Lightworks editing software is free and nobody cares
Monday, January 17, 2011 at 8:00AMUPDATE - 01 March 2012
This article was written over a year ago and yet unlike most blog posts in the perpetual short term memory of the interweb, it remains a hotly linked to and commented upon piece. A lot happens in a year, and I feel a need to put a short preface before the article to stave off any further misreadings.
The post is deliberately provocative but it seems many readers have misconstrued my point as being a criticism of Lightworks as a tool with a perception that i ‘don’t think its any good.’ This couldn’t be further from the truth. As i have said in the article and in the follow-up comments, I believe Lightworks to be superbly powerful and a great opportunity…. BUT, I have two criticisms, and to be very blunt about them, and ensure their point is not missed, they are;
1) That the culture of Editors as Software-Users, with brand allegiance, who ‘know’ only one way of working and are incapable or refuse to learn outside of a singular interface paradigm is a PROBLEM. A big problem for the art and industry of editing and post-production (yes, Final Cut Pro fan-boys and Avid die-hards I’m looking squarely in your direction!)
2) That because of this poor industry culture that, alas, avoids learning new tools like the plague, Lightworks has a Very Tough Job ahead of it if it wants to be a major NLE player, grow market share and become a popular tool. If Lightworks insists on an interface that is so far outside of the ‘norm’ then it really is going to struggle to find traction. This is sad and unfortunate, but I believe it is a fact.
hence, this post is about these two things. As I wrote in a follow up comment:
“My post is really about how the market thinks, how a particular generation thinks, and whether Lightworks can find a viable position in that market and with that generation. I sincerely hope they do but I’m fearful they can’t unless they really re-think the Lightworks paradigm.”
Unfortunately, re-thinking the Lightworks paradigm may be trading off the thing that makes Lightworks cool… Damned if they do, damned if they dont?
I would also like to draw attention to another follow up I posted back in March 2011;
“I have been watching the Editshare forums and have been AMAZED at the open, responsiveness of the team. They are setting up a clear paradigm of immediate and direct engagement with users that puts most other software developers to shame“
So… since this post is now over a year old I am going to close the comments and leave the debate for other places more up to date. I will however finish with two subjective observations;
The first is that I can see Lightworks continues to develop in a very productive and responsive way. However i similarly do not see Lightworks in the popular discourse of either professional editors or, perhaps more importantly, students and emerging editors.
I fear my predictions that Lightworks will struggle for traction, may still be accurate. Unless Lightworks can capture the attention of new, young and emerging editors, they will not have a future user-base to stand on… Lightworks needs to either conform for, or re-educate their future users. Neither is easy but I suspect re-education is far harder…
_____
I suspect it’s fair to say that there’s a huge swathe of filmmakers (in the broadest sense of those making creative screen content) under the age 30 who, if asked to name the significant professional editing systems of the post-production world would struggle to name anything beyond Final Cut Pro and Avid (and in a great many cases they will know the later in name only). This of course is in spite of the fact that there are a multitude of comprable professional systens on the market not to mention a long history of NLE’s that have gone before. The names of Media100, Quantel, Casablanca, Liquid, Edius and Vegas are all past and/or present wholly professional editing systems, yet many younger filmmakers remain ignorant of them. This is partly the blur of history past and partly the haze of marketing that seeks desperately to enforce an idea that one and only one software can hold the moniker of ‘industry standard’ (the most vile, unthinking and restrictive bullshit word ever devised…) And to use anything other than the so called “industry standard” is simply not ‘professional’. This is the lie Apple and Avid have very much succeeded in perpetuating, just as much as it is the lie all others wish they could (or wish in hindsight that they had) perpetuated.
