Slashdot Mirror


Ubuntu Replaces F-Spot With Shotwell

climenole writes "Finally! The much discussed F-Spot vs. Shotwell battle is over. The new default image organizer app for Ubuntu Maverick 10.10 is going to be Shotwell. This is a much-needed change; F-Spot was simply not enough. Most of the times when I tried F-Spot, it just keeps crashing on me. Shotwell on the other hand feels a lot more solid and is better integrated with the GNOME desktop. Shotwell is also completely devoid of Mono."

361 comments

  1. who cares if it uses mon or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so is it an ideological move or a technical one?

    I don't know whether to comment on a tech site or daily kos

    1. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just downloaded shotwell from the PPA in the blog and here is my little test..

      I made a folder with some random images. I put all the images in a sub folder and made another subfolder with an extra copy of one of the images in a different folder. I did this because this best represents my photo folder. It has lots of images in different places and some of them are the same image because an early version of f-spot messed it up.

      I then loaded up shotwell and did an import, then got this error..

      2 photos successfully imported.

      4 unsupported photos skipped.
      /home/***/Desktop/photo_test/blah/Screenshot-1.png
      /home/***/Desktop/photo_test/blah/Screenshot.png
      /home/***/Desktop/photo_test/blah/Screenshot-3.png
      /home/***/Desktop/photo_test/blah/Screenshot-4.png

      The 2 photos that it successfully imported were the same photo. F-Spot has a feature to not import the same photo twice even if the filename differs which is handy. For me this is no where near f-spot technically.

      It can't even import PNGs. What use is an photo manager that can't import images..

    2. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by retchdog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      just had the same experience. png support will be added in 0.6. it's kind of ridiculous, but whatever, it's in 0.x. also going to fullscreen and then back appears to totally fuck the interface (ubuntu lucid).

      also: no way (?) to zoom into images.

      I don't know if I like the event paradigm. They should combine it with a date-based view like f-spot. My pictures are a combination of daily snapshots and events. Also I'd like a "random crap from the internet" dumppile which is totally separate from my life... Kind of like keeping Playboys away from the family photo album. :-/

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    3. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Gamer_2k4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And people wonder why Ubuntu hasn't caught on yet...

    4. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedora 13 has it too. People should be wondering why Fedora has not caught on too.

    5. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Well, we are talking about a photo manager that wasn't in Lucid Lynx, and will be in Maverick Meerkat, which is in a whopping Alpha 1 state right now. Point: maybe that's why it wasn't included, and maybe it will be more featureful and finished once 10.10 is out.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    6. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by yuhong · · Score: 4, Informative

      And 10.10 is four months away from release.

    7. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is anyone _really_ wondering... about either?

    8. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by sohp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't do PNG? What, are they writing their own image handling codecs from scratch? What kind of half-assed project doesn't build on the existing available libraries to handle low-level things like image formats? Even the first draft release of an image app should be able to just collapse all the format stuff behind an abstraction and get all of them in one swoop. Sure, they might not handle at the application user's level all the odd bits and extensions and tricky stuff (alpha transparency comes to mind, for example) but to just not support it? Sounds like someone needs to review a college first year CS textbook.

    9. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F-Spot has a feature to not import the same /file/ twice even if the filename differs. It doesn't even detect losslessly rotated photos as the same image.

    10. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Some how I doubt they'll add the features and debug the problems I am talking about in less then the two months they have before the feature freeze.

    11. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by keitosama · · Score: 0

      I would assume the purpose of the application is to handle the user's own photo library, and how many digital cameras store photos in the PNG format? The software's initial release happened less than a year ago, and I respect their decision to focus on developing useful features instead of just adding support for every obscure format. Raws, on another hand...

      Ran the thing over here, and it seems to work fine. Going fullscreen and back doesn't cause any problems, so I that might be a problem with old libraries on the current Ubuntu. It does however not seem like there's any way to zoom into pictures, and having separated date and event views would indeed be good, but being able to do background imports is at least one feature improvement over F-Spot. The application doesn't feel bloated either.

      Let's just hope Shotwell will improve at a steady pace, because it'd be good to finally get rid of F-Spot. They might want to make it able to import F-Spot libraries to ease migration, like most web browsers are doing.

    12. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by randomsearch · · Score: 1

      Yesterday I started using Shotwell after spending months using a combination of f-spot and Picasa.

      F-Spot is the worst photo manager I've ever used. There are two main issues: it doesn't scale, and it's unstable. It doesn't scale in that I have about 15 000 photos (I'm into photography) and scrolling is terrible, importing hundreds of photos at a time is slow and unreliable. When I restored from a backup and asked F-Spot to import the images from a folder, I just gave up after 5 attempts.

      F-Spot crashes frequently. This is mainly when importing and exporting images. It's full of bugs, and this makes it unusable.

      Picasa under wine scales perfectly well. I just don't like its approach (grabbing all images from your disk and using tags to organise them), plus its non-native interface looks ugly.

      Shotwell is relatively simple. It works, it has a cleaner approach than F-Spot to organisation, and it doesn't crash. It lacks features and its "enhance" button is useless, but I'm sure it will improve over time. By far the best Linux photo manager I've tried.

      Regarding some other comments: supporting PNG is failing irrelevant for me. Advanced editing is a job for the GNU Image Manipulation Program.

    13. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by JohnBailey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Is anyone _really_ wondering... about either?

      Yep.. The defensive Windows fanboys who keep telling us that the year of Linux hasn't come yet.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    14. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Informative

      supporting PNG is failing irrelevant for me. Advanced editing is a job for the GNU Image Manipulation Program.

      It is relevant because the reason they took GIMP out by default in Lucid was because people can edit images in f-spot. Now if they're replacing f-spot as well you can no longer by default edit PNG files and whatever else Shotwell doesn't support. That includes screen shots you take.

    15. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by numbski · · Score: 1

      Okay, this is going to get a "cry me a river" response, but I don't care which - F-spot or Shotwell - can *anyone* get it to build on anything other than Linux?

      I'm really big on having my stuff cross-platform, and since my laptop is a mac and my desktop is Ubuntu, I'd really like to have it work on both. You'd figure a mono app like F-spot would build without too much hassle on OSX. Wrong. :(

      Shotwell - I guess we'll see. Anyone want to try today? I'll give it a go..

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    16. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by numbski · · Score: 1

      Well, that went well. :(

      Checked out revision 1785.
      Garou:~/src tshadwick$ cd shotwell
      Garou:~/src/shotwell tshadwick$ ls
      AUTHORS Makefile apport minver sw-glade
      COPYING NEWS configure misc ui
      INSTALL README debian po vapi
      MAINTAINERS THANKS icons src windows
      Garou:~/src/shotwell tshadwick$ ./configure
      Configured. Type 'make' to build, 'make install' to install.
      Garou:~/src/shotwell tshadwick$ make
      /bin/sh: valac: command not found
      usage: minver <major.minor.revision> <minimum major.minor.revision>
      /bin/sh: valac: command not found
      Shotwell requires Vala compiler 0.8.0 or greater. You are running \b.

      I must be losing it. I've ever even *heard* of the Vala compiler.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    17. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by randomsearch · · Score: 1

      Ah, fair point on the PNG relevance to Ubuntu's overall plan - I just meant as a photographer I didn't care much about it. Hopefully Shotwell will be better at editing by then... maybe?

    18. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I would assume the purpose of the application is to handle the user's own photo library, and how many digital cameras store photos in the PNG format?

      Why just limit this to JPEGs? People have a lot of images from a lot of different
      sources. It's foolish just to restrict an image manager just to one class of images
      or a very narrow use case. This is especially true on Linux where you could have
      all sorts of oddball end users all doing their own thing.

      Any "manager" should handle everything and make that management as free of bother
      as possible.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      You mean the Linux fanboys that have been saying "it's the year of Linux" since 1998.

      Get real. It doesn't take a fanboy to see that Windows still completely dominates the desktop market and will continue for several more years.

      --
      Gone!
    20. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Heh, yes, I know what you mean! This one's tricky, and I agree with you in principle: If you want to play video on Windows, just use DirectShow (and on Linux, standardize on... something. Gstreamer?). But in practice, for some reason, people have a much easier time with players like MPlayer and VLC which contain all their own codecs (or in the case of MPlayer have their own modular codecs separate from e.g., on Windows, DirectShow's), and by contrast have all sorts of difficulties with DirectShow codec packs like Klite. More generally, people talk about 'DLL hell' on Windows and 'dependency hell' on Linux and elsewhere. So, somewhere, it seems that modularity starts to fail and you get more reliability by making individual pieces of software as self-sufficient as possible -- even if this results in a bunch of code duplication. Arguably, this is what one does by running Firefox instead of Internet Explorer or Konqueror in the first place.

    21. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by CrashandDie · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, depends if you want to be a general image manager, or a photo manager. You, know, as in, pictures, with uneven edges and graduated colours.

      You know, the kind of stuff that PNG utterly and completely sucks at?

      Anyone who considers PNG for storing pictures needs to stop, right away. PNG has one advantage: it's a lossless format (as opposed to JPEG). But then you could use TIFF, or DNG. I don't care what you use, be it Lightroom, F-spot or Shotwell; PNG does not bring *any* benefit to managing pictures.

      PNG is excellent for screenshots, and most computer-generated stuff (powerpoint, whatever, anything that is mostly made of straight lines and edges). However, it will suck in terms of size as soon as you confront with photographic material. Most PNG's will have between 5 and 10 times the size of the same JPEG, with absolutely no noticeable difference in quality.

      The whole point about photography is that you don't need ultimate quality. Shoot in RAW, convert to DNG upon import, and keep it as DNG. Then, once you're finished with your post, export the final result to JPEG, once, and share that.

      Don't bloody talk about lack of PNG support. Lack of RAW and DNG support is damaging for a "photo manager". PNG never has and never will be a plus or minus point for a photo manager.

      PS: Why convert to DNG upon import? Full metadata support instead of using sidecar files. DNG is an open file format which does not require reverse engineering (as opposed to most proprietary RAW files), and you have the added benefit that should you require sharing a DNG, any professional photographer will be able to open it (as opposed to say if he's a Canon-only photog, or Nikon-only).

    22. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      But it is mono free...
      So who cares if it doesn't do what you need to do. It is mono free!
      Folk's what we have here is a problem. Functionality is more important to users than is philosophy.
      My wife does digital scrapbooking. She is very good about it and is works with several designers and stores. They actually give her their stuff to use in layouts for others to see. Yes everyone knows she is working with stuff given to her and it is all very proper.
      She is well known for using GIMP. She however can not move to Linux because of a few programs.
      FSpot didn't cut it for her.
      This program will also not work for her.
      http://www.acdsee.com/ is the program she uses and loves. She can not live without it for digital scrapbooking so she is stuck on Windows.
      If it doesn't do the job then free doesn't matter.
      What really doesn't matter is being free of mono!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by feldicus · · Score: 1
    24. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      There are always exceptions made to the Feature Freeze, and since this is a major initiative for 10.10, I have no doubt they'll be able to keep updating it until the RC.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    25. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they didn't seem to have such a hatred of KDE, they might consider digikam, which reportedly also has native ports to OSX and Windows now.

    26. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by sohp · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing your technical assessment PNG. But why are RAW and DNG included already? I can make the same argument about Shotwell's lack of support for them as for PNG. It's the 21st century and this is Linux. Link in a few libraries, add a VERY small bit more code to manage the application code's interface to them, and you can have as many image formats as anyone could want. Even more to my other point, if someone wants to be purist about formats and never use PNG, don't exclude it from the application on philosophical basis when the implementation is so brain-dead simple.

    27. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by retchdog · · Score: 1

      I want all of my images available through one viewer. Some of those images are PNGs for whatever reason.

      Like I said, I'd like a date/event viewer for photos of my life; and a separate "pile" for pictures my friends have drawn; random pictures from the internet; scans from journalism sources; &c. Many of the latter are PNGs. Is that too much to ask?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    28. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Given the haphazard coding implied by the flaws I see, that's cutting it dangerously close.

      Then again, it's not like I'm going to tempt fate by upgrading to 10.10 on release... (shudder)

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    29. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by sstern · · Score: 1

      I just tried shotwell on Fedora 13. (It's the default image manager for F13, too.) It imported all the files in my F-Spot directories except .GIF and .PNG. Oh, come on!

      --
      --Steve
    30. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, mono is not required for a good photo manager. So, this is not a choice between functionality and mono.

    31. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by keitosama · · Score: 1

      >Why just limit this to JPEGs? People have a lot of images from a lot of different sources. It's foolish just to restrict an image manager just to one class of images or a very narrow use case.

