shematic on a big piece of paper. you can't wih software (how many page do you nead to print pd code?). you can have everything in front of you with hardware developement. not with software.
this is a mailling list for the developement of a software, so everybody know how to develop a software, and few know how to develop a hardware. this mailling list does not represent everybody.
remember the good, old c64? how many were sold, and from that, how many were used unmodified? almost none, i would say.
admitted, with modern hardware it becomes harder to make modifications, but it is still possible. for example, on serveral occasions i modified wintv cards to have certain output jacks, that only higher-priced models had. all that was needed are readily available chips & jacks, and a calm hand to handle these smd beasts.
once agaian, i did not speak about hacking, but building.
just recently i modified my dvd player to have a full set of jacks for the 5.1 audio output (it only had stereo and one digital output). that was even simpler, only some cap's and the jacks were needed, plus an op-amp.
or look at gfx cards.... its not long ago (or it still is) that there were serveral versions of the same card: with additional outputs, like video, or with higher speed dac's that allow for higher refresh rates and resolutions. it would be possible to change the dac chips, for example. or put the missing parts for the additional outputs on it......
once in munich we got a big batch of memory cards for some exotic hardware at a really low price (surplus like). that was in the time when 4-mbyte simm modules had high prices. now we desolderes the single chips, and soldered them on empty simm sticks. about 80 percent of them worked flawlessy afterwards.....
physical goods (like food), but it's easier to share ideas, so harware companies consider their drivers as being part of their hardware. They are so wrong... One day, we will build our own hardware based on shared ideas and software.
im hoping for that. and im already working towards that. after all, digital hardware is much easier to design and build than analogue hardware.
?????? i'm an analog hardware fan, so i do not agree. it's just a question of what YOU like to do, and what YOU know what to do.
in fact, one could look at it (the digital part) as "pd with real objects".
pd with real objects is more analog electronic than digital electronic. pd with real objects is modular analog synth made 20 or 30 years ago. there is a lot of projets to build free pd with real objects. (I personally have build few of them, for the one interested with free music.)
(as this discution is highly OT, i just got further : how many people in this list have listen to ANALOG FM synthesis. i never succed doing so great sound with pd or any other digital stuff.)
its just that many people are not interrested in creating new hardware, for whatever reason.
siting on a chair, drinding beer, eating pizza :-) it's a joke, but to be honest i never drink coffee becaus it's incompatible with hardware soldering, so yes, ther are some (bad) reason to focus on software better than hardware.
many are afraid to handle chips, a solder iron, etc, because they think its too complicated, and that the parts would be too sensitive (i.e. that they would be easily destroyed). but its not that complicated and sensitive as most people think.
it depend on peoples : i konw a lot's of people who think that software developement is harder than hardware.
its pretty much the same as it was when computers became widely available. many people were afraid to touch them, because they thought they are too fragile. today we know better, and many people built their own pc's from single components. and whats the real difference between plugging a ram stick into your pc, compared to plug a chip into some pcb? to me, not much ....
anyway, to go back to the original discution : whatever the dificulty of hardware developement, you can't say you're free if you use not-free hardware.
cyrille
-- Marc
greetings,
chris
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
hello,
Am Mittwoch 17 August 2005 19:42 schrieb cyrille henry:
Christian Klippel a écrit :
hi,
Am Mittwoch 17 August 2005 16:03 schrieb Marc Lavallée:
Le 17 Août 2005 09:44, cyrille henry a écrit :
[...snip...]
Software can be modified, hardware can't. It's easier to sell and buy
objection!
i wouldnt say that hardware cant be modified.
this is because you have never see free hardware.
woot? not only i have seen it, i actually do it: http://multio.mamalala.de to give only one example ..... be carefull what you wish for .... ;-)
once you have the shematic of your hardware, it's easier (at least for me) to understand how does it work than to undestand how does a software work.
the good point of a hardware is that you can print the all shematic on a big piece of paper. you can't wih software (how many page do you nead to print pd code?). you can have everything in front of you with hardware developement. not with software.
if you know all used electronic parts inside-out, then yes. otherwise you also have to read datasheets, manuals, etc. taking the iobox as example, the datasheets of all used parts will give a higher pile of paper than the printout of pd's sources.