Things do of course change, the status quo is in a continual - albeit glacial - state of flux. Case in point being Adobe’s Premiere which in the past 12months with CS5 has become the system many are talking about as a dynamic “new viable alternative” - Mecury GPU playback, true native workflow and integration with other Adobe apps on a level which makes the likes of Avid and Apple’s paltry efforts at suite integration seem positively pathetic. But the fact that Premiere is only now gaining traction on FCP and Avid - and indeed being thought of as a ‘new’ player - strikes me as decidedly bizare… Premiere was the first desktop software editing system, Final Cut Pro is essentially a copy of premiere by the company-hoping Randy Ubilos, who designed the original incarnations of both, and Premiere has had a feature set that has far surpassed FCP for power and flexibility for more than 5 years. How and why it has taken Adobe so long to get Premiere’s profile into the spotlight saids much about the state of marketing brainwashed ignornance many filmmakers live in. Likwise the pressures of fast moving and perpetually fragile post-production workflows where the thought of changing a tried and true process (no matter how archaic) gives post-supervisors night sweats.
This state of affairs - where it would be easy to think (rightly or wrongly) that modern editing for younger filmmakers is (or at least has been) a Final Cut world - casts an interesting light on the release of seminal NLE, Lightworks, as a free open-source software app.
Lightworks has been used to cut very high-profile Hollywood features by high profile editors such as Martin Scorsese’s prime collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker. Lightworks is undoubtably a fully professional system that once cost thousands of dollars and needed hardware support and which is now a free download for anyone with a laptop….!
Indie filmmakers and film school students everywhere must be falling over themselves to get at it, right…?
Ummm… Not quite….
Lightworks is free and it seems nobody gives a shit…
On the surface it seems unfathonable - why wouldn’t cash-strapped young filmmakers jump at freebie with the pedigree of Lightworks? One might start to construct a list of feature for feature comparisons to justfy why other non-free systems might still hold a preferential appeal; or else the notion of peer-group mentality is a significant factor where young filmmakers use whatever their friends use. But I think either of these perspectives, and others like them, are missing the bigger picture point.
Lightworks is Powerful and its Free but it’s also archaic and illogical; the wrong tool at the wrong time doing the job the wrong way.
To a generation of editors who appear biologically in touch with ipods, bitorrents and social-networks; but who have never (and will never) cut celluloid, use DAT or even shoot tape - the conceptual paradigm of Lightworks is as foreign as writing a screenplay with a typewriter.
The computer operating system environment of files, folders and drag+drop mallebility - where thumbnails are moved and arranged with free-form flexibility in graphical timeline space - is the fundemental tenent infused into the thinking of every digital native. Thus a software tool (for any purpose, let alone video editing) that defies the natural impulse of a user to drag+drop and visually arrange with a mouse, is seriously pushing shit up-hill. Lightworks is just such a tool.
There’s no doubting what Ligtworks can do - its a feature-rich system - but its also a system predicated on defying the natural user instincts of a standard computer GUI. Lightworks is an NLE that seems to want to pretend it’s not running a computer but rather on its own dedicated ‘machine’ seperate and apart from the familiar. Its tools and mechanics for moving media assets around posess functionality and controls that not only bare little relation to any other NLE but scant relation to general computer interface. Any user who launches Lightworks and expects to be able drag+drop thumbnail clips onto a tangible timeline and shuffle them around freeform with a mouse is going to be in for a major stumble and a whole lot of head-scratching. (yes, you can perform, sort of, such actions but working out how and having it behave with the same logic that all other more recent digital-native NLE’s possess - FCP, Vegas, Premiere - is decidedly convoluted).
If you’ve spent considerable time in the past cutting video tape-to-tape, if you made your bones on a Moviola or Steenbeck, if you have clocked up hours on Quantel or older versions of Avid, then Lightworks may seem like a fantastic open-source software possibility. But Lightworks is a wholly backward facing system that simply doesn’t make sense in a file-browser, click+drag, iTunes, world. If you’re an editor under the age of 30 who knows no other editing paradigm but FCP, Premiere and Vegas, then Lightworks is will be like learning Arabic. The new Lightworks might be pushing the slogan of being built for “real editors” but my prediction for the new open source Lightworks NLE is, sadly, oblivion. All the features and free-ness in the world won’t change the fact that for the new generation of digital-native filmmakers, Lightworks just doesn’t make sense.