      I completely agree with this, even though it may not have seemed so from what I wrote. The intended meaning was that I think it is a good idea to focus on developing features, rather than just dropping in support for all kinds of obscure formats, before the project is useful enough in itself. At that point adding in support for absolutely everything should be easily doable using their respective libraries.

      Looking at Shotwell's dependencies, I can't actually see any image libraries in the list, but it depends on libwebkit. That seems like a really weird thing to do, unless it's for the functionality to publish to Facebook and other online sites.

      As I wrote, at the current state the project seems like it still has a ways to go, and putting Shutwell in a distro as the default image organizer seems like a stupid thing to do for the time being. On the bright side, this will probably fuel development.

    32. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Grundlefleck · · Score: 1

      Alright, enough already with that useful information nonsense. I for one demand that you reveal your login name. I cannot stand the suspense you've created with those three asterisks!

      --
      I accept I know nothing. Insulting my ignorance is wasted on me.
    33. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by keitosama · · Score: 1

      I've never used a photo organizer for anything but personal pictures, and recognize that different people have different needs. What you want is definitely not too much to ask for, but then again I don't feel like the application is ready for widespread use in its current state.

    34. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually if you look at my post I said that FSpot also failed for my wife.
      You are right but not being written in Mono isn't a feature if the program is broken or lacks vital features.
      Not supporting png for example is a vital feature.
      My point is that what it is written or not written in doesn't matter.
      What matters for all software should be.
      1. Feature completeness. Does it have the features that the tasks requires.
      2. Usability. Does it make more work than it solves?
      3. Reliability
      and last is
      4. Value. Is it worth the price and effort.
      Only when those minimums are meet do you have a good solution. Everything else is just a problem.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    35. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      You mean the Linux fanboys that have been saying "it's the year of Linux" since 1998.

      Nope.. Only Windows fanboys still expect anybody to take the whole year of Linux thing seriously. It's kind of like the old " when did you stop beating your wife" question. Challenging someone to defend something that they never proposed in the first place.

      If such a thing ever does happen, it will be seen in retrospect, so this year may not be the year of Linux, but some year in the future may very well have been the year of Linux. Depending on what criteria one uses.

      Next few times you see someone mention it.. Look carefully. Are they a Linux user making some grand prediction, or are they a Windows/OSX user trying to make fun of a Linux user?

      Get real. It doesn't take a fanboy to see that Windows still completely dominates the desktop market and will continue for several more years.

      Who said it didn't. Or were you being defensive?

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    36. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i run debian desktops. debian!
      because it runs better than xp on all archs.

      my personal lappy is on sid, sidux

      windows dominates the desktop for two reasons, oem deals and games. Welcome to the 2010s.

    37. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      I mis-read your post. My bad. :)

      --
      Gone!
    38. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by retchdog · · Score: 1

      I just have a suspicion that once (if?) the UI evolves to have a reasonable date slider, it'll end up nearly as bloated as f-spot. :-/

      Here's hoping for the best. It does feel snappier for now at least...

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    39. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by retchdog · · Score: 1

      libwebkit depends on libcairo, libpng, libjpeg, and libgstreamer (among others). ;-)

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    40. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      No problem.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    41. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by H3g3m0n · · Score: 1

      It's not at all like that. The difference is that Firefox is browsing random websites, it's possible that any of the hundred of video decoders in your OS might have a security exploit. Theres no way to sandbox 3rd party decoders. If there is an exploit in an old out of date proprietary codec that no one updates anymore then it's screwed. Even if the codec is still maintained you are relying on the whims of that company. Shotwell is an offline photo viewer, your only going to be viewing photos you specifically want to look at.

      Even if you just whitelist a few codecs (ie H264, Theora, Webm), there is still no way to update/secure those specific codecs. When was the last time you heard of a H.264 codec update for Windows.

      It's also being done for idealogical reasons. The internet needs to remain open, accepting H.264 codecs (with Firefox being the only real holdout against it becoming the defacto internet standard by having %35 market share) basically means that every single internet capable device now has to pay a licence fee to over a hundred companies holding thousands of licenses. There are also potential problems in the future, what happens when those companies decide they wan't more money. They agreed to giving free licensing until 2016 or so, that 5 years short of the patent expire date. How much would we have been up for in those if it was a basic requirement of internet browsing. Those companies would have been wanting to make up for the missed money in that time. Firefox holding out gave Google time to get and open VP8. I also wouldn't be surprised if they where prepared to defend it by taking it all the way to the supreme court if possible and try and get software patents themselfs overturned (remember Google isn't actually a software company, its an advertising company).

      --
      cat /dev/urandom > .sig
    42. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      For me this is no where near f-spot technically.

      Aside from the two features you tested, you mean? Granted, lack of PNG support IS a big thing. I'm surprised it doesn't just rely on any helper libraries to handle many different formats.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    43. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Anyone who considers PNG for storing pictures needs to stop, right away. PNG has one advantage: it's a lossless format (as opposed to JPEG). But then you could use TIFF, or DNG.

      I tried shotwell with .tif files and it wouldn't import them. So, realistically, jpg is the only file format it reads.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    44. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      I didn't actually mean that Shotwell had any support for it (I've never used it). I simply meant to say that "If you're going to be using PNG because it has lossless picture encoding, you might as well use TIFF or DNG".

    45. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I understood that. I was just pointing out that there is only one file type that shotwell can use. As far as I'm concerned that makes it useless.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    46. Re:who cares if it uses mon or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't do PNG? What, are they writing their own image handling codecs from scratch? What kind of half-assed project doesn't build on the existing available libraries to handle low-level things like image formats?

      It's shite eh...Ubuntu is a big pile of dogshit anyway.

  2. um who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    So the summary is just copy/paste from some blog.
    Gnome made the change, not Ubuntu.
    That version of Shotwell has been out for well over a month.

    This is not news, for nerds or for anyone.

    1. Re:um who cares? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's news for Ubuntu users, which comprises probably most Linux users, so it is relevant and is news for them, just as major Fedora changes are news-worthy as well but less so since Fedora is less used, at least for desktops I would argue, but who knows, maybe it's equal or more, that's besides the point that they are both news worthy IMO.

      Ubuntu bashing is amusing, but pretty infantile. Fedora uses pretty much the same programs, with a different non-universal package manager, just as DEB isn't universal (a major gripe of mine about Linux standards and software accessibility on Linux, but off-topic).

      Now, it shouldn't matter to any distro users, and none of this should be news worthy, because users should be able to get the latest version of any program easily without relying on someone to create a PPA (which still haven't been made ultra-easy to deal with, and confounds new users), but again, that's going back to the above off-topic point. The sad reality is the default apps that distros ship does matter to distro users users because they will most likely not get the new version, and many not even know Shotwell exists until they install or upgrade to the newer distro version.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    2. Re:um who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which comprises probably most Linux users

      Wrong assumption. The Media hype does not mean it is most used. Many (3+ from 10) change to other distribution when they have first learned the more advanced knowledge from Linux distributions. Fedora has more users than Ubuntu, OpenSUSE has more users than Ubuntu. And when it comes to Debian, it has much more users than Ubuntu fans can even think of. How sounds 52 million users (=! not installations) in Brazil alone? The Red Flag Linux possible has already more users than Ubuntu. And when it comes to Red Hat or SUSE, both have lots of business users.

      Ubuntu is still most hyped distribution in media (even so much that it gives questions "should I install Ubuntu or Linux?"). But it hype has already have the peek, Ubuntu is already coming down because the existing Ubuntu userbase has learn the bad side effects of the Canonicals actions and how other distributions has own strenghts as well in many other areas, like user friendliness, well integrated desktop environment, easy updating (the package naming etc) and easier system configuration.

      The problems comes that new (or even few years users) users do not understand how the Linux community works. We have one OS, (=Linux kernel). Then we have GNU development tools and system programs (Linux + GNU = development platform / software platform) and then we have application programs and so on. All software are developed by different groups. There is no one single corporation or group of people who is responsible of all the code. Like Microsoft is for Windows (NT operating system + all the system programs, software libraries, application programs etc. Even MS use some thirdparty code) or Apple is for Mac OS X (XNU operating system + many of the system programs, software libraries, all application programs etc. Apple use lots of open source software and maintains many as well, like CUPS).

      And if we just sum all the softwarem we get punch of source code in GIT and SVN servers. And then developers maded tarballs. If we would like to get a working software system, we should first get Linux OS code from kernel.org, GNU development tools from GNU.org and compile Linux so we can get it work on the hardware. We would then need to start compile GNU software so we can install all the system programs so we can get even the shell. Very very difficult for barebone computer. We would need to check all the depencies, compilation flags and all kind things just for very basic software system and we only would have a one system program in front of us, the shell like bash. Then we would need to start compile X11 and other software libraries and actually in the end, the desktop environment and then all the application programs. That is big job and could take many weeks.

      But because most of us are lazy, we want to get easy start. And because some of us wants to be helpfull for other people, we start a distribution. We download all the software, we compile them with specific ways and we package the whole software system under own brand so people can understand that when they see our brand, the know for what purpose we package the whole software system.

      There is no "same application for Fedora than in Ubuntu". Those applications are open source. They usually do not belong to any OS (Linux, XNU, HURD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, SunOS etc) or any of the Linux distributions either. The precompiled binary package then belongs to specific distribution. But only the compiled package, not the software itself.

      And as you said, users depends very much about default install of the software system. How the distributor wants it to be. Canonical did not do anything fancy on that. There were many distributions what were very easy to install (almost you needed to select your keyboard and install started, much easier than Ubuntus installation today!) and what had very simple preinstalled application programs list in menus (one application for one tasks). Ubuntu just happened to be in right place in right time. GNOME

    3. Re:um who cares? by knapper_tech · · Score: 1

      It closes a chapter. We all had high hopes that F-spot would have an easier to find interface than G-spot.

      --
      "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
    4. Re:um who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNOME doesn't have a "default photo organizer" to switch. This was a distro-level change.

  3. On the other hand... by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shotwell on a other hand...

    For fuck sake, editors.

    EDIT!

    1. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you only have one other hand? oO
      Hah!

    2. Re:On the other hand... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Chill, dude, he could be speaking ebonics or maybe he has more than two hands... It just doesn't seem PC to dis alternative grammar.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though "/.editors" was a script?!? You mean there are real editors somewhere?

    4. Re:On the other hand... by lexDysic · · Score: 5, Funny

      For fuck sake, editors.

      EDIT!

      You must be new he... wait, your UID is 5551? And you're complaining about this now?

      Sir, I am in awe of your patience. Carry on.

      --
      Think! It ain't illegal yet!
      George Clinton
    5. Re:On the other hand... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      It was just an egregious example of dense error mismanagement.

      That and I was feeling grumpy. I haven't had my geritol yet today. :P

    6. Re:On the other hand... by Improv · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pah. People with four or less numbers in their UID are just a myth.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    7. Re:On the other hand... by ultrapenguin · · Score: 5, Funny

      really?

    8. Re:On the other hand... by bmo · · Score: 1

      What is certain is holders of 4 digit UIDs with a Sensayoomah(TM) are a myth.

      --
      BMO

    9. Re:On the other hand... by bmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >For fuck sake, editors.

      "Trolling is a art" - Anonymous

      --
      BMO

    10. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, "/usr/bin/vi"

    11. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's "four or fewer", dumbass.

    12. Re:On the other hand... by KingKiki217 · · Score: 1

      On the gripping hand, Slashdot is an american website, and we all have two hands.

    13. Re:On the other hand... by GraZZ · · Score: 3, Funny

      According to your mom I'm more of a legend...

    14. Re:On the other hand... by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Ain't that the truth.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    15. Re:On the other hand... by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, I guess that works until you can install Emacs, but I'd hardly call it a real editor....

    16. Re:On the other hand... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That particular Grammarnazification is patented, as you can see from my sig.

      Don't forget to pay your $699 licence fee on your way off my lawn. :)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    17. Re:On the other hand... by Nadir · · Score: 1



      Less than four ?

      </smugmode>

      --
      --
      The world is divided in two categories:
      those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
    18. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes...

    19. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to use it in your sig, you should at least make an attempt to get it correct yourself.

      It's not a quantity/quality issue; it's about count nouns vs. mass nouns. If you can count it, it takes "fewer", otherwise it takes "less".

      "There is less soup in my bowl than in yours, but there are fewer peas in your soup than in mine."

    20. Re:On the other hand... by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      I am still downloading the Emacs, with the 3G connection it takes few days to get the text editor installed. I think I should take the nano when it was suggested!