this is a mailling list for the developement of a software, so everybody know how to develop a software, and few know how to develop a hardware. this mailling list does not represent everybody.
remember the good, old c64? how many were sold, and from that, how many were used unmodified? almost none, i would say.
admitted, with modern hardware it becomes harder to make modifications, but it is still possible. for example, on serveral occasions i modified wintv cards to have certain output jacks, that only higher-priced models had. all that was needed are readily available chips & jacks, and a calm hand to handle these smd beasts.
once agaian, i did not speak about hacking, but building.
this comment was re: modifying hardware (in marcs post). not about building from scratch.
just recently i modified my dvd player to have a full set of jacks for the 5.1 audio output (it only had stereo and one digital output). that was even simpler, only some cap's and the jacks were needed, plus an op-amp.
or look at gfx cards.... its not long ago (or it still is) that there were serveral versions of the same card: with additional outputs, like video, or with higher speed dac's that allow for higher refresh rates and resolutions. it would be possible to change the dac chips, for example. or put the missing parts for the additional outputs on it......
once in munich we got a big batch of memory cards for some exotic hardware at a really low price (surplus like). that was in the time when 4-mbyte simm modules had high prices. now we desolderes the single chips, and soldered them on empty simm sticks. about 80 percent of them worked flawlessy afterwards.....
physical goods (like food), but it's easier to share ideas, so harware companies consider their drivers as being part of their hardware. They are so wrong... One day, we will build our own hardware based on shared ideas and software.
im hoping for that. and im already working towards that. after all, digital hardware is much easier to design and build than analogue hardware.
?????? i'm an analog hardware fan, so i do not agree. it's just a question of what YOU like to do, and what YOU know what to do.
i can take a bunch of ttl ic's, memory, microcontroller. all that is needed to make it work is to know whats an input and whats an output, and connect these. with analogue circuitry you _have_ to do calculations to make it work. for example, a transistor alone isnt of much use, you need at least resistors also to make it work in a meaningfull way. and those values have to be calculated. in digital world, i only need wires to connect the pins of the chips. i dont have to care about bias points, positive/negative swings, etc. as i would need when building an amplifier stage.
in fact, one could look at it (the digital part) as "pd with real objects".
pd with real objects is more analog electronic than digital electronic. pd with real objects is modular analog synth made 20 or 30 years ago.
agreed. but i was more refering to the simplicity of connecting black-boxes (in this case chips vs. pd objects) instead of caring about the inertia of them. to build a analogue synth module, even a simple oscillator, you need more knowledge than you need to build a running light with one digital chip (cd4017).
there is a lot of projets to build free pd with real objects. (I personally have build few of them, for the one interested with free music.)
do you have any pointers? im interrested in such stuff generally .... soon i will put mine online, just need to "polish" them so they can be put online ....
(as this discution is highly OT, i just got further : how many people in this list have listen to ANALOG FM synthesis. i never succed doing so great sound with pd or any other digital stuff.)
true.
its just that many people are not interrested in creating new hardware, for whatever reason.
siting on a chair, drinding beer, eating pizza :-) it's a joke, but to be honest i never drink coffee becaus it's incompatible with hardware soldering, so yes, ther are some (bad) reason to focus on software better than hardware.
many are afraid to handle chips, a solder iron, etc, because they think its too complicated, and that the parts would be too sensitive (i.e. that they would be easily destroyed). but its not that complicated and sensitive as most people think.
it depend on peoples : i konw a lot's of people who think that software developement is harder than hardware.
its pretty much the same as it was when computers became widely available. many people were afraid to touch them, because they thought they are too fragile. today we know better, and many people built their own pc's from single components. and whats the real difference between plugging a ram stick into your pc, compared to plug a chip into some pcb? to me, not much ....
anyway, to go back to the original discution : whatever the dificulty of hardware developement, you can't say you're free if you use not-free hardware.
agreed .... ;-)
cyrille
greetings,
chris
Christian Klippel a écrit :
hello,
Am Mittwoch 17 August 2005 19:42 schrieb cyrille henry:
Christian Klippel a écrit :
hi,
Am Mittwoch 17 August 2005 16:03 schrieb Marc Lavallée:
Le 17 Août 2005 09:44, cyrille henry a écrit :
[...snip...]
