From: Shane Dempsey (sdempsey at domain tssg.wit.ie)
Date: Tue 23 May 2000 - 16:41:43 IST
Yes Paul that's exactly what I mean.
Going back to David Murphy's point:
I never said that James Cameron said anything about
linux being better or anything like it. Maybe he did but
that isn't the point. I was just pointing out
( and I'm going to say this for the very last time )
that as a physicist and some one who is interested
in the technology behind special effects ( Computer Graphics etc. )
he would be in a better position to understand the benefits of
creating a linux compute farm , assuming that benefits existed
and applied to the projects that he was working on.
It is conceivable that he might use linux in his films if
a) he had machine already running linux lying around
b) he had people who could make them look cool
( groovy desktops etc. )
c) he enjoyed the Linux experience and had no problem
in providing the Open Source community with a little free advertising.
d) he felt that it would be appropriate if a character was
seen using a Mac / Linux as opposed to windows.
I'm sure that there are more points but this is wasting my time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Jakma" <paulj at domain itg.ie>
To: "David Murphy" <drjolt+ilug at domain redbrick.dcu.ie>
Cc: <ilug at domain linux.ie>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ILUG] dot.what..[ot]
> On Tue, 23 May 2000, David Murphy wrote:
> > Yes, it is a business, so it's pointless spending money on an Ultra 10
> > or a Powerbook purely for realism when you can buy an old 386 desktop
> > or 286 notebook and achieve the same look.
> i think it's more a case of the special fx dept being told "we want some
> fancy computer display" and the special fx dept. just goes and hacks
> something up with what they use anyway.. hence the prominence of SGI and
> Apple in Hollywood films.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:15 GMT