    21. Re:On the other hand... by bolke · · Score: 1

      hi :)

    22. Re:On the other hand... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Wait... smug? ... I thought bigger was better....

      Damn. How do I get a low UID then?

    23. Re:On the other hand... by whoop · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've heard of these 4-digiters, but never seen one myself...

    24. Re:On the other hand... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      <smugmode>

      Less than four ?

      </smugmode>

      s/less/fewer

      Sorry, you were saying something smug?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    25. Re:On the other hand... by grrussel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes.

    26. Re:On the other hand... by AzP · · Score: 1

      I don't like pee in my soup, so there is less pee in my soup than yours.

    27. Re:On the other hand... by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Pick one:

      1. Invent a time machine.

      2. Hack the slashdot user database.

      3. Hack the account of someone whose UID is that low.

      4. Wait for the UID database to experience overflow.

      5. ???

      If you are a boring person with loads of money, you could also try to purchase one.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    28. Re:On the other hand... by Zappy · · Score: 1

      Yes they are

    29. Re:On the other hand... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Tried number 1 but it's unfortunately proven that time travel is impossible.

    30. Re:On the other hand... by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Re:On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
      by whoop (194) writes: Alter Relationship on Mon Jun 14, '10 05:48 AM (#32562604) Homepage

      I've heard of these 4-digiters, but never seen one myself...

      Ah, the irony of Slashdot UID's - it's the only dick measuring contest where the winner is the smallest one...

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    31. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fuck's sake ...

    32. Re:On the other hand... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I'd respond with the classic "You must be new here" except my UID is higher than yours.

    33. Re:On the other hand... by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      "Waiter! There's a fly in his soup. Can I have one too?"

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    34. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't talk about UID length as if it matters.

    35. Re:On the other hand... by Trashman · · Score: 1

      I hadn't thought of that. (promptly disappears in a puff of logic.)

      --
      Do not read this .sig
    36. Re:On the other hand... by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not impossible, it just always results in this: http://xkcd.com/716/

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    37. Re:On the other hand... by daeley · · Score: 1

      it's the only dick measuring contest where the winner is the smallest one...

      Unless the UID is a denominator with, say, "1" for a numerator. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    38. Re:On the other hand... by Bookem+Danno · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you're not a golfer

    39. Re:On the other hand... by Teun · · Score: 1

      Damn. How do I get a low UID then?

      Ebay has worked for some.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    40. Re:On the other hand... by Improv · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, I was distracted when I wrote the original - oddly, in my late twenties I started to need to pay a lot more attention to my writing; otherwise I sometimes miss things like this or spell things by the way they sound. I've also started to re-use the same sentence openings. It's puzzling and worrying given that I used to have near-perfect grammar and good style with no effort. It's irritating to need to make a second pass over things I write to catch things. Being in my very early 30s now, I hate to think what things'll be like in my 40s and onward.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    41. Re:On the other hand... by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Sure it is, you just have to hit your head, see the image of the flux capacitor and use 30 years and your entire family fortune to realize it. Unfortunately, it is an energy hungry sucker, so you may need to enter into some questionable alliances to generate the 1.21 GW, but you get to build it inside a DeLorean. How cool is that?

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    42. Re:On the other hand... by Spewns · · Score: 1

      Sure, I guess that works until you can install Emacs, but I'd hardly call it a real editor....

      Yeah, I agree with you man, I'd hardly call Emacs a real editor too. So what's all this talk about installing it?

    43. Re:On the other hand... by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Let's kill him!

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    44. Re:On the other hand... by cdeobald · · Score: 1

      But, is it _really_ ironic, and which kind of irony would that be? http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

    45. Re:On the other hand... by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      so last discussion

      Less Than 3.... Anyone?

    46. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watching your penis length contest is fun

    47. Re:On the other hand... by jd · · Score: 1

      Duh. That should be obvious. Geeks don't get laid.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  4. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where was this discussed? Are there links that describe the finality of this decision in greater detail? I had heard about the debate, but didn't hear about the resolution.

    1. Re:huh? by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is this discussion from 2009..
      https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-December/010173.html

      and this one from May 2010..
      https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/2010-May/002569.html

      Apart from that I can't find anything about a decision being made.

  5. If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't it then be named G-spot? If a program of such a name were to exist, would any male users be able to find it, let alone use it?

    1. Re:If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't it then be named G-spot? If a program of such a name were to exist, would any male users be able to find it, let alone use it?

      G-spot

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Shot well... a well that you shoot into... I don't think any males in the FOSS community will be able to open the program, much less add files to it.

    3. Re:If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. But I bet it would be fun to play with the iPad.

    4. Re:If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it's got Mono, I'm not touching it. No wonder it's slow and tired.

    5. Re:If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...would any male users be able to find it, let alone use it?

      Thats why its called Fail-Spot not G-Spot.

    6. Re:If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually program called GSpot. It will read a video file and tell you the codecs it needs. Very useful actually :) http://www.headbands.com/gspot/

    7. Re:If someone integrates F-spot into gnome..... by 8472 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it then be named G-spot? If a program of such a name were to exist, would any male users be able to find it, let alone use it?

      http://www.headbands.com/gspot/

  6. Great, now get rid of XSANE by British · · Score: 0

    XSANE should never be made available. The GUI is a complete mess, looking like something that belongs on the Amiga. Also, it has yet to work with a single scanner or webcam I throw at it.

    1. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      already gone in lucid

    2. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by gslavik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Works with my camera (Logitech 9000) and my scanner (Canon u1240n aka Lide30) without any issues. The scanner was a nice surprise because installing the windows drivers for that was voodoo. Yes, Canon and Linux, it just works (tm). (I really didn't expect it to.)

    3. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by lahvak · · Score: 1

      I have never tried it with a webcam (so far, I have not had a need to use one), but I have used xsane with a number of scanners, and I have never ran across one that would not work with it.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      XSANE should never be made available. The GUI is a complete mess, looking like something that belongs on the Amiga. Also, it has yet to work with a single scanner or webcam I throw at it.

      xsane, or at least its libraries, forms the core of every scanner program for Linux worth using. The GUI is about the same as typical scanner programs released by manufacturers, which is to say it's weak but functional. Also, it has worked with every single scanner I have thrown at it for years and years... HP, Canon, Mustek... and I've been through about eight or nine scanners since I dropped Windows. In fact, my current scanner is an HP scanner for which there is no Windows 7 driver, the last release was on Vista, so the prior owners sold it. My prior scanner was another HP scanner for which there were no drivers after Windows XP. The one before that was a Mustek scanner which also last had XP drivers.

      The plural of anecdote is not data, but you're outnumbered.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      I thought they did. My last install of ubuntu I am sure excluded it.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    6. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      xsane, or at least its libraries, forms the core of every scanner program for Linux worth using.

      Exactly. I no longer use my (currently Epson) scanner very often, so I have a tendency to take it for granted as something that "just works". But if the parent can point us in the direction of anything better, I will be very glad to hear of it. The only scanner I have had that is not supported by SANE/XSANE was an old UMAX parallel-port machine that had already been flagged as problematic.

    7. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Simple Scan is the shizzle.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    8. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The GUI for xsane is perfectly adequate, if a little dated...
      And as you pointed out, most scanner manufacturers supply something similar but the problem is you get something different with every scanner... At least xsane is consistent across devices.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      On Windows, at least, there is a stock image scanning app these days, and many apps dealing with documents (e.g. Word) can do scanning with text recognition, too. I don't recall when I last used the manufacturer-supplied thingy.

    10. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by gdshaw · · Score: 1

      XSANE should never be made available. The GUI is a complete mess, looking like something that belongs on the Amiga.

      Aesthetically unappealing I would agree, but in terms of actually getting the job done — for medium to high volumes of scanning — I've found that it works surprisingly well. (Better than the alternatives I've tried so far. Not tried Simple Scan yet.)

      Also, it has yet to work with a single scanner or webcam I throw at it.

      You do realise that XSane is just a GUI, and will work with any scanner iff you have installed an appropriate backend driver for that scanner? Switching to a different front end may improve the aesthetics, but should make no difference to which scanners work and which don't.

      (That's the whole idea of SANE — that you can use any front end with any scanner — as opposed to TWAIN where every manufacturer reinvents the wheel (usually poorly) and you are stuck with the results.)

    11. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by JohnBailey · · Score: 2, Funny

      XSANE should never be made available. The GUI is a complete mess, looking like something that belongs on the Amiga. Also, it has yet to work with a single scanner or webcam I throw at it.

      I think I see your problem.. Stop throwing stuff. Peripherals tend to last longer without sudden impact.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    12. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Worked like a charm with a hp officejet d145 all-in-one color printer (overall it felt ten times as fast as scanning from Windows Vista).

    13. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by blackest_k · · Score: 4, Informative

      10.04 has simplescan nice and clean and easy to use. Does what's needed acquires images and uses libsane.

      5 minutes with shotwell

      Shotwell photo manager is a very simple and generally fast viewer, for some reason rotating a picture to the right is a lot faster than the same operation to the left.

      Theres no keyboard shortcuts for the rotate feature instead its mouse orientated using the right mouse button a lot.

      There is an enhance command but what it does I don't know.
      other tools are available once you select a single photo for editing.
      It's crop tool is pretty good but other adjustments are pretty basic and easy to make pictures appear worse.
      The export to picassa feature is useful too.

      shotwell isn't as good as f-spot but doesnt use mono
      picassa wipes the floor with both of them but isn't native using wine.

      picassa is my preference but shotwell can catch up its also available on windows
       

    14. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > XSANE should never be made available. The GUI is a complete mess, looking like something that belongs on the Amiga. Also, it has yet to work with a single scanner or webcam I throw at it.

      SANE has worked for a wide array of scanners for YEARS AND YEARS.

      I don't quite so much care about whether or not the UI looks like it came from the Amiga so much as I care about how useful it is.

      If you don't want to scare n00bs with options then support scanning from the panel buttons on the scanner (like WinDOS).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I haven't tried the Vista/Win7 scanner app, but the Kodak Imaging application with Windows XP was worse than xsane.

      I'm willing to believe the new app is tolerable. But does it do everything xsane does? Not that it matters, I'm not going to be hooking my scanner up to my Windows 7 machine, there's no drivers :) (And mind you this is a fairly recent HP scanner with TMA etc.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Great, now get rid of XSANE by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to believe the new app is tolerable. But does it do everything xsane does?

      I don't know, to be honest. It does everything I need it to do, but then so does XSANE (or did when I was using it several years ago, anyway).

      Anyway, while XSANE UI does look like an aftermath of an anti-tank mine explosion on the button factory, I'm not sure where GG..P was getting his complaints about lackluster scanner support from. If anything, this is probably the area of Linux hardware support which gave me least troubles - a pleasant surprise when I was dealing with it for the first time. It also seems to be one of the most stable in a sense that not only things were working to begin with, but they kept working as time went past, despite major kernel upgrades, switching distros, etc.

  7. Now in English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Finally! The much discussed F-Spot vs Shotwell battle is over. The new default image organizer app for Ubuntu Maverick 10.10 will be Shotwell. This is a much needed change. F-Spot was simply not enough. Most times when I tried F-Spot, it crashed on me. Shotwell on a other hand feels a lot more solid and is better integrated with the GNOME desktop. Shotwell is also completely devoid of Mono."

    There, fixed that for you. Now it's in English.

    1. Re:Now in English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shotwell on THE other hand..."

      There, fixed that for you.

    2. Re:Now in English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shotwell, on the other hand, ..."

      There, fixed that for you.

  8. Next on the list... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

    A lightweight equivalent of MS Paint. GPaint for example has all kinds of flashy transformations, yet lacks something as basically necessary as edit "undo" and "redo" functions.

    1. Re:Next on the list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lightweight equivalent of MS Paint.

      Better: A lightweight equivalent of Paint.NET.

    2. Re:Next on the list... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      GIMP has undo + redo functions; they're pretty easy to find. What it's missing are straightforward straight-line and square/rectangle/circle tools.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:Next on the list... by zonky · · Score: 0

      There is (sadly) a fairly dead looking project to get Paint.NET running on mono: http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/

    4. Re:Next on the list... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      GIMP is awesome, but it dosen't really fit into the "lightweight" niche.

    5. Re:Next on the list... by jpobst · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to toot my own horn, but that's Pinta (http://pinta-project.com/).

      It's not ready yet to be a default application, but it's quickly getting closer. :)

    6. Re:Next on the list... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      What it's missing are straightforward straight-line and square/rectangle/circle tools.

      I fear they're missing for deliberate-yet-inane ideological reasons. The functionality is there, accessible through hotkeys applied in nonsensical ways; the designers seem to think a button to draw a line or shape is... somehow an undesirable compromise. It's been requested for years, but never been added, even through major UI redesigns.