Software can be modified, hardware can't. It's easier to sell and buy
objection!
i wouldnt say that hardware cant be modified.
this is because you have never see free hardware.
woot? not only i have seen it, i actually do it: http://multio.mamalala.de to give only one example ..... be carefull what you wish for .... ;-)
sorry.i made a mistake here. so, i don't undestand you : why do you say hardware can't be modified, as that what you're doing?
once you have the shematic of your hardware, it's easier (at least for me) to understand how does it work than to undestand how does a software work.
the good point of a hardware is that you can print the all shematic on a big piece of paper. you can't wih software (how many page do you nead to print pd code?). you can have everything in front of you with hardware developement. not with software.
if you know all used electronic parts inside-out, then yes. otherwise you also have to read datasheets, manuals, etc. taking the iobox as example, the datasheets of all used parts will give a higher pile of paper than the printout of pd's sources
adding compiler documentation will add more paper if you really whish to make a competition ;-) (well this is stupid as i don't think it's really important to discuss if hardware or software is easier).
[...]
i can take a bunch of ttl ic's, memory, microcontroller. all that is needed to make it work is to know whats an input and whats an output, and connect these. with analogue circuitry you _have_ to do calculations to make it work.
to make TTL work as you wish, you also have to think. i don't see diference here.
for example, a transistor alone isnt of much use, you need at least resistors also to make it work in a meaningfull way. and those values have to be calculated. in digital world, i only need wires to connect the pins of the chips.
you don't plug wire randomly, as you don't put random resistor when you use transistor.
i dont have to care about bias points, positive/negative swings, etc. as i would need when building an amplifier stage.
yes, ok.
maybee i do not express myself clearly. the only thing i wanted to say in this discution is that using linux is not enough to be free. maybee it's harder to make hardware thant software (i don't change my mind anyway), but this is not really important.
in fact, one could look at it (the digital part) as "pd with real objects".
pd with real objects is more analog electronic than digital electronic. pd with real objects is modular analog synth made 20 or 30 years ago.
agreed. but i was more refering to the simplicity of connecting black-boxes (in this case chips vs. pd objects) instead of caring about the inertia of them. to build a analogue synth module, even a simple oscillator, you need more knowledge than you need to build a running light with one digital chip (cd4017).
at least you nead to know that you nead a cd4017... you have to learn thing befor doing digital electronics
there is a lot of projets to build free pd with real objects. (I personally have build few of them, for the one interested with free music.)
do you have any pointers? im interrested in such stuff generally .... soon i will put mine online, just need to "polish" them so they can be put online ....
i don't have bookmark anymore about this, (as i was working on this many years ago) but i've got a lots of shematics that i'll send you off list.
cyrille
(as this discution is highly OT, i just got further : how many people in this list have listen to ANALOG FM synthesis. i never succed doing so great sound with pd or any other digital stuff.)
true.
its just that many people are not interrested in creating new hardware, for whatever reason.
siting on a chair, drinding beer, eating pizza :-) it's a joke, but to be honest i never drink coffee becaus it's incompatible with hardware soldering, so yes, ther are some (bad) reason to focus on software better than hardware.
many are afraid to handle chips, a solder iron, etc, because they think its too complicated, and that the parts would be too sensitive (i.e. that they would be easily destroyed). but its not that complicated and sensitive as most people think.
it depend on peoples : i konw a lot's of people who think that software developement is harder than hardware.
its pretty much the same as it was when computers became widely available. many people were afraid to touch them, because they thought they are too fragile. today we know better, and many people built their own pc's from single components. and whats the real difference between plugging a ram stick into your pc, compared to plug a chip into some pcb? to me, not much ....
anyway, to go back to the original discution : whatever the dificulty of hardware developement, you can't say you're free if you use not-free hardware.
agreed .... ;-)
cyrille
greetings,
chris
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
hi,
read the next sentence in the quote carefully:
i wouldnt say that hardware cant be modified.
wouldnt != would ;-)
this is because you have never see free hardware.
woot? not only i have seen it, i actually do it: http://multio.mamalala.de to give only one example ..... be carefull what you wish for .... ;-)
sorry.i made a mistake here. so, i don't undestand you : why do you say hardware can't be modified, as that what you're doing?
