Kris Limbach wrote:ok, seems that the devs are not interested in helping getting clear on all these issues.
well -- i can not deny, that i also can imagine more constructive ways of communication and bilateral exchange between developers and interested beta testers, but that's nothing new in this forum. certainly i was surprised, that BMD opened the access for ordinary linux users overnight, but this doesn't imply, that everything has radically changed now!
in fact, i'm quite happy, that they decided to open it in just this modest "as is" appearance. if they would have invested a lot of additional development power and realized a more user friendly adaptation, we wouldn't have seen, that our previous desperate arguments could at least partially verified in practice. i'm really proud about all this other linux colleagues here, which helped each other to find their way installing this application despite all its difficulties. that's in my humble opinion a very encouraging attainment.
i really hope, it was just a first step -- a kind of public beta test experience. it's quite obvious, that a few things should be changed urgently by BMDs engineers, to make the installation process more handy and distribution agnostic. but i'm quite confident, this will happen sooner or later. after all, it's also in their interest, to eradicate flaws in their high end linux product.
concerning the absent h.264 support i'm not really surprised. that's just the same as in many other free available commercial software for linux. just take the non-commercial edition of flame as an example. sure -- it's a little bit uncomfortable, but it's also quite easy to work around. we all know, that it isn't so much caused in a highhanded decision by BMD, but forced by understandable legal and economic reasons.
i don't think, BMD will stop any engaged linux developers, to realize creative alternative solutions to work around this limitation, combining all the benefits of free tools with this wonderful software.
this would would be even possible for sound support without decklink hardware. the decklink API is documented very well. it's up to us, to write a dummy driver replacement for redirecting the audio stream if necessary.
hey -- this is linux! -- the bright side of the planet, where programming is finally making fun again!
![:-) :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
but quite frankly, i don't think, the latter will be necessary in practice. it can be fixed with moderate efforts by BMD just as well. i don't think, we should suffer from paranoia to much and construe this issue only as an insincere constraint to boost the merchandise of decklink cards.
concluding, i can just express again all my astonishment about this brave decision, to open resolve to the wider linux community!
i'm using this this operating system almost exclusive for all my work since pre-kernel-1.0 days. but in all this years i hardly remember any comparable radical change! sure -- lightworks gained much more publicity and expectations by means of their initial open source promises. but as we all know, they never fulfilled their advertisement. this was a very disappointing experience to all of us. that's why i really like the actual change in BMDs policy and it's modest realization much more. sure, it's not open source software -- but this makes it in fact even more exciting! there are no other examples for such an radical experiment crossing the dividing borders. i really don't know, what consequences it will have in the long run? we simply have to rethink dogmatic prejudices on both sides of this game and examine its synergies carefully in practice. certainly it wouldn't make any sense to convince long term linux or mac resolve users changing into the linux camp, right now. no, that's utterly pointless! but in the long run resolve could lay the ground fore a much more objective choice between three serious alternatives. and that's really great! -- THANKS again!