    7. Re:Next on the list... by lahvak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is, I believe, that majority of people using GIMP for image editing would not use these buttons (I use GIMP quite heavily, and I know I would never use them), so for them (us), such buttons would just end up cluttering already pretty complicated user interface.

      People often complain about GIMP user interface, which in my opinion is pretty good. The main problem IMHO is that the user interface is not flexible or configurable enough. For example the toolbox. When I bought my actual toolbox, the kind that sits in your garage, it came with a bunch of tools. I tossed half of them out, and replaced them with other tools, more useful for the way I work. However, I cannot do that with the GIMP toolbox. The same with menus. There is no easy way to reorganize the menus. I would like to, in addition to the existing menus, create a menu that would contain all commands that I use on daily bases for photo editing. In another menu, I would put all the command for creating and editing certain types of mathematical graphs, and so on.

      GIMP is very flexible and powerful program, but its user interface is rigid and does not allow you to easily use all the flexibility and power. Unfortunately, most people complaining about the GIMP user interface seem to want even more rigid interface, with a single window and some sort of MDI interface. That, IMNSHO, would be a huge step backward.

      --
      AccountKiller
    8. Re:Next on the list... by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      GIMP has undo + redo functions; they're pretty easy to find. What it's missing are straightforward straight-line and square/rectangle/circle tools.

      Gimp is a photo/image editor. You are after a vector editor for charts and the like.
      For geometric stuff you need Inkscape or similar.
      And for charts, Dia is so much better.

      Right tool for the job makes life easier.

      I keep seeing this complaint here, but have never got a rational answer as to why geometry tools are of such importance on a bitmap editor.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    9. Re:Next on the list... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing this complaint here, but have never got a rational answer as to why geometry tools are of such importance on a bitmap editor.

      Drawing things on top of images, arrows or circles on screenshots, simple graphics on top of family photos...

    10. Re:Next on the list... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      GIMP is too complex for most users who want to do simple stuff. For most casual users, something more akin to Paint.NET is much simpler and gets the job done. That said, there was a project to create a Paint.NET Linux/GTK+ clone that I saw a while back, but I can't recall the game. For the time being I'm personally just using GIMP. It's overkill and the interface sucks, but it's worth dealing with right now.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    11. Re:Next on the list... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > GIMP is awesome, but it dosen't really fit into the "lightweight" niche.

      If you are dragging in the rest of Mono just to have an image editor, it kind of does.

      GIMP could sorely use some sort of "bookmarked UI" so that recently used stuff is
      up front in a manner similar to iPhoto but without it being static. GIMP does some
      stuff better because it's more sophisticated about how it does anything. The UI is
      a bit of a drag though. Finding stuff can be cumbersome.

      It's like searching through 1800 videos to find that show that you were watching
      and didn't finish last night.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:Next on the list... by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      Drawing things on top of images, arrows or circles on screenshots, simple graphics on top of family photos...

      Note I did say rational...

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    13. Re:Next on the list... by timothy · · Score: 1

      I think that's a good idea (the "bookmarked UI" for GIMP); GIMP in particular has an easy way to suggest such things, and I suggest submitting that to the visual brainstorm page here:

      http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/

      I wish all free software projects (or heck, all software in general) had such a page -- it's a really good way for people as non-technical as I am to suggest changes in a way that's easier to grasp than a detailed text description.

      Cheers,

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    14. Re:Next on the list... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I do not understand this. I use both Gimp and Photoshop, and the way you draw a straight line is EXACTLY THE SAME IN BOTH PROGRAMS! (you hold down shift and click the mouse, Gimp at least shows a preview rubber band, both have the annoying bug that you have to turn off pressure sensitivity if using a pen).

      Photoshop does have rectangle and oval buttons. But unless I am spacing out I don't see any other way to paint straight lines, so I do not understand this repetitive complaint about Gimp.

    15. Re:Next on the list... by Briareos · · Score: 1

      GIMP has undo + redo functions; they're pretty easy to find. What it's missing are straightforward straight-line and square/rectangle/circle tools.

      Okay, granted - the stroke command does some icky circles due to it's 1 pixel steps, but what is wrong with drawing lines with the brush tools?

      Click on the starting point, hold down shift, click on the ending point - BAM! Line! Whyever would I need an extra tool to do that?

      np: MF Doom - Gazzillion Ear (Doom!)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  9. Stupid remarks by akanouras · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the times when I tried F-Spot, it just keeps crashing on me.

    Do we need such silly commentary?

    I'm using Kubuntu btw, so I couldn't care less about F-Spot.

    1. Re:Stupid remarks by anethema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Especially the weird shift between past and present within the same sentance.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    2. Re:Stupid remarks by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm using Kubuntu btw, so I couldn't care less about F-Spot.

      Well, thanks for taking the time to post a comment in an article about a product you "couldn't care less about". That's very generous of you, and I'm sure we're all better for reading your insightful words.

    3. Re:Stupid remarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially the weird shift between past and present within the same sentance.

      Maybe he wrote it from a DeLorean while driving at 88 mph.

    4. Re:Stupid remarks by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, that was intentional. He tried it several months ago and it's still crashing.

    5. Re:Stupid remarks by SnEptUne · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, on Kubuntu, it is called K-Spot.

    6. Re:Stupid remarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the poor spelling inside the same "sentance"?

    7. Re:Stupid remarks by calmond · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, on Kubuntu, it is called K-Spot.

      By extension then, in Gnome, shouldn't it be called the G-spot???

    8. Re:Stupid remarks by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, on Kubuntu, it is called K-Spot.

      By extension then, in Gnome, shouldn't it be called the G-spot???

      I don't believe it exists.

    9. Re:Stupid remarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using Kubuntu btw, so I couldn't care less about F-Spot.

      But why would you care at all if you're using Kubuntu?

      (Protip: the phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)

    10. Re:Stupid remarks by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

      It's a hell of a lot more relevant than yours - at least it expresses an actual experience with the software.

      -Peter

      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    11. Re:Stupid remarks by oddTodd123 · · Score: 1

      In his defense, the submitter concludes that F-Spot needed to be replaced for everyone because it crashed when he used it.

    12. Re:Stupid remarks by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I'm using Kubuntu btw, so I couldn't care less about F-Spot.

      But why would you care at all if you're using Kubuntu?

      (Protip: the phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)

      He just told that he doesn't care at all (he said he couldn't care less; if he cared at all, he could care less).

      (Protip: Not everyone gets the phrase wrong, so when you want to accuse someone of getting it wrong, first make sure he really did.)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Stupid remarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially the weird shift between past and present within the same sentence.

    14. Re:Stupid remarks by selven · · Score: 1

      You could care less about people throwing their opinions around just because they have them, and you really should.

    15. Re:Stupid remarks by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      Commenting to undo accidental mod, "funny" and "overrated" are next to each other. Thanks for the chuckle though.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
  10. Isn't it all about options? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shotwell is also completely devoid of Mono.

    I take issue with this last line. I LIKE c#/.net. If I get to use it in more places, this is a good thing.

    Isn't the whole shtick about open source the fact that we get more options?

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Isn't it all about options? by waambulance · · Score: 1

      no. the whole schtick about open source is that its 2 clues shy of a boardgame and everybody wants to play. -0.

    2. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shotwell is also completely devoid of Mono.

      I take issue with this last line. I LIKE c#/.net. If I get to use it in more places, this is a good thing.

      Isn't the whole shtick about open source the fact that we get more options?

      I think the point here is that we get more options as long as its not Microsoft embezzled technology. I don't get the reasoning behind everyones anti-Mono stance, its an amazing feat to have an alternative .NET CLR implementation.

      But if you really want it, just get F-Spot from the repos, having said all this, I'm glad Beagle was laid to rest several releases ago :-)

    3. Re:Isn't it all about options? by ie2fleen · · Score: 3, Informative

      We all know that Mono is the cause of F-Shot's stability issues...right?

    4. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nobody cares whether you like programming in C#.

      The question is whether people like having Mono installed on their system, and the answer is no. It's like requiring Java or Flash. Besides which, Mono will never be anything but a half-arsed implementation of what's available on Windows. We already have enough lame-duck copies of things on the Linux desktop. We don't need another one in Mono.

      F-Spot was a pathetic attempt to justify the existence of Mono, and it failed miserably. Nothing else of any relevence uses it, so now we can move on. :-)

    5. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Issues with Mono are the cloud of uncertainty due to the licensing. Basically that Microsoft can change things at a whim. Oh, and also that it is not a "write once run anywhere" platform.. Mainly due to the lack of a cross-platform GUI framework.. .NET is not Java.. (although I still prefer NATIVE applications over Java.. Something about them running faster?)

    6. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but why would you make such a bad choice? Why not use Java if you want portability? It's not perfect but at least you won't have the rug pulled under you when Microsoft reaches the third E with Mono.

    7. Re:Isn't it all about options? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The concern is not so much about the language itself as with Microsoft. They've *said* they won't sue anyone using/writing for Mono, but since they've threatened to do some very similar things and I'm not so sure I trust them.

      In any case, the intensity with which Icaza has been pushing Mono, plus his ties with Microsoft, scare the crap out of me.

      So please, feel free to develop with it. But I'm not so sure I'll be installing Mono to run your app, because I try to keep it off otherwise.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    8. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meh, as long as F-Spot and Mono remain in the repository, I have little issue with them moving to Shotwell if they feel it's the better product (for whatever reason, be it phantom legal issues, or legitimate stability issues).

    9. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Boltronics · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real issue is with patents. Stallman wrote about this last year.
      http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

      Similar to WINE in a way, it's good to have an open source project to allow us to run more software. However, that doesn't mean that software developers should make their applications depend on them when specifically targeting a GNU/Linux environment - it's an unnecessary risk.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    10. Re:Isn't it all about options? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I take issue with this last line. I LIKE c#/.net. If I get to use it in more places, this is a good thing.

      Isn't the whole shtick about open source the fact that we get more options?

      Open source is about options, true. So you're saying that Mono should be included as a required dependency in the base system of Ubuntu because you like it, but fuck all the people who don't like Mono for various reasons? This clearly isn't about more options. Leaving Mono "optional" is about more options.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    11. Re:Isn't it all about options? by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I LIKE c#/.net.

      Someone always pops up saying something like this anytime Mono is mentioned. But if C#/.Net/Mono is so great why hasn't anything really great been created with it in all the years it has existed? Remember when Microsoft was going to recode pretty much all of their userland? yea right. Reminds me of when belief in the Java hype pushed Corel under as they thought they could write a cross platform office suite with it. So show me something Mono/.Net based that that is awesome and where the choice of platform was something more a technical than a political/religious decision.

      But beyond that, the fact is we are talking about a technology controlled by Microsoft. Many people simply do not trust them, and for good reason. So using Mono to allow otherwise foreign code to run is unobjectionable. Creating core subsystems of the Free Software/Open Source environment isn't. Any distribution that breaks if Mono is removed is going to be unacceptable to a large enough subset of users that it simply isn't likely to happen in any of the top ten distros.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    12. Re:Isn't it all about options? by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      The question is whether people like having Mono installed on their system, and the answer is no.

      No it's not. Ubuntu has never been a distribution for Free software activists. Ubuntu has always been about "linux for humans". That's why there is always fuss over the nvidia drivers, that's why they made a fuss over the firefox branding. If your primary concern is with freedom then you should be on a different distribution such as Gnewsense or Debian. Ubuntu however has always been about ease of use over making things difficult and just so we're clear here.. Both F-Spot and Shotwell are Free Open Source Software, it's just that some people don't like using mono.

      The REAL question however is, does this new Photo Manager provide an adequate replacement for the Ubuntu user and the answer is "not yet". It doesn't import certain images, it imports duplicates, its UI is not that great compared to f-spot and it has less import/export options then f-spot. Regardless of how you feel about Mono it sucks for Ubuntu's target audience which doesn't care about Mono or C#, they care about if they can use it.

      I think the only news worthy part of this is that it's a ridiculous decision that they're considering to switch to an inferior product by default. Add on the fact that they removed GIMP by default from Lucid it means that there will now be no way by default to edit images in Ubuntu for the next release that won't open in Shotwell. It's just completely stupid and I doubt Canonical will stick with this decision. Ubuntu is popular because they don't do this kind of thing.

    13. Re:Isn't it all about options? by chgros · · Score: 1

      While I haven't used C#, from what I've heard it's vastly superior to Java; so I understand if you like it.
      However, still from what I've heard, mono is a very poor implementation of .Net. For instance, the VM uses a GC designed for C, and apparently the library is not written especially carefully.

