3 ms·
Rather than a tool, the real people should be highlighted here. Blender’s success in the open source space is atypical. The difference is surely just a group of
by kaycey2022 2y ago
Rather than a tool, the real people should be highlighted here. Blender’s success in the open source space is atypical. The difference is surely just a group of brilliant people who just happened to take interest and found about this project. Or maybe animation studios are incentivising blender development because of the high price of commercial alternatives. Or both. In any case the individual devs should be championed than just the group.
- luqtas 2y agoit was from a guy with a considerable amount of money (and experience on Maya) compared to [most] people who use Blender daily... open source is not atypical, i think. Linux basically runs more than half of the computers worldwide, 3D printing software is FOSS as far as i'm aware, Godot is one of the biggest Github projects, programming languages are open-source, novel techniques of sound synthesis are already surfing on stuff like Csound/SuperCollider (which both are decades old and FOSS), a bunch of atemporal FOSS text-editors on the hand of a bunch of developers developing closed-source stuff and the list goes on
- gorbypark 2y agoOpen source rules the hidden parts of nearly everything (servers, programming languages, etc). It's atypical for user facing software to be open source and "world class". Of course there are exceptions (like Blender, for example) but generally the commercial version of user facing software is more advanced/well liked/industry standard.
- TimByte 2y agoIt's rare, and it deserves more recognition than just, "Oh, cool, free 3D software."