see above, i said i _wouldnt_ (which is: would not) say that ;-) the whole stuff i wrote after that sentence wouldnt (!) make any sense if i had agreed with the previous poster that hardware couldnt (!) be modified.
but no problem, misunderstandings happen on an international level, where each one speaks a language that isnt native to her/him.... once i thought "invaluable" means "of no value" when someone wrotes something about my stuff. sure i was upset, but as it turned out, i was wrong ;-)
[...snip...]
i don't have bookmark anymore about this, (as i was working on this many years ago) but i've got a lots of shematics that i'll send you off list.
that would be very nice!
cyrille
greetings,
chris
Le 17 Août 2005 13:42, cyrille henry a écrit :
(as this discution is highly OT, i just got further : how many people in this list have listen to ANALOG FM synthesis. i never succed doing so great sound with pd or any other digital stuff.)
I did, a while ago, using a sine carrier and modulator on a analog synth. It's was funny but rather limited, because analog oscillators are not stable enough, and because FM requires a lot of oscillators to sound rich enough; that's a reason why this technique evolved in the digital domain. I would love to hear good music using analog FM, do you have an example?
I heard Riverrun from Barry Truax around 1988, and I still like this early combination of (digital) FM synth with granular synthesis: http://www.sfu.ca/~truax/gran.html -- Marc
Marc Lavallée a écrit :
Le 17 Août 2005 09:44, cyrille henry a écrit :
B. Bogart a écrit :
honestly I would really love to bring only free software (damn, my nvidia driver would break the rules anyhow...) to piksel.
haha, this is an important point : how many people at pixel will use free driver? moreover : and how many people will use free HARDWARE? i don't think there is a lot's of diference between hardware and software : it's just an other job, but same problematic.
Software can be modified, hardware can't.
hardware can be modified before compilation (before you build it). there is no deference with software. (you can modify a sofware only if you have the source code, you can modify a hardware if you have the shematic)
hardware cost monney, software cost time. i don't see a diference.
It's easier to sell and buy physical goods (like food), but it's easier to share ideas, so harware companies consider their drivers as being part of their hardware. They are so wrong...
when you design a product, the hardware dependent on the software, the software dependent on the hardware. i don't think they are wrong to think drivers is part of the hardware : if nvidia provid free driver, then ATI will exactly know how does the nvidia hardware is made, and they will be able to copy nvidia idea.
One day, we will build our own hardware based on shared ideas and software.
yes. and this day we will be free. not before.
cyrille.
-- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Just to add some aspects:
Software can be modified, hardware can't.
hardware can be modified before compilation (before you build it). there is no deference with software. (you can modify a sofware only if you have the source code, you can modify a hardware if you have the shematic)
you can modify compiled software if you dare. Patching is an artform in itself and might include disassembling code to read the 'real stuff'. Most interesting is of course software which modifies itself...
And yes, digital electronics as a subcategory of analogue electronics is easier to understand and work with. You stay usually at the same voltage and skip so many things you normally need to take care. Maybe its my programmer view, I saw electronic engineers who actually got trouble to get into programming and one of the electronic books in my homelibrary, which is really heavy to read for me, trys to calm down the audience during the introduction of microcontrollers, saying programming is not so difficult as it looks :).
when you design a product, the hardware dependent on the software, the software dependent on the hardware. i don't think they are wrong to think drivers is part of the hardware : if nvidia provid free driver, then ATI will exactly know how does the nvidia hardware is made, and they will be able to copy nvidia idea.
I wonder why they are so picky and if it is not possible to create wrappers around their stuff so the competitors can't get to deep into it. To archive this more code must reside in the graphics card which get controlled by an opensource driver, but it should be possible. Of course it still locks in some code but free the driver so you can continue to use the card when they are out of business and the OS of your choice made a major versionjump so all drivers has to be rewritten or at least recompiled.
Cheers,
Malte
Malte Steiner media art + development -www.block4.com-
new releseas: Elektronengehirn: new composition on http://www.bremsstrahlung-recordings.org/transradiation/trans002.php
Konform: new song on Acido03 12" compilation
more at blog 4, also available as rss feed: http://java.block4.com/blog4/
a la ndiswrapper? the precedent would seem to be set for kernel modules that wrap windows drivers...