The new generation of editors don’t read software manuals; rightly or wrongly they fully expect to be able lauch an app and with prior experience of using other software (whether related to editing or not), start clicking+draging their way around making the software work. That approach is entirely impossible in Lightworks and this fact alone, I would suggest, will be the death of Lightworks.
I love the idea of a major NLE moving open-source and finding a different business model but until the developers re-think the very premise of Lightworks, the system will fail to appeal to anyone but the old-salts of the industry; a group who see more of their number head into retirement every year. Certainly not the demographic to build a business model around.
Reader Comments (26)
I was sceptical when Editshare announced their plan with Lightworks, and I must admit I had only heard of it in conversation, never tried it. I waited until the release and like many had issues when it first came out. But also like many, I stuck with it. I decided that I can either follow convention and use what the sheepherders tell me to use, or I can find another way. I am familiar with Editshare as I have used their storage, so if I would want anyone behind a new NLE it would be them. They have changed the game with shared storage. Obviously NLEs are a different beast altogether, but they are more than capable. Why? Because they listen. Unlike Apple, unlike Adobe, and certainly unlike Avid.
But, what I see is progress. The developers are listening, and there are some major changes going on. What I like about Lightworks is that it is open to so many possibilities. It doesn't tell me how I should work. It doesn't pretend to be a 'standard' as you point out above. Standards are bullshit. I'm an editor and I want to tell a story, I don't want software getting in my way. And one thing Lightworks allows me to do is look at my picture without menus and mouse clicks getting in my way. And you can drag and drop if you want to, so your comments appear misleading.
I do find you comments about standards odd though. On one hand you're saying that it is the worst word in the world, and that it is wrong that someone should define 'standards' and then you criticise Lightworks for not conforming to standards such as drag and drop. Make you mind up. I've no doubt if Lightworks conformed to all 'standards' you would criticise it for attempting to be like the others.
Hats of to Editshare for attempting to do something different. They've made a commitment to going open source and once they get there, I think we will start to see a game changer. It's great I can download and use it now. Needs a bit more work in terms of format support (but I understand that there will be add ons soon). But let me tell you, I can edit quicker with Lightworks than Avid and FCP. And I'm under 30.
I am told that The King's Speech was just cut on Lightworks by Tariq Anwar. Personally, I think if it is good enough for the likes of him and Thelma Schoonmaker (note the spelling, you obviously do your research well), then it's good enough for me. To draw a line at a age of 30 and assume that all people under that age want to point with their fingers and drag things round like a fucking fisher price toy is insulting to those who still consider editing an art and not a function that you just spend 3 years at uni learning on FCP.
You see, that is the problem with post production these days. Budgest are squeezed, schedules are non-existent and production tend to use 'digital' as a reason to ditch rehearsals, ditch the talent and just keep the camera rolling. Don't worry, the editor will fix it all up. It's no problem going through 100 hours of shit to make a 30 min show, and yes of course we can do it in a couple of days. I have my drip feed of caffeine.
What's my point here? My point is this: If you're looking for a multimedia tool that does a bit of everything (because we can all do a bit of everything these days), then FCP and Adobe are your best bets (for the time being). If you're an editor who wants to work how YOU want to work, then Avid and Lightworks are much better options. Avid is far superior to FCP, and Lightworks is more in line with Avid.
Anyway, just my opinion. But before you sound the death knoll for Lightworks, I think you should speak to a few more people and get some more opinions. I certainly know a whole bunch of people who are trying Lightworks and so far very happy. Even more happy at the prospect of what is to come.
What Lightworks as an nle can do, rightly or wrongly, will have no real bearing on it's take up in the market. It's an NLE that still thinks with a strangely analogue sensibility and one focused on rather singular purpose 'cutting'. Again, we may venerate this noble non-conformist position but to those I referred rather verbosely to as 'anyone under 30' it just doesn't compute.