    14. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if C#/.Net/Mono is so great why hasn't anything really great been created with it in all the years it has existed?

      One could say the same thing about Java. There isn't a single decent client application made in Java. And by decent I mean fast, memory efficient, useful and stable. And it's not like Sun didn't try. .NET is a common framework (spanning many languages) for Windows applications, which delivers cross-platform features if you're willing to use Mono. And you can actually use it (and C#) to write usable client applications in any Visual Studio supported language.

    15. Re:Isn't it all about options? by ratboy666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are a few developers who I feel indebted to. Icaza is one. I use Midnight Commander every day. I give these developers "the benefit of the doubt". Icaza is up there with Bram Moolenaar (VIM). VIM is more important, but MC also "gets it done". And has for almost 15 years.

      So, when Icaza said "Mono is important", I tried to suspend my disbelief. And, it was difficult for me; the JVM also had a 15 year history for me.

      I'm STILL trying to see it. I "dutifully" installed Moonlight into Firefox. I've tried F-Spot. But, there appears to be no broad-base support for the CLR, even now. No CLR support for Unix... To quote a Microsoft MVP

      "Shinma,

      I would not recommend trying to run .NET on a unix platform. While
      there are attempts (there is a CLR based on a source project released by MS
      named ROTOR, and there is also the MONO project), not all of the
      functionality is there.

      What are you trying to do? Which parts of the framework do you want to
      leverage? I think that there might be an ASP.NET implementation up and
      running.

      --
      - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]"

      Now, MONO claims to have Solaris support, but I haven't yet tried it (can you get support for this from Novell?) And what about AIX and HP-UX?

      JAVA supports these platforms, and so appears to be a more universal delivery system.

      Was Icaza wrong? Maybe. It is possible that the CLR offers features that are not possible with the JVM (I don't know, the only thing I have personally done in this space is a COBOL to JVM system, and I haven't ever really looked at CLR -- after all Alchemy offers a commercial COBOL to CLR compiler already).

      Now, I have never stressed F-Spot, but what I did try appeared to work just fine. I'm all for competition, and if the CLR is superior to the JVM, let it win! I just don't understand why it hasn't been pushed into the Unix space. Are IBM, HP and Oracle wrong?

      Just curious on the thoughts of some fellow developers here. Especially from those companies. Some insight would be valuable.

      Thanks, Ratboy666

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    16. Re:Isn't it all about options? by mkendall · · Score: 1

      There isn't a single decent client application made in Java.

      eclipse?

    17. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      VIM is more important [than mc]

      Woooow. Understatement of the century.

      You know come to think of it, I don't htink I've ever met a single person that uses mc, everyone either uses real GUIs, or real CLI tools...

      Also, Icaza is a certifiable jackass. He wasn't so bad in the beginning, but his trollish behaviour concerning the entire mono situation is just too much.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    18. Re:Isn't it all about options? by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ubuntu seems to have decided that the best time to make risky decisions is the release immediately after a LTS because if it ends up sucking people can stay on the lts without any worries about support disappearing.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    19. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mod parent up please, as that is the truth. Mono was pushed by Novell because Microsoft paid them to push it, and to do so Novell tried to develop some projects based on it to give it some weight. I really hope that something like Gnote will be used now to replace Tomboy, and that Mono can be expunged completely from Ubuntu, freeing up lots of space on the ISO and shortening loading times and resource demands for the default apps.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    20. Re:Isn't it all about options? by devent · · Score: 1

      How about Visual Paradigm? Runs flawless on Windows and Linux as far as I can tell. Furthermore, OpenOffice.org and Firefox are not faster then either Visual Paradigm or Eclipse.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    21. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Buttink · · Score: 1
      So, apparently all of these apps are nothing: Docky, Gnome Do, Tomboy, Banshee, Beagle, Unity3D Framework - and the many games made with that, Sims 3. Im pretty sure even Realtime World (crackdown guys) use mono. THATS JUST WITH MONO not even the rest of .Net BUT NO nothing good was ever made with C#/.Net/Mono. BTW last time, I checked Mono was installed with Ubuntu .... its a wee bit popular. The word "breaks" is kinda vague too but whatever.

      >So using Mono to allow otherwise foreign code to run is unobjectionable.

      Holy shit. What do you think you do every time you download a package? Sure you think its not bad, but you really have no idea. Its always "foreign." You don't know shit about what it does. You only know what it should do. Even if you compile from source, unless you look at every FUCKING line of code you will never be sure.

    22. Re:Isn't it all about options? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is whether people like having Mono installed on their system, and the answer is no. It's like requiring Java or Flash.

      ... or Perl, Python or Ruby. When did you last excise those from your system? Do you avoid using GUI apps written in Python as a matter of principle?

      Besides which, Mono will never be anything but a half-arsed implementation of what's available on Windows.

      Well, no, not really. Gtk#, for example, is available on Windows, but only as part of Mono.

    23. Re:Isn't it all about options? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm all for competition, and if the CLR is superior to the JVM, let it win! I just don't understand why it hasn't been pushed into the Unix space. Are IBM, HP and Oracle wrong?

      No, they just don't want to embrace a competing technology, especially the one where design choices are by and large made by said competitor.

      And Microsoft isn't exactly interested in providing first-class CLR experience on Unix for obvious reasons.

      So you end up with Mono, which is largely volunteer-driven. Of course that is going to lag behind a major commercial project such as Sun JVM.

    24. Re:Isn't it all about options? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But if C#/.Net/Mono is so great why hasn't anything really great been created with it in all the years it has existed?

      Do you mean on Linux, or in general?

      emember when Microsoft was going to recode pretty much all of their userland? yea right.

      It's not going to happen overnight, but it's still happening. Every new release of Visual Studio has more and more managed code in it. For another example, Expression Blend is 100% managed code. I've also heard from Windows guys that there are already some pieces of Windows itself which use .NET, out of the box.

    25. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      Mono does support almost everything though, and the things it doesn't are either obscure or way too big (like WPF, but Linux people use GTK# anyway).

    26. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said "fast, memory efficient". Eclipse is neither.

    27. Re:Isn't it all about options? by systemeng · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of Docky or Gnome Do. Tomboy is alright. Banshee never works for me. Uninstalling Beagle is my first priority on a new machine as it sucks up enormous amounts of resources for marginal if any use. I've also never heard of Unity3D. I've been using linux since the mid 1990's. For me, these results speak for themselves in terms of the value of Mono.

    28. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... aren't all the versions of Visual Studio that came out after .Net came out written in C#?

      (If not, then why did they suddenly start running like ass?)

    29. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Kijori · · Score: 1

      If what you're worried about Microsoft going back on their word and suing you, you shouldn't have anything to worry about - if they have indeed promised not to sue then you're protected by the principle of equitable estoppel - i.e. that if you act on their promise they cannot simply change their minds if it would be to your detriment.

      Note - I am not your lawyer, don't rely on my advice! Plus, I'm assuming you're in America or the UK, where this principle exists.

    30. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Docky

      Never heard of it. Guess: An alternate (OSX like) panel?

      Gnome Do

      Never heard of it. Guess: Graphical sudo?

      Tomboy

      This is the note taking app that several projects are trying to replace.

      Banshee

      I've heard of it, no idea what it is... music app?

      Beagle

      Indexing app? I use mlocate myself but whatever...

      Unity3D Framework

      Never heard of it... I'd guess something like JOGL?

      Even the apps I have heard about, I'm having difficulty recalling what they do. If I'm hazy, it's because there's nothing very compelling there. Nothing that couldn't be rewritten in Vala.

      Shotwell I know only because I've poked around the yorba web-svn at their other apps. Of all their apps, it's probably the one with the most promise although I'd favor darktable.

    31. Re:Isn't it all about options? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Well, no, not really. Gtk#, for example, is available on Windows, but only as part of Mono.

      I don't know if you are aware, but something with a '#' after it being part of .NET/Mono is fairly obvious. In fact, I know you are aware of it but since you took away your little "I work for Microsoft" disclaimer on your profile other people may not know (that you know.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    32. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Unity is written in C++, not C#. It allows scripting in C# (as well as Javascript and Boo) but that's not the same thing.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    33. Re:Isn't it all about options? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      F-Spot was a pathetic attempt to justify the existence of Mono

      I thought that was Tomboy - or at least the /. story about it told how Mono was added to the default Ubuntu setup because Tomboy depended on it.

      Still, 2 mono apps that have significantly better native implementations. I'm sure there'll be more.

    34. Re:Isn't it all about options? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      NetBeans would be my counter. I find it much better(speed, etc.) than Eclipse recently.

      As far as cross platform client applications they also have:
      Limewire (even with it's legal proceedings...)
      Azureus
      Runescape

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    35. Re:Isn't it all about options? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I take issue with this last line. I LIKE c#/.net. If I get to use it in more places, this is a good thing.

      What about when only a photo app in a distribution uses C#/.NET and maintainers are forced to support the entire Mono runtime framework, QA, testing, security fixes etc. for the sake of that one app, bloating the installation footprint in the process. Not to mention the looming threat of litigation that always follows Mono.

    36. Re:Isn't it all about options? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Well, no, not really. Gtk#, for example, is available on Windows, but only as part of Mono.

      Nope - the usual way to use Gtk# on Windows is with Microsoft .Net and not Mono. In fact, not only do nearly all of the bits of the Mono project that aren't half-arsed reimplementation of Microsoft stuff work on Windows with Microsoft .Net, they generally work better that way than they do with Mono itself! There's a large C#-based piece of software you probably won't have heard of called OpenSim, and it has a lot of problems running on Mono because the libraries from the Mono project that it uses aren't compatible with newer versions and only have decent forwards- and backwards-compatibility if you use them under Windows with .Net.

    37. Re:Isn't it all about options? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Would this principle apply if they got someone else to sue you on their behalf, through a suitably deniable method? Because that's most likely. Also, Microsoft's actual promises in this area are carefully thought-out and quite narrow.

    38. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      There are a few developers who I feel indebted to. Icaza is one. I use Midnight Commander every day. I give these developers "the benefit of the doubt". Icaza is up there with Bram Moolenaar (VIM). VIM is more important, but MC also "gets it done". And has for almost 15 years.

      I liked Norton Commander. In fact I like it so much, I almost made a version for linux. Luckily I found MC so I didn't need to reinvent the wheel. I'm sure there are other out there too. If Icaza hadn't created MC, then someone else would have. That was how popular Norton Commander was back in the day.

      Has it only been 15 years? I swear it was longer...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    39. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      The question is whether people like having Mono installed on their system, and the answer is no.

      No it's not.

      Yeah, I think it is. And I don't think it's about free software activists. It's about whether or not Ubuntu needs to include the Mono framework on the install CD. just to run a couple of (admittedly perfectly fine, but also perfectly replaceable) applications like F-Spot and Tomboy. Replace them with Shotwell and Gnotes (or whatever that program's called) and maybe you've just saved enough space to put the GIMP back in. Would that be worth it? I think so.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    40. Re:Isn't it all about options? by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of Docky or Gnome Do.

      And now you have, much like most of us hear about things. And then we're curious enough to try them. If we like them enough, they stay on our system. If not, they're removed, no harm done.

      I use AWN instead of Docky and absolutely love Gnome-Do. Instead of just spouting "Bah. Never heard of them", I'm glad I tried them out. I have two productive tools at my disposal that I wouldn't have had, had I been such a curmudgeon.

    41. Re:Isn't it all about options? by lrm242 · · Score: 1

      Really? Isn't the Linux kernel largely volunteer-driven (at least in the same sense as Mono)? Does it also lag behind major commercial projects? Is that why my fucking wifi driver on my laptop doesn't worK? I get it now!

    42. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, apparently all of these apps are nothing:

      Docky,
      Gnome Do,
      Tomboy,
      Banshee,
      Beagle,
      Unity3D Framework

      Yeah, that sounds like nothing. I've never heard of that stuff. Sounds like leaving out a huge, bloated runtime that doesn't support anything I care about is fine, then!

      News flash: Not everyone uses the same weird obscure applications you do!

    43. Re:Isn't it all about options? by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu has always been about "linux for humans"

      mmz. wouldn't picasa be the most pleasant?

    44. Re:Isn't it all about options? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Really? Isn't the Linux kernel largely volunteer-driven (at least in the same sense as Mono)?

      No, the proportion of paid full-time developers for Linux kernel is much larger. But then most of them aren't paid to work on WiFi drivers...

    45. Re:Isn't it all about options? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Nope - the usual way to use Gtk# on Windows is with Microsoft .Net and not Mono.