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 02:27 +0200, Malte Steiner wrote:
Just to add some aspects:
Software can be modified, hardware can't.
hardware can be modified before compilation (before you build it). there is no deference with software. (you can modify a sofware only if you have the source code, you can modify a hardware if you have the shematic)
you can modify compiled software if you dare. Patching is an artform in itself and might include disassembling code to read the 'real stuff'. Most interesting is of course software which modifies itself...
And yes, digital electronics as a subcategory of analogue electronics is easier to understand and work with. You stay usually at the same voltage and skip so many things you normally need to take care. Maybe its my programmer view, I saw electronic engineers who actually got trouble to get into programming and one of the electronic books in my homelibrary, which is really heavy to read for me, trys to calm down the audience during the introduction of microcontrollers, saying programming is not so difficult as it looks :).
when you design a product, the hardware dependent on the software, the software dependent on the hardware. i don't think they are wrong to think drivers is part of the hardware : if nvidia provid free driver, then ATI will exactly know how does the nvidia hardware is made, and they will be able to copy nvidia idea.
I wonder why they are so picky and if it is not possible to create wrappers around their stuff so the competitors can't get to deep into it. To archive this more code must reside in the graphics card which get controlled by an opensource driver, but it should be possible. Of course it still locks in some code but free the driver so you can continue to use the card when they are out of business and the OS of your choice made a major versionjump so all drivers has to be rewritten or at least recompiled.
Cheers,
Malte
shift8 schrieb:
a la ndiswrapper? the precedent would seem to be set for kernel modules that wrap windows drivers...
simular. Although I wouldn't like to see more wrapper around binary windows drivers, its just a workaround. My point was to take away the IP stuff from the driver and move/lock whatever onto the device or card. So for instance on the graphic card the driver is really just a bunch of OpenGL commands, which should be no secret and triggers the stuff on the card. So they can opensource the part on the computer so it can be kept alive. The stuff on the card can be updated by the vendor anyway by flashing it. So its a matter of layer/wrapper code and what part of code stays in the actual driver (on the computer) and on the card (in a flashrom).
Of course a total open version where you can even change the microcode would be much cooler and safer investment indeed. I like for instance the Linksys router where you can flash your own opensource os onto it, so that device stay uptodate and secure long in the future and can be modified to different purposes when you wish.
Cheers,
Malte
Malte Steiner media art + development -www.block4.com-
new releseas: Elektronengehirn: new composition on http://www.bremsstrahlung-recordings.org/transradiation/trans002.php
Konform: new song on Acido03 12" compilation
more at blog 4, also available as rss feed: http://java.block4.com/blog4/
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, B. Bogart wrote:
Too bad my AMD64 & Duron machines are.... Desktops!!!! (not little ones at that). I can't transport such large heavy things all the way from Canada. If I had a linux laptop I would bring that. I don't own such a thing.
Then do what they do in Catalonia:
http://artengine.ca/matju/guckes/2004-09-28/dscn7846.jpg
But I was told by one of the guys that they had a few problems with trying to convince authorities that this is just a puter and not a bomb.
That's especially neat because it's essentially a desktop computer so it has a few things one may miss with a laptop. Sure, on a regular laptop, one can use an external mouse, keyboard, monitor -- and even the IDE drives if you buy an adaptor at 35,- Euro ! But what one might miss the most is the PCI ports.
It's a bit sad that laptop manufacturers really want us to buy laptop-specific hardware at a premium price, else it would cost only a few Euros to take a laptop's internal PCI bus and extend it outside the laptop. I have a few BT878 cards that currently I can't use.
Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Le 16 Août 2005 14:20, B. Bogart a écrit :
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
When I "need" better DV decoding on Linux (and don't care much about freedom), I use the Sony codec through the win32 API derived from Wine and used in software like mplayer, xine and avifile. -- Marc
I'd love to make this work in Gem.
You game Marc?? ;)
PS: As far as I can tell ffplay does a pretty damn good job of decoding dv, not at all very different than mplayer...
B.
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 16 Août 2005 14:20, B. Bogart a écrit :
pixelTANGO is actually not (at all) optimized for OSX, but it does so happen that the starting design principal (high-quality video mixing) is much more optimized in Gem on OSX. Why? DV decoding libs, and the magic catch-all quicktime.
