
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:38 am
Martin,
To be clear - I wrote this from business / consumer perspective. As a software developer I appreciate opensource solutions, collaboration and communities. But we/they shouldn't force anyone to do it that way. And yes, there are some businesses built top of open source product(s), but not every software manufacturer should/can do it that way.
From the technical perspective it is better to provide opened sources, because whole "dependency hell" is solved by distro maintainers (also hired in companies like Canonical or RedHat). But, as you stated here, there are some intelectual properties to be secured, and compilation process is a common way to do that (reverse engineering is prohibited by law/license, in general).
But many companies invests in Linux (mostly kernel) like Intel, IBM, RedHat, Samsung. They do that for some reason, probably business one. I belive that companies like BMD can do similar, if they find some revenue from such work.
BMD has Linux port of Resolve, yes, and probably codebase better than Adobe (in terms of portability). But maintaining any software is not cheap and can't be free. There must be real business around this. Even for pure opensourced projects there is business somewhere.
I belive that BMD have the best perspective and they know what they are doing. There may be "tons" of problems to solve, even licensing of the 3rd party libs (codecs, fxs, etc). They officially said nothing about Linux port, right? So there is a little hope and Fusion may be a kind of the market test. But on the other side we should no longer wait nor ask for Resolve. It is better to support companies developing actively their products also for Linux.
BR,
Marcin
To be clear - I wrote this from business / consumer perspective. As a software developer I appreciate opensource solutions, collaboration and communities. But we/they shouldn't force anyone to do it that way. And yes, there are some businesses built top of open source product(s), but not every software manufacturer should/can do it that way.
From the technical perspective it is better to provide opened sources, because whole "dependency hell" is solved by distro maintainers (also hired in companies like Canonical or RedHat). But, as you stated here, there are some intelectual properties to be secured, and compilation process is a common way to do that (reverse engineering is prohibited by law/license, in general).
But many companies invests in Linux (mostly kernel) like Intel, IBM, RedHat, Samsung. They do that for some reason, probably business one. I belive that companies like BMD can do similar, if they find some revenue from such work.
BMD has Linux port of Resolve, yes, and probably codebase better than Adobe (in terms of portability). But maintaining any software is not cheap and can't be free. There must be real business around this. Even for pure opensourced projects there is business somewhere.
I belive that BMD have the best perspective and they know what they are doing. There may be "tons" of problems to solve, even licensing of the 3rd party libs (codecs, fxs, etc). They officially said nothing about Linux port, right? So there is a little hope and Fusion may be a kind of the market test. But on the other side we should no longer wait nor ask for Resolve. It is better to support companies developing actively their products also for Linux.
BR,
Marcin