For those who know no other paradigm but that of fcp/premiere Lightworks takes a rewiring of the brain to use, that in turn takes time and commitment. And that's where I fear for the downfall of Lightworks (whilst sincerely hoping I'm wrong). Those damn digital natives are in short supply of those qualities. Which leads me to offer the suggestion that Lightworks may fail to appeal to anyone but 'old school' editors unless they re-think and potentially compromise.
My post is really about how the market thinks, how a particular generation thinks, and whether Lightworks can find a viable position in that market and with that generation. I sincerely hope they do but I'm fearful they can't unless they really re-think the Lightworks paradigm.
Many thanks for the taking the time to offer a very thoughtful comment,
Cheers
Mike
I'm an over 30 editor (late starter) who'd love to just get jobs where it was pure editing alone, and agree the pressure is to do 'it all' now, although I feel motivated to try Lightworks.
One reason is that Open Source is a brilliant model, and I want to support the mission to see what can be done.
It's also possible that it will be easier to influence and help shape the development of Lightworks as it's Open Source.
Let's see where it goes!
I can certainly agree with the fact that "production tends to use 'digital' as a reason to ditch rehearsals, ditch the talent and just keep the camera rolling. " . I'm working on a 45" commercial shot on an Alexa at the moment. They shot a rather incredible 10 hours of rushes (1-800 ratio),. I've got 3 days to edit the job, of which I've already spent 1 1/2 days viewing and selecting. A few years ago, this would've been shot on film, meaning 1-2 hours of rushes and the same days of editing. I wouldn't mind that much if these 10 hours would all been good footage, but the problem is they don't switch the camera off anymore. So you have to sift through a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff before you get to the bits that matter. Meaning I hit the fast forward button a lot, which normally I never do because you can't properly view rushes in fast forward. In the end, I believe the result will be less good than before, because we have less time to do a good job. And honestly, it makes editing more tiresome and less fun than before. I think Digital is a blessing at times, but the discipline and way of working shouldn't be different than before.
About Lightworks, I learned to work on it a few years ago. The first few days, I was really frustrated because I was still in the Avid-FCP editing paradigm, but once you get the hang of it, it really is a great tool. But Lightworks without the hardware interface seems like a crippled idea to me. And I don't think a Contour Shuttle will do the job.
I too like a lot about Lightworks, I don't intend to say that it's not any good but it is so very out of kilter (rightly or wrongly) with the current dominant digital pardigms that I fear it will fail to find traction. The digital genie is out of the bottle, there is no stuffing it back in. We have to adapt or die.
It is not unusual to see responses from the moderators such as: "I have just made some changes to the code and the fix will be in the next beta release". It is not often that you see that kind of instant interaction and development.
As for young editors not bothering to read manuals--this may or may not be true. Personally, I think they damn well should do. However, these days there are other and better ways to explain how a programme works than a 200 page long written guide. There is the old cliché that "a picture is worth a thousand words". If that is true, a video tutorial is perhaps worth a million. This is the future of software tuition. The written guide is still needed for reference purposes, but today's youngsters are most responsive to video tutorials. And the sooner Lightworks produces some the better.
Im about to try the latest release of Lightworks and I look forward to being excited.
Cheers
Mike
I'll share a perspective that doesn't necessarily help (that's mainly up to how we're wired.) It's a "High Concept" for a writer. You know - we have to be the movie and deviation is death. Skill is all. We get our "15 minutes" per Viewer, I guess. We at least want to be noted as a worthwhile site, and hope for cultural "icon." That's what makes great story telling and a great blog.
For an expert site, high concept hits you and you deliver it. Whatever the hell it is. Remember Dvorak? Anyway - nice site design and the effect is good. Don't apologize for carrying it thru.
About subject - I am pretty good with Vegas 4 for all the reasons you noted. I was out here just looking (mainly) for a quickie clip editor - I already have so many utilities - I figure I've spent 50-large on this crap. And I need it to run on a carry-tablet.