When I "need" better DV decoding on Linux (and don't care much about freedom), I use the Sony codec through the win32 API derived from Wine and used in software like mplayer, xine and avifile. -- Marc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Quoting 220hex gif@220hex.org:
Monday 15 August 2005 01:20, skrev Yves Degoyon:
Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Hey, anyone here going to Piksel'05 ?
don't forget they're extremists and can't stand any windows users ))
total bollocks ;)
we might well be extremists, but windows is accepted as well as OSX, as long as the user-space apps is open-source.
but, I know you know this, Yves ;)
i know this, and maybe i regret it, like people speaking of "open source", self-organised events and such and that never entered a "dirty " squat...
greetings from budapest, sevy
cheers -gisle
sorry, i couldn't resist.
cheers, sevy
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--
www.220hex.org www.r3aktor.com http://mob.bek.no
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Wednesday 17 August 2005 22:10, skrev ydegoyon@free.fr:
i know this, and maybe i regret it, like people speaking of "open source", self-organised events and such and that never entered a "dirty " squat...
don't know who you're referring to here, Yves but I agree - there's nothing like the good old 'I was a punk before you' discussion
btw - we'll get you a nice clean bed when you get to Bergen in october ;-D
-gisle
www.220hex.org www.r3aktor.com http://mob.bek.no
220hex wrote:
Wednesday 17 August 2005 22:10, skrev ydegoyon@free.fr:
i know this, and maybe i regret it, like people speaking of "open source", self-organised events and such and that never entered a "dirty " squat...
don't know who you're referring to here, Yves but I agree - there's nothing like the good old 'I was a punk before you' discussion
i'm sure you don't think of the word "punk" as someone who only wants to destroy the commercial system ( and more than all, the art business too )... that's just a start!!
it's also about trying to build different relationships, in the model of development of software AND of society, i'm referring to some self-organised spaces and found there a real positive, creative energy ( Riereta, Barcelona Les Tanneries, dijon, Ljudmila, ljubljana, Monte Paradiso, Pula, croatia, ASCII, amsterdam ... )
and, of course, BEK, bergen, you punk!
hehe, see ya. sevy
ps : about free hardware, maybe we don't assemble our own mainboards, ok, but some people make their own setups : http://www.piksel.no/piksel03/images/640/skeezo_crew_and-rama.jpg
Hello again.
I'm looking for a way to treat the individual letters of a text file as symbols. I'm guessing I'll need to manipulate the files ahead of time to separate the words into letter so I can end up with a list to treat with [packel], but I'm curious if there's not a character level indexing tool within PD.
In other words. My files will be plain text. And I want to avoid having to: I n o t h e r w o r d s .
You get the picture.
Is this possible within PD?
Thanks again,
-Dan
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Daniel Wilken wrote:
In other words. My files will be plain text. And I want to avoid having to: I n o t h e r w o r d s . You get the picture. Is this possible within PD? Thanks again,
Using GridFlow,
| [#import (1)] | [#export_symbol] |
and that's it.
Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
I made a very small external to do this, I have included the source below. I haven't tried to recompile this, but it worked well on a linux box when I did it (a few years ago). Note that as it creates new symbols each time around, it will apparently overflow something if used for a while. But it works for a while.
I have attached a text patch below too.
I hope it's useful to someone....
tim
On Aug 15, 2005, at 7:29 AM, Daniel Wilken wrote:
Hello again.
I'm looking for a way to treat the individual letters of a text file as symbols. I'm guessing I'll need to manipulate the files ahead of time to separate the words into letter so I can end up with a list to treat with [packel], but I'm curious if there's not a character level indexing tool within PD.
In other words. My files will be plain text. And I want to avoid having to: I n o t h e r w o r d s .
You get the picture.
Is this possible within PD?
Thanks again,
-Dan
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
----- Tim Boykett TIME'S UP::Research Department \ / Industriezeile 33b A-4020 Linz Austria X +43-732-787804(ph) +43-732-7878043(fx) / \ tim@timesup.org http://www.timesup.org
-
220hex -
B. Bogart -
Christian Klippel -
cyrille henry -
Daniel Wilken -
Jerome Tuncer -
Malte Steiner -
Marc Lavallée -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Matthijs van Henten -
Piotr Majdak -
shift8 -
Ti Bo -
ydegoyon＠free.fr -
Yves Degoyon