      Gtk# is not a part of .NET. You can use it with that, of course - same as any other .NET library - but it is created as part of the Mono project, and by the same people.

    46. Re:Isn't it all about options? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you are aware, but something with a '#' after it being part of .NET/Mono is fairly obvious.

      It's not a part of .NET. It's only a part of Mono. I'm not sure what your issue is, anyway, since this was an example to show that Mono is not just "a half-arsed implementation of .NET". It has some stuff of its own.

      In fact, I know you are aware of it but since you took away your little "I work for Microsoft" disclaimer on your profile other people may not know (that you know.)

      I took it down for two reasons. First, no-one replying to my comments on /. actually read it (judging by replies). Instead, I've got a bunch of hate spam in my personal mail...

      If you care so much about who I am, googling my email address (which is public in my /. profile) will tell you everything you need to know.

    47. Re:Isn't it all about options? by snadrus · · Score: 1

      LLVM's cross-platform interpreter & compiler may overshadow GCC, CLR, coding software on video cards, and maybe Java.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    48. Re:Isn't it all about options? by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Banshee is essentially a slight variation on Rhythmbox. Music player. It's got a couple small GUI advantages and disadvantages. It also leaks memory (if you're like me and leave it on random/repeat for your entire 25GB music library, you'll have to restart it every couple days) and is generally rather slow. (Somewhat like F-Spot.)

      I wanted to like it, but I ended up going back to rhythmbox in the end, even though its gnome-do integration is broken. (Gnome-do is an application launcher.)

    49. Re:Isn't it all about options? by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      They replaced the GC about a year ago, I think. Now they have a generational, compacting collector. Should result in slower, more consistent running times and less memory usage.

    50. Re:Isn't it all about options? by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      I don't htink I've ever met a single person that uses mc, everyone either uses real GUIs, or real CLI tools...

      You're dancing at the edge of the flamebait precipice here, or maybe just showing your inexperience or limited world view. Orthodox file managers are as real as anything and they work quite well when one wants to, you know, manage files. Much better than the (to use your term) "real" variants that seem to make the managing of files an exercise in pain.

      Funny you mention that no one you know uses mc, because my experience has been that few use it, but anybody that sees me use it has the same reaction: "Damn, I should really learn how to use that. I can't believe how quickly you did that". mc is a real CLI tool, and a good one. And if you are inclined to use a GUI, there's always Krusader, Total Commander and many others depending on your OS or windowmanager of choice. Hell, there's even a variant for android, though not quite as useful because of the tiny screen. Might kick ass on an android tablet with a big enough screen, though.

    51. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Kijori · · Score: 1

      If I've understood you correctly, that shouldn't be a problem; a third party can't normally sue to enforce someone else's rights. You can't have it both ways; if you're sufficiently divorced from Microsoft to avoid the "estoppel shield" you would have no right of action.

      I don't know what Microsoft's promises were so I can't comment on that.

      Again I add the disclaimer that I'm not your lawyer and you shouldn't take legal advice from people on the internet!

    52. Re:Isn't it all about options? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      One could say the same thing about Java

      And in fact the grandparent DID say the same thing about Java, right in the second paragraph! Yay for reading comprehension!

    53. Re:Isn't it all about options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed!

    54. Re:Isn't it all about options? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Except that they wouldn't be enforcing someone else's rights. What Microsoft have been doing is selling patents to known patent trolling companies, marketing them with a list of open source software known to infringe, and hoping the inevitable will ensue.

    55. Re:Isn't it all about options? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      oh get over your self, its like saying you wont code for intel because its a giant corp.

      there are 100s of toolkits and libraries, many run by aholes who keep breaking compatibilities.

      and if mono can do all the widgets that gtk can , then it can just as easily make any app that a c/gtk app can.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  11. Picasa by gsmalleus · · Score: 1

    Is Google's Picasa for Linux stable yet? I would much rather see a piece of free software from a company that will continue to develop it over the years and that is cross-platform. Seriously, isn't this the second or third time it has changed. They should use either software that is developed and supported by a major company (like Google's Picasa), or they should assign some developers to the project they choose and not change it.

    1. Re:Picasa by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      You're just walked square into the middle of the "free software" vs "open source" debate. Now they've got you right where they want you, there is no escape!

      Picasa is free (and awesome) but not open source - so Ubuntu and Fedora will never ship it.

    2. Re:Picasa by isilrion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're just walked square into the middle of the "free software" vs "open source" debate. Now they've got you right where they want you, there is no escape!

      Picasa is free (and awesome) but not open source - so Ubuntu and Fedora will never ship it.

      I think you have it backwards. The "open source" crowd would happily use non-free software if they believe it is the best. The "free software" crowd would not touch Picasa. See this article for an example (jump to "bitkeeper issue").

      You may be confused because of the two meanings of the word "free". It is sad that in the English language, the word for a concept as great as "freedom" is the same as the word for the meager idea of "no cost".

      Of course, there are several shades of grey in between the two camps, but that is the main difference.

      (That said, neither Ubuntu nor Fedora are very strong supporters of "free software"... specially not Ubuntu. It wouldn't surprise me that one of them decided to include picasa)

    3. Re:Picasa by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      No. It's still wrapped in Wine, and it's still flaky.

    4. Re:Picasa by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Fedora's been doing a pretty decent job of stripping out all of the non-free software. Licenses are a constant issue, and the Fedora Project maintains a long list of licenses that they will and will not accept. There's also their list of forbidden items (not the same as the list of license conflicts), which includes proprietary binary drivers, Flash, Sun Java, Moonlight, and TrueCrypt. Those limitations are the main reason for the existence of RPMFusion (and Livna for libdvdcss).

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:Picasa by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I understand the differences between "open source" and "free software" just fine, thanks... I don't think anything I wrote was incorrect.

      I was (a bit too subtly, I think) pointing out that the poster was using "free" in the context of "available for no cost" (a perfectly good context for many computer users) while most Linux distributions are more concerned with "open source and unrestricted" (often requirements for official distribution).

      And joking that his confusion would undoubtedly bring out some "free software" corrections - as apparently it has, just not aimed in the right direction ;)
       

    6. Re:Picasa by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      "Picasa is free (and awesome) but not open source - so Ubuntu and Fedora will never ship it."

      I haven't looked at Picasa's license, but would Ubuntu/Fedora actually be _allowed_ to distribute it? I'm doubtful...
      On a side note, I think that Digikam craps all over Picasa...

    7. Re:Picasa by isilrion · · Score: 1

      Then, I stand corrected about Fedora. Thank you!

    8. Re:Picasa by hotrodent · · Score: 1

      After struggling with F-Spot, I got fed up and switched to Picasa - never looked back. Yes it's using WINE, it's not open source, and it probably reports stats back to Google, but its so fraking fast compared to anything native to Linux, it leaves them for dust! This new Shotwell? Well, I'll give it a shot.

  12. Curing Mono by Improv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm always glad to hear about mono being used less on Linux.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    1. Re:Curing Mono by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a cream that can help.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    2. Re:Curing Mono by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm always glad to hear about mono being used less on Linux.

      Yup. I've got nothing against people using it, but I completely agree with the FSF and would never use or install Mono myself.

      We've still got people like Horacio Gutierrez (Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel) making statements like this:

      ...smartphones are a product of the ‘open innovation’ paradigm – device manufacturers do not do all of their development in-house, but add their own innovations to those of others to create a product that users want. Open innovation is only possible through the licensing of third party IP rights, which ensures that those who develop the building blocks that make a new technology possible are properly compensated for their investments in research and development. After all, technology just doesn’t appear, fully-developed, from Zeus’s head. It requires lots of hard work and resources to create.
      ...now the industry is in the process of sorting out what royalties will be for the software stack, which now represents the principal value proposition for smartphones. In the next few years, as the IP situation settles in this space and licensing takes off, we will see the patent royalties applicable to the smartphone software stack settle at a level that reflects the increasing importance software has as a portion of the overall value of the device.
      (16 March 2010)

      Do you still think Microsoft will allow competitors like Google (Android) and Nokia/Intel (MeeGo) to use Mono's .NET implementations for free?

    3. Re:Curing Mono by PixelSlut · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, I do.

      Microsoft has a lot invested in a lot of things other than .NET, so I think you're making a really large leap here to assume that they're talking about .NET here. Every major software company out there has invested into different things, and they'll protect their IP up to the point where it no longer benefits them to restrict it.

      It's in Microsoft's best interests to allow people to use .NET and C# everywhere, period. They've already stated that they're applying the Community Promise to their patents so that they won't sue people over them.

      Mono, the framework, is fantastic and it's really sad that RMS and the BoycottNovell tards are spreading so much FUD over it. And that some of you here on Slashdot are perpetuating that.

      Last year at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, Cody Russell asked Richard Stallman if there was anything that Microsoft could do to ease his fears of patent threats, and he said that there was. Microsoft could come out and publicly state that .NET was open to use and promise not to sue people over it. Days later they did exactly that and Richard did not change his opinion.

    4. Re:Curing Mono by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. The first thing I usually do when installing Ubuntu now a days is:

      sudo aptitude purge mono-gac libmono2.0-cil -y

      This also removes F-Spot, Tomboy and Gbrainy, none of which I particularly miss.

    5. Re:Curing Mono by grcumb · · Score: 1

      We've still got people like Horacio Gutierrez (Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel) making statements like this:

      ...Open innovation is only possible through the licensing of third party IP rights, which ensures that those who develop the building blocks that make a new technology possible are properly compensated for their investments in research and development. After all, technology just doesn’t appear, fully-developed, from Zeus’s head. It requires lots of hard work and resources to create....

      Mr. Gutierrez would do well to choose better classical allusions. He refers to the birth myth of Athena, who sprung fully formed from Zeus' head, and uses it to explain how such a process could never happen with so-called Intellectual Property.

      Athena was the goddess of knowledge and learning, and her appearance, fully formed, from the mind of Zeus was a deliberate reference to the nature of wisdom. So, in effect, Gutierrez has said, "Great ideas don't just spring fully formed from the collective mind, as described in this story about ideas springing fully formed from the collective mind."

      Hate to tell you, Mr. Gutierrez, but apparently they do. And have done throughout recorded human history.

      (Yes, I know: his real point was that technology costs money. But that's what hardware sales and services are for.)

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    6. Re:Curing Mono by Osty · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Last year at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, Cody Russell asked Richard Stallman if there was anything that Microsoft could do to ease his fears of patent threats, and he said that there was. Microsoft could come out and publicly state that .NET was open to use and promise not to sue people over it. Days later they did exactly that and Richard did not change his opinion.

      Your mistake was assuming that RMS will ever change any of his views regardless of facts. The man is a relic and should be treated like one -- ignored.

    7. Re:Curing Mono by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well I hope you don't mind when people ignore you when you get older just because you're also considered a "relic". Oh wait, what have you ever done that even comes close to Stallman's contributions to society. No one will even notice you.

    8. Re:Curing Mono by Improv · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's still a poisoned platform. You might have the language, but not all of the frameworks are covered under that patent promise (or so I understand).

      Use Java if you want a language like that. C#/Mono is a dangerous knock-off, its frameworks offer little that Java doesn't, and all it really has behind it that Java lacks is a large company that's hostile to software freedom. Let it die, and let Miguel find some other hobby.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    9. Re:Curing Mono by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Some people also have morals, and won't support Linux-molesting, attacking, suing corporatards (to use your terminology) like Novell and Microsoft, and thus reject the applications they try to push onto Linux no matter how good they are.

      So, deal. At least everyone has the freedom to choose, something that will never completely vanish, but that is not to say that the decisions major distros make aren't at all important because they do effect the Linux ecosystem whether anyone likes it or not.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    10. Re:Curing Mono by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I respect Stallman's contributions and the fact that he is one of the extreme ends of the fight over free vs. non-free, and I recognize the extremists as often necessary in preventing the status quo from moving too far too quickly. The man is still a loon, though. The rarity with which he accepts others' differing points of view is fairly significant, and he can be very abrasive in trying to get his point across -- not the way to win converts. Every so often, one of the few people I've helped at least try Linux asks me who he is, and I'm usually embarrassed to explain him because they inevitably come across some rant of his. I end up telling them that he's like the old copies of Red Hat Linux we keep around -- occasionally useful, but not well-maintained and with questionable stability in the modern environment.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:Curing Mono by devent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ECMA 334 and CLI is a small subset of what you call C# and what Mono is implementing. What about .NET, Asp.net, Windows Forms, which make C# any useful in the first place?