I am also (culturally) an advocate of open-source so from that perspective Lightworks sounds like (may I say it) the one possible iconoclast standard (see - it is absolutely oxy-moronic.)
What is a standard? Easy (from the cultural leader): it's the fruit of a tree. And in development that goes: root-trunk-leaves-fruit. The fruit is the "standard." Yummy. Bears the seed.
Like Firefox, LW has a good high concept. But it's how it's wired whether it can pull it off. And that sounds promising.
I'll make the point of a meta-model for iconoclastic standards (well, why not?) Firefox with its 5,000 + plug-ins has incredible importance to even niche audiences. There are experts who will take the time to do something they need - and maybe 200 other guys - and build it to plug in because that process is so incredible. Google is doing this too with Google Apps.
So the plan for LW to release its code is NOT as good as the Firefox model. That is a formula for - well it's an exit ticket home for the original team to just throw in the towel. It's almost a guarantee of it (IME) because branching does not provide flexibility and it divides the user base. Chops it into bits, actually.
(UU-NIS.org is down but not out)
See ya!
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Your post was entirely incoherent, disjointed and non-sensical but Man, it kept me entertained :)
Follow-up.
I found the perfect clip editor - a lightweight called AVIDEMUX. I found a ton of free apps through a great new crowd-cloud-site called AlternativeTo.net.
I also wanted to mention that on my last vid project I spent probably 15-20 hours on maybe 3m, with prob 4m raw footage. There's a ratio. It was mildly complicated and Vegas 4 showed its prowess and age - but it got very sticky in parts - there are certain interactions that are quite time consuming to control without relying on creative luck. This is not due to bugs, but the technical interface. I'm very curious to try Lightworks to see how it feels, creatively. I think that's the underlying message.
However, through all of this, Lightworks was brought to my attention. I had actually seen Liar, Liar being edited on it waaaayyy back in 1996 and I think there was Lightworks and Heavyworks with the whole interface controller. I'm not even sure, but I guess this is the evolved (and probably traded and sold off and reborn and traded again) version of that? I'm on a mac, so I have to wait to try it... wait a second, I have Parallels... maybe that'll work? Anyway, I was gonna say I literally cannot wait to try it out and see how it grows. I think the fact that it's going open source very soon will create a force to be reckoned with. I'm hoping we see all kinds of UI and work-flow extensions that we could only dream of having on industry NLE's. I think editing is the perfect world/software for this kind of thing, as sometimes you don't really know what you want or need to help you work faster until you see it. So where FCP X failed, I'm hoping that Lightworks triumphs.
In truth it feels like a return to sainity - to a proper workflow appraisal of availible tools that i have seen as entirely absent over the better part of the past decade.
A post house or editor choosing an NLE should follow nothing less than the following process - Make a list of 4 columns :
a) the core functionality required by your work and projects,
b) the secondary but useful features that will suit your style of work
c) the required integration workflow needs (ie what other apps and formats will need to be integrated with the NLE)
d) what output deliverables you need to be able to create
(to this you might also add what resources you have availible for training and staff development in relation to their existing skill base)
Then, gather spec lists, reviews and trial versions of all the availible tools (that fit your budget)
Test each one against each of the four criteria columns.
Which ever one comes out on top with, on balance, the best fit to the criteria is the one you buy.
Such an evaluation is what Professionals do...! This is so fucking obvious it pains me to write it but how many editors and post houses have actually chosen their NLE without ever undertaking such a professional evaluation? Usually the conversaion goes "i hate Avid, get Final cut pro" or "i hate fcp, get Avid".
Worse still, with the current FCPx debacle, production departments, post houses and organizations are facing the direct problem of an EOL FCP and no backwards compatibility. But Instead of saying "ok, we need to put in place a firm and reliable technology platform for the next 5 years so lets evaluate the options", they are saying, "lets wait and see if FCPx gets better....!" Iit's fucking moronic and simply doesnt make any sense from a creative, workflow or business stand point. FCPx may well suit your needs today but until you have actually done an evaluation of your needs aganst the availible tools, you're just making an ill-informed decision with no logic or rational thinking. And moreover, Apple is wholly relying on that lack of logic and rationale to maintain their sales.
How many editors or post houses chose FCP as their platform without ever considering or evaluating alternatives...? Too many! Now that FCPX is a whole new beast, it needs to be subjected to a proper evaluation by everyone who is considerng buying it. And that evaluation must be done against the alternatives.
So i really hope Lightworks picks up some of that market. I was highly critical of its first open source incarnation - without flexible drag and drop clips and a consistent and familiar drop-down menu paradigm, Lightworks was just never going to be attractive to anyone but old-school users. But they have made great strides to break away frm the archaic construct and i am excited by what will come. Similarly Adobe i believe right now is offering the only truly professinal focused, yet forward and progressively geared post solutilon. Workflow is king and Integration is the king of workflow and on this front noone but noone is anywhere near Adobe. But integration may not be important to you so perphaps the mind blowing flexibility of Vegas - its unrivavled ability to just playback Anything and integrated audio tools that can stand up to ProTools make all other NLEs look like audio-dinosaurs. Or perhaps the superb codec technology of Edius or the sheer horse power of Smoke... Or the open-source flexibility and cost effectiveness of Lightworks.
My message to any editor and post house is simply that if you're not conducting an open and hinest evaluation of all the availible tools to find the right one for your needs, then you are just shooting yourself in the foot. And if you go with Apple and FCPx you are tying yourself to a company that does not have a focus on professional users at all and never will.
Back to lightworks. The first time i tried it i admit i got very very frustrated by it cause i had no idea what the hell i was doing. I didn't think i would have to go through any training or anything cause Final Cut was so simple but this was hard. I tried watching youtube videos on how to work it and all but that didn't work either. It wasn't until i read the manual for lightworks i finally got it. I read the manual then watched the youtube videos again and was able to get the hang of it. I find the workflow and orginization very satisfying and that shark in the corner is just so damn cute. The editng i have to say is the best i've ever worked on. I watched a couple of videos and saw that there was a lightworks console, now that was cool i want that. It looked so simple on that little console thingy being able to control everything with ease. It brought back editing to the way it was back when people were still on film. I really like the user interface and simplicity.
I find Lightworks to be the best editing platform i've worked on even though i'm only 16 and have only been doing this 4 years i really like it and I'm even editing a short film with it right now. I showed it to my film production teacher and she laughed and said Final Cut was better yet i find it easier and all my friends were impressed with my work on lightworks. Overall Its a kickass software and i hope it replace that parasite known as Final Cut on top of the editing throne. Good Job Lightworks
i must admit that my first experience was on lightworks and its impression will stay on my mind forever.
I started out on Adobe CS4 and I still think that that has the best designed interface in terms of maximizing screen real estate. In my opinion I'd say look at the UI of Blender 3d (and the accompanying debates over the UI) if you want an example of something really done right. Unfortunately, the underlying software (or CS4 at least) was a little less than satisfactory and the actual editing process is well...eh. Not sure if it scales well either. I've never used it for anything that wasn't a one editor project.
FCP: basically a clone of Adobe. More stable, but not as good looking. AEing a project on FCP right now and I can certainly see pros and cons.
Avid: Feels like a rock. The editing process is very smooth. I like it a lot. Unfortunately, the UI is well...painful. I basically cannot edit on Avid without dual displays. Well, at least nothing very complicated.
Lightworks: I remember Avid being hard when I picked it up, so perhaps I'll pick this up too but....wow. I love the idea that it's free and I can scoot around wherever I choose and not worry about licensing issues/conflicts (a very good selling point for blender 3d for me) but...this may take me a while. The UI looks prettier than Avid, but not much better in terms of organization (I assume there's a method here; I'm just not seeing it). On the plus side , the idea that I within 10 minutes of opening it up I figured out how to export a bin as a text file is pretty sweet. I think open source could be a huge HUGE boon to workflow integration.
But the writer is right on the money when he talks about new editors expecting a smooth transition from the desktop GUI to the editor. Whenever I'm in Avid and I have multiple bins open I get a little bit angry that I can't somehow Alt-tab my way through them. (If you can and I'm missing it...GIVE A SHOUTOUT) Honestly, this isn't an tendency that necessary should be fought (unless there are clear cut efficiency advantages otherwise) the desktop GUI reflexes are pretty strong in my generation (people who only had regular access to computers in their mid teens) imagine how tough those reflexes will be by the time kids are sitting on computers by age 4. It'll be like walking or breathing.
There is something about LW.
SHOUTOUT - are you on a Mac and if so do you mean <Cmd+Tilde>? That's how you cycle through all open windows of an application and it works cycling through bins/panes in Avid MC 5.5 for me.
Very interesting news re. Lightworks, guess I'll give it a go in December. I mean, why not?
But once you get hardwired to an editing system it's hard to switch. Imagine switching to something other than Photoshop for image manipulation. I still use AE for motion graphics even though I know Apple Motion is there. This is what's actually plaguing Apple now. But I guess it depends on how well it serves me. If they make LightWorks useable on G5s they'll open a whole new door, because there are people still working on Legacy Macs. If the program is good on G5s and Intel Macs, word of mouth and Mac Magazines will spread it.
-Nate
The author of this blog is spot on - who cares if this app is free. It's a prehistoric, unintuitive exercise in frustration. You will get angry trying to use it. No wonder it's free - and even then nobody wants it. Compare it to e.g. Vegas where everything works as expected - instantly.
I find it much easier to use than Sony Vegas, and it allows so many more features and creativity options. I was really excited to be able to use this software. I recommend it, but based on your article...I'm quite disappointed in my generation...
It's always good to see proof of truth of the old expression "Ignorance is bliss". Wouldn't it be nice if every single NLE out there behaved in the same way, so that you don't even notice on what system you're editing. And of course won't have go through the pain of learning anything. Pretty pointless in my opinion. No, let the software sort out the idiots from the talanted people. If you're unable to learn a piece of software, you're probably incapable of reading and interpreting a script, regardless if it's been created on a typewriter or a top modern computer.
That being said, I'm all for something new, and best of all free. For the small amount of freelance I do, I use kdenlive. Not because it is the best, but because it is free and a challenge. You may be right about Lightworks and workflow, and that it may not catch on because it's not enough like Final Cut, however it's refreshing that it's there. I was disappointed about the yearly fee for \\\"professional\\\" codecs, but I have yet to learn how restricted the free version is, so can't really pass judgement yet.
Some other projects out there.... kdenlive, Lumiera, OpenShot, NovaCut, VLMC, Cinelerra. Blender..... Add Lightworks to the mix and there is a lot of hope for a bright future in the open source video world. Keep an eye on Linux. The audio software is already pretty amazing for simple recording and tracking. If my work didn't give a shiny new windows laptop with Avid, followed by a shiny new MacBook with FCP, I'd use Linux exclusively. Don't get me wrong these programs (or Linux in general) are still a long way behind Avid and FCP, but give them time. With the addition of Lightworks (Linux version planned) I have hope that one of these could eventually emerge as an \\\"industry standard\\\". So while a lot of people out there could care less about Lightworks, there are a very significant amount of people out there who see it a breakthrough, because unlike most of the other projects I've mentioned, Lightworks opened up after they had success with a closed model.
And the great thing about open source.... If a developer out there thinks the interface is not \\\"modern\\\" enough, he/she can actually take the source code of Lightworks and change it, then redistribute. Once they actually do release the code, you will start seeing forks and community versions, some of which may have an interface designed to mimic Avid or FCP. Having an established piece of software released to open source is actually pretty huge, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people give a shit. Maybe not your CFO or IT guy, but it's effect will hopefully reach them soon.