      If you want a managed and widely available language and framework, why you don't just use Java, Python, Php, Perl, Ruby and so on, which are completely free, which out any patents and are community controlled? There are available today, well tested, have a lot more tools and libraries as C#/Mono. In addition, you are not using a tool that is constantly behind the one company that is controlling all aspects of C# and .NET.

      The other question is, why anyone should even use Mono in the first place? The only reason for what Mono is good, is a replacement for .NET. But that's not going to happen, because MS have no interest in making C#/.NET available to other platforms than Windows.

      You are right, MS is interested that anyone using C#/.NET everywhere; but only if they are using it on Windows.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    12. Re:Curing Mono by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The promises are largely meaningless and empty.

      http://www.osnews.com/story/21858/FSF_Microsoft_s_Community_Promise_Empty_

      the mono framework is inferior crap, F-Spot regularly crashes and often brings down x display manager with it.

      you MS shill boys are amusing. Microsoft has done so much evil over the last 20 years, stifling innovation and competition, and you want to pretend it's professional and balanced to treat them as a normal company.

    13. Re:Curing Mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen. This is just dumb for a number of reasons. Microsoft is obligated to do everything it can to fight free software. It has shareholders and a business model that makes it obligated to do so. The founder and company have been against free software since the "beginning". No matter what Microsoft says now or in the future unless something radical happens and the business changes where they no longer rely on proprietary software to profit Microsoft has an obligation to its shareholders to fight free software. Even then there is going to be bitterness between the two fractions. Stallman is right no matter what was or wasn't said here. Even if he had said this you have construed it in some way or taken it out of context. We can't trust Microsoft so anybody who had heard him say this could easily follow that Microsoft wouldn't later claim it or would be lying. Maybe it wasn't at a convenient time or thought out when/if he made this statement. I have my doubts he'd of made it myself. None-the-less. He's right in denying Microsoft entrance into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. Microsoft has stuck its head into matters it shouldn't be sticking its ugly head into. The company is a monopoly that has made every effort to screw interoperability up and should be both required to follow and barred from setting standards on all interoperability matters.

    14. Re:Curing Mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what Cody and RMS said exactly, but your explanation makes RMS sound very consistent: Microsoft expanded the Community Promise to cover C# and CLI -- note how this does not include implementations of the base class libraries. In other words, .Net implementations are still open to Microsoft patent shenanigans.

      I don't think the threat I mentioned is particularly large but I thought this was an important nuance that you seemed to overlook, either on purpose or by accident.

    15. Re:Curing Mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. The first thing I usually do when installing Ubuntu now a days is:

      sudo aptitude purge mono-gac libmono2.0-cil -y

      This also removes F-Spot, Tomboy and Gbrainy, none of which I particularly miss.

      I do the same thing, but I miss Gbrainy. The other two apps are really horrible and has a lot of good substitutes. Gbrainy is not enough reason to keep Mono though, even without any Mono-apps running, the system seems slower and buggier with it installed (guessing deamons and stuff like that, but I'm to lazy to care).

    16. Re:Curing Mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you MS shill boys are amusing.

      Not as amusing as you linux shill boys, trying to convince everyone it's a superior product to commercial offerings when your photo editor can't zoom (!!!) or even open one of the commonest picture file formats (!!!!). I mean, seriously, that's some next level backwardness. I was confidently zooming into mad photos like a seasoned zooming pro with a master's degree in advanced image zooming skills, way back in Win 3.11. Nearly 20 years later and you beardy guys still haven't figured that feature out yet. ROFL.

    17. Re:Curing Mono by PixelSlut · · Score: 1

      That's like saying that C++ is a poisoned platform because not all the libraries written in C++ are fully open.

      So Microsoft has created this fantastic platform, and they've opened up .NET and C# so it can be used this way. That doesn't mean they have to open up every single library they create. There is a difference between the language/runtime and a single library. I feel like you anti-Mono people are just searching for any reason you can to hate on Mono, and it makes no sense.

    18. Re:Curing Mono by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      If after all these years you believe in something called the "Microsoft Community Promise," you are a sucker.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    19. Re:Curing Mono by Improv · · Score: 1

      It's not a fantastic platform. It's a knock-off of an open platform. There's no reason to use Mono unless you're already vested in Microsoft. C# as a language is not innovative and not particularly interesting, the frameworks are not that interesting either. The VM actually *is* interesting, but that's the only thing and it's not worth wading into the Microsoft mess to deal with.

      Sure, there's a difference between the runtime as a whole and single libraries, but languages have cultures and so far, in other languages the majority of libraries you're likely to use are not going to be encumbered and the company driving the language isn't putting a lot of effort into closed ones. Not the case with Microsoft - people who care about open library use have to examine every library's license carefully and they know that a lot of developers won't. Dependency on closed libraries is not a pretty thing.

      Mono isn't fantastic. It doesn't offer much new. It's developed by a company that'd be delighted to have open source go away. Its patent promise is limited, goes against its company culture, and does not extend to everything people likely would use.

      Our community is best off tearing it back out of our platforms and walking away from it. Alternatively, I hope that we have another Bitkeeper moment to provide an example of the limits of this patent promise and dangers of following Miguel on this matter.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    20. Re:Curing Mono by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      What about .NET, Asp.net, Windows Forms, which make C# any useful in the first place?

      Well, ignoring the fact that ".NET" isn't actually anything specifically...

      None of those things "make C# ... useful in the first place". The language, by itself, is very nice. What makes it useful is whatever APIs and dev environment are available on top of it. And guess what? Mono provides a full OSS application stack that's *very* good, in addition to a solid IDE that's getting better and better.

      If you want a managed and widely available language and framework, why you don't just use Java, Python, Php, Perl, Ruby and so on

      Well, gee, why use Java, Python, Php, Perl, or Ruby when there's good ol' C?

      Oh yeah... because choice is good, and different languages have different strengths. For example, Java has truly shit-tacular native GUI support, making it terrible for desktop application development. Meanwhile, the IDEs for those scripting languages you list pale in comparison to those available for statically typed languages (their dynamic nature makes static code analysis a lot more difficult, and so things like code completion are a lot tougher).

      The other question is, why anyone should even use Mono in the first place?

      Because it combines a very very good language with a strong IDE and an excellent set of bindings to OSS libraries.

      Let me guess, you've never used it, have you?

    21. Re:Curing Mono by Improv · · Score: 1

      Most of us use GIMP, probably. Picking some particular app and complaining that it doesn't have a lot of features is like complaining that calc.exe is missing some nice maths features. GIMP is free - anyone who wants more power than whatever little app their distro provides can install and run it, no charge.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    22. Re:Curing Mono by Improv · · Score: 1

      I am grateful that Miguel wrote Gnumeric before he started on all this mono stuff - I rather like it.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    23. Re:Curing Mono by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, he fairly recently changed his views on java and things that use it such as openoffice.org...

      MS have demonstrated time and again they have no qualms about screwing partners, customers and competitors alike to further their own goals of domination and further profits... Is it any wonder that people treat them with extreme caution?

      Also, the the "promise not to sue" only covers some core parts of the spec, there are still plenty of encumbered parts and MS actively encourages developers to use these parts... It's effectively a trojan horse, fool people with the the promise not to sue and get them hooked on the proprietary parts which aren't covered by it... Even if you or I avoid the encumbered parts, there are plenty of people out there who either don't know about the encumbrances or couldn't care less and will pump out all kinds of code that locks out non windows users.

      With java to a great extent many applications are cross platform wether the original developer made any effort to be cross platform or not, and this is something MS really don't want.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    24. Re:Curing Mono by devent · · Score: 1

      Why should I leverage C#/Mono for which the company behind it have no intention to make C#/.NET really open source with an open community and the only security I would have is some kind of "promise" from a market dominating company which have a history of being anti-competitive which whatever means possible?

      I'm using C#/.NET right now for a project written in ASP.NET. We could talk about the "strong" IDE if either Microsoft or Mono provide one that can catch up with Eclipse or NetBeans. The language is a matter of taste, but if you don't like Java than you can always use other languages (for example, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, Scala, Groovy, and so on) and have the whole JDK and the java tools (like ant and maven) for you.

      Interesting to note that C#3.0, C#4.0 and LINQ are not ECMA standards yet. What is the road plan from Microsoft to standardize those?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    25. Re:Curing Mono by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      the only security I would have is some kind of "promise"

      It's a legally binding statement. If that isn't enough for you, nothing will be. But I suspect that's already a given, so there's no sense in trying to convince you.

      But it doesn't matter, because this is a complete aside. Your claim was that the only thing that makes useful is all the non-CP-covered APIs. I pointed out that, no, Mono is interesting simply as a Linux development platform. So you decided to change the subject. But that doesn't change the fact that Mono provides an interesting development platform, whether or not *you* find it personally distasteful because of its connection to Microsoft.

      We could talk about the "strong" IDE if either Microsoft or Mono provide one that can catch up with Eclipse or NetBeans.

      LOLFR! Wow, that's... interesting. Like it or not, Microsoft has been the market leader in IDEs for, well... ever. Both Eclipse and NetBeans exist to try and duplicate functionality Microsoft pioneered.

      Seriously, I get the anti-Microsoft sentiment, but wow, revisionist history much?

      The language is a matter of taste, but if you don't like Java than you can always use other languages (for example, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, Scala, Groovy, and so on) and have the whole JDK and the java tools (like ant and maven) for you.

      What part of "Java doesn't make for good desktop applications" don't you understand? Did you choose to ignore that fact because it's inconvenient, or did you not actually read my post?

    26. Re:Curing Mono by devent · · Score: 1

      LOLFR! Wow, that's... interesting. Like it or not, Microsoft has been the market leader in IDEs for, well... ever. Both Eclipse and NetBeans exist to try and duplicate functionality Microsoft pioneered.

      I'm used Visual Studio 2003 and now I'm using Visual Studio 2008. I'm missing really very useful tools that I knew for years in Eclipse. Refactoring comes in mind, navigation in the code, source code formatting and automatic generation of code. Incremental compiler; I can run code that have compiler errors in it. Visual Studio 2003 doesn't had any unit test integration at all, as far as I can remember. Code completion, don't get me started on that crap that is called IntelliJ.

      As far as I have observed, the only advantage for Visual Studio is the tightly integration which the rest of the Microsoft products, like Office, SQLServer, IIS, ASP.NET. But I couldn't find anything that I can't get from Java, which works on every platform and it's free.

      What part of "Java doesn't make for good desktop applications" don't you understand? Did you choose to ignore that fact because it's inconvenient, or did you not actually read my post?

      I think I don't understand every part of that sentence. I'm using Java applications every day, some are SWT based, some are Swing based. There are not worse or slower then, for example, Firefox or Openoffice.org. It's true that Swing don't look so good and I hope that Sun/Oracle will do something about it, but either you use a different Look&Feel or you use SWT which will use the native look just like Mono/GTK#.

      Furthermore, because of the maturity of Java it offers way more tools for the developers, both in terms of available frameworks and the tools (like ant, maven, Eclipse RCP).

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    27. Re:Curing Mono by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Refactoring comes in mind

      I'll give you that... though, TBH, I don't find I need refactoring tools all that often. I'm not sure if that's just because I haven't found the value in them yet, or because I'm just spectacular at designing software. :)

      navigation in the code

      I don't understand this... VS provides an outliner, jump-to-declaration and similar features... what are you missing, exactly?

      source code formatting

      I *really* don't get this. If there's one thing VS does exceedingly well, it's format code.

      automatic generation of code.

      Should never be required in the first place. If you're autogen'ing actual code (as opposed to, say, XML definitions for forms, etc), IMHO, the framework is doing something wrong.

      Incremental compiler; I can run code that have compiler errors in it.

      I also don't understand this at all. Your code didn't compile. Why the hell would you want to run it?

      Visual Studio 2003 doesn't had any unit test integration at all

      2k5 and on can integrate nicely with nunit.

      Code completion, don't get me started on that crap that is called IntelliJ.

      And I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your sentence suggests that IntelliJ sucks... but being a Java fanboi, that seems oddly evenhanded. ;)

      I can say I've been incredibly impressed with IntelliSense... it's the one thing I thing VS does better than anything else I've seen, though to be fair, I haven't worked in a lot of other IDEs in the last little while, so it's possible they've caught up or exceeded the intelligence in VS.

      It's true that Swing don't look so good and I hope that Sun/Oracle will do something about it

      That's really my entire point. Swing has improved in recent years, but it still sucks balls. And don't get me started on the horror of SWT (the last I used it, it was *terrible*, and I have no reason to believe it's improved greatly).

      Additionally, at least in the past, integrating with platform installation systems has never worked well with Java (eg, creating a deb or RPM that could be simply installed)... maybe that's changed recently, I don't know. Maybe it's something I should re-examine.

      Incidentally, the other thing Mono does *very* well is integrate with existing platform libraries. I *like* the fact that I can build against well-known, well-documented GTK and Gnome APIs, both for the GUI and the backend (eg, gstreamer, sqlite and mysql, etc). Hell, I would argue that Mono's ecosystem is actually far more OSS-friendly than Java, as their entire approach is to expose well-known OSS projects to the Mono/C#/.NET world so they can be leveraged, rather than building an entire new ecosystem.

    28. Re:Curing Mono by devent · · Score: 1

      I also don't understand this at all. Your code didn't compile. Why the hell would you want to run it?

      Maybe I changed something which breaks something else, but I don't care about this something, because I'm working on a whole different module? For some reason, I can't even run a project which no compiler errors, if a different project in the same solution which uses this project breaks. For example, I have my real project and a test project in the same solution. Now I change my real project, my test project breaks. I can't run my real project.

      In Eclipse I can change something, run it, see if it's that what I wanted and be bothered with the rest of the project later. Thanks to an incremental compiler and because the compiler time errors are converted to exceptions, my change-compile-test cycle is very very short.

      Btw, where is the incremental compiler in C#? An incremental compiler will only compile the changes I made, not the whole project. Why do I need to compile C# still like it is C or C++?

      I don't understand this... VS provides an outliner, jump-to-declaration and similar features... what are you missing, exactly?

      Most of all I'm missing the Outline-frame from Eclipse. I want to see all members of the current class at one time. This ComboBox at the top in VS is just a bad joke
      If I want to see the hierarchy I just press F4 and get the Hierarchy-frame. With the super- and sub-type hierarchy.
      The Call-Hierarchy-frame. In VS it's just a simple Search of the reference. In Eclipse I get a whole hierarchy where the method is called.

      And I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your sentence suggests that IntelliJ sucks... but being a Java fanboi, that seems oddly evenhanded. ;)

      IntelliJ isn't intelligent at all. It always gets me the whole bunch of options, which in the given context don't make any sense. Maybe you need to configure it somehow, I don't know. In Eclipse the completion is context sensitive, meaning that if I'm in a method it will give me options that makes sense. Or if I'm typing fooObject. it will only give me the members. IntelliJ gives me always all things, like keywords, namespaces, other classes and so on.

      Should never be required in the first place. If you're autogen'ing actual code (as opposed to, say, XML definitions for forms, etc), IMHO, the framework is doing something wrong.

      Eclipse will generate me the Ctors for the fields of the class; it will generate the Ctors based on the parent class; It will generate Getter and Setter; It will generate delegates methods; equals and hashCode methods;

      rather than building an entire new ecosystem.

      The Java ecosystem is already in place. Which lots and lots of free and open source libraries. And actually, I rather work with Jar files then with the C or C++ libraries. I think the reason because there are not many DEP or RPM packages to just simple be installed, is that a Java applications don't need to be installed. You just download a simple jar file and you can run the application. A simple jar file can contain all dependencies and all (default) configuration.

      With maven you have a package manager for the Jar libraries. You just specify with library you need and maven will download it for you, put it in the classpath and you can use it. Just go to http://mvnrepository.com/ . Maven will test and deploy your application, too.

      Why have Perl a CPAN for the Perl libraries and software? Why is Perl creating a whole new ecosystem if there is already DEP and RPMs? It's the same reason why Java have it's own ecosystem. As well as Ruby with RAA and RubyGems.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    29. Re:Curing Mono by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I changed something which breaks something else, but I don't care about this something, because I'm working on a whole different module?

      What you want are multiple projects hosted in the same solution. In that case, you can build and run just a single project within the overall solution, and VS won't require that the rest of the solution build.

      Btw, where is the incremental compiler in C#?

      Alas, it does not exist... while VS does a good job catching coding errors at edit time, it isn't until you complete a compile cycle on at least the current project that the source is actually built out.

      'course, in truth, Java is the weird outlier here. But I'll freely admit it's an interesting feature.

      Most of all I'm missing the Outline-frame from Eclipse. I want to see all members of the current class at one time.

      You mean like the VS class view?

      Eclipse will generate me the Ctors for the fields of the class; it will generate the Ctors based on the parent class; It will generate Getter and Setter; It will generate delegates methods; equals and hashCode methods;

      VS will do all of that. Seriously, how hard did you look? :) For example, if you indicate that a class subclasses another, or implements an interface, VS pops up a little indicator that lets you choose to stub out a constructor, virtual methods, interface methods, etc. If you want a getter or setter, just right-click on the member, select Refactor, and tell it you want a getter/setter.

      And actually, I rather work with Jar files then with the C or C++ libraries.

      But that's the whole point: working with a higher level language that binds against those libraries means you don't have to work directly against a C or C++ library. You just work with clean bindings that allow you to leverage the power of existing OSS software. So, for example, I could write a multimedia app using gstreamer and all the power it affords. That's an incredible good thing, as you're fully integrating with the underlying platform, as opposed to living in a fenced off little world of your own.

      A simple jar file can contain all dependencies and all (default) configuration.

      Sure, a simple jar. But no real application is simple. Worse, do you really want a bunch of applications each shipping with it's own copy of common libraries? That's insane, IMHO. Meanwhile, the whole purpose of platform package management is to centralize the process of installing software. Anything which chooses to step outside that paradigm is a royal pain in the ass.

      Why have Perl a CPAN for the Perl libraries and software? Why is Perl creating a whole new ecosystem if there is already DEP and RPMs?

      Actually, funny you should mention that. Perl, Python, Ruby, and most other scripting languages in the Unix world bind against existing platform libraries. For example, the most common XML parser used in Perl isn't one written in Perl. It's a binding to expat. Similarly, you can find bindings against the Gtk and Gnome APIs, and god knows what else. Those languages actively work to leverage existing OSS software if it makes sense. Kinda like Mono. Java is, once again, the outlier, here.

      Additionally, Ubuntu and others include Perl, Python, Ruby, et, packages in their packaging ecosystem. So while I certainly *can* use CPAN, most of the time I don't, as I *want* to use apt if at all possible (not the least of which because it makes package removal easier).

    30. Re:Curing Mono by devent · · Score: 1

      What you want are multiple projects hosted in the same solution. In that case, you can build and run just a single project within the overall solution, and VS won't require that the rest of the solution build.

      No, don't work. I need to fix every compiler error in every project in the solution to run one project. Even if the projects are not related to each other what-so-ever.

      Alas, it does not exist... while VS does a good job catching coding errors at edit time, it isn't until you complete a compile cycle on at least the current project that the source is actually built out. 'course, in truth, Java is the weird outlier here. But I'll freely admit it's an interesting feature.

      Why is it weird? It's my most favorite feature and every time I'm using something else, it's like I'm back with C/C++ nightmare again.

      The class view is a bad joke again. Instead to show me the members of the class, I need to click through the tree to find my class. Also, I'm pretty sure that both the code generation tools and the refactoring tools in Eclipse are more powerful and more easy accessible than the one's in VS. VS is in no way the leading software in IDEs. If you take into account that you even have to pay for it, it makes it just ridicules.

      But that's the whole point: working with a higher level language that binds against those libraries means you don't have to work directly against a C or C++ library. You just work with clean bindings that allow you to leverage the power of existing OSS software. So, for example, I could write a multimedia app using gstreamer and all the power it affords. That's an incredible good thing, as you're fully integrating with the underlying platform, as opposed to living in a fenced off little world of your own.

      It's the same with Java. You can write an API that uses a native library in Java. That's how OpenGL in Java is working, that's why there is QTJambi. But I argue that for the most (at least 99%) the Java implementation is sufficient. And you have the advantage of the JRE/JDK that it's behave on every platform well defined. That's why I can take a single Jar file, package everything inside and run it on different platforms.

      Further, yes you can package every application, simple or complex, in a single Jar file. I don't know why people don't do it. You can package native libraries, images and configuration in the Jar file.

      I think the success of Java speaks for it self. The success, the multitude of open source libraries, tools and applications; the penetration in servers and client applications. This success needs Mono first gain but I don't see any feature of C#/Mono that have any advantage what so ever over Java.

      Additionally, Ubuntu and others include Perl, Python, Ruby, et, packages in their packaging ecosystem. So while I certainly *can* use CPAN, most of the time I don't, as I *want* to use apt if at all possible (not the least of which because it makes package removal easier).

      Java, Eclipse, Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Netbeans, Jakarta, and so on, are all included in the repositories. In fact a yum search java|wc -l gives me 931 lines. Same with Mono gives me only 228 lines. (Perl is 2242 lines; Ruby is 427.)

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    31. Re:Curing Mono by nymusicman · · Score: 1

      There is only one reason I would use Mono for linux. NETFLIX. Only problem is Novell did all this work developing Mono, Moonlight, and THERE IS STILL NO NETFLIX SUPPORT. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! That is the only reason I would use Mono, otherwise for linux, it is a slow and bloated WASTE!

    32. Re:Curing Mono by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      GNU / Linux isn't my favorite OS, something else is.

      GIMP (also not my favorite photo editor) has zoom, funny you ape some other person's comment out of ignorance.

      as for PNG, my digital cameras do several formats, all handled by GIMP. but I've never seen a camera that does PNG. Can convert a PNG on import to something more useful should the need arise.

  13. Gqview by phrostie · · Score: 2, Informative

    or what ever they call it now

    1. Re:Gqview by commrade · · Score: 4, Informative

      geeqie is what it's called under the new Author. Crappy name but it really is the best gtk image viewer.

    2. Re:Gqview by Lord+Juan · · Score: 1

      It's one of the few image viewers in linux I enjoy using, it's fast and does what is supposed to well, tho I am trying to get, accustomed, to gwenview, as geeqie can't do everything that I want, still, it is a good program to see pictures.

    3. Re:Gqview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree. Here are the links for the lazy:

      http://gqview.sourceforge.net/
      http://geeqie.sourceforge.net/

    4. Re:Gqview by suso · · Score: 1

      The new version has some strange behavior though. I was trying to open gqview on a remote folder (through sshfs) and found that it took forever to start up. When I did an strace of it, I found that when it starts, it does a stat on the image files with every possible image filename extension combination, which takes a lot longer over a remote link. Apparently it gathers information for the sidecar. Hopefully they will make that an optional thing.

  14. Shotwell is beta by EEPROMS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As much as I like having one less set of libs to install I have to say shotwell is way behind F-Spot on the usability front. I would say Shotwell needs another year to mature before it gets even near what F-spot is "now". Ubuntu is a key representation of Linux on the desktop and if users have to deal with a very beta experience of shotwell I dare say it wont reflect positively on Linux as a whole (I personally prefer Digikam over F-Spot).

    1. Re:Shotwell is beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, the change is happening in the version of Ubuntu to be released in October.

    2. Re:Shotwell is beta by datakid23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +1 for digiKam over either F-spot or Shotwell - one of the first things I do on a new machine for the relatives is to install digikam.

    3. Re:Shotwell is beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily it's just a "sudo apt-get install f-spot" away to put back on if you want it.

    4. Re:Shotwell is beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And in that vein, why doesn't Ubuntu go back to gThumb? That was the default camera app till 8.04 Hardy. F-Spot as introduced was comparatively bloated, crash-happy, and didn't respect the directory structure so many of us already had our pictures in. The switch to F-Spot didn't make sense then, and I'm not surprised it's being dropped now, but why Shotwell-beta over going back to gThumb?

      Like, is it personal? Or are there actual feature reasons for avoiding gThumb that I've managed to miss?

    5. Re:Shotwell is beta by timbo234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why try to re-invent the wheel at all with Shotwell, what's wrong with digikam? The disk space required for KDE libs is insignificant on modern computers (especially compared to the size of the average person's photo collection).

      Is it the irrational fear that non-technical people will be confused by a GUI interface that looks slightly different? Because that's what they get in Windows all the time and they seem to cope.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    6. Re:Shotwell is beta by ntipouan · · Score: 1

      Who cares if -indeed- Shotwell hasn't reached a mature point to make it public into the common Ubuntu user?

      Make it quick, tempus fugit, don't test it thoroughly and then when Shotwell exhibits strange
      behavior with the current loose-all-around patched-up Ubuntu-edition, find some other program to do the job.

      And the story goes on.

      I might be harsh and wrong by saying all the above.
      But that's how I imagine things go with Ubuntu development administration.

      Anyway, I'm just a common user. What would I know ?

      --
      deltaS>=0 (c.s.)
    7. Re:Shotwell is beta by pizzach · · Score: 1

      It had to do with CD roms being 700MB, the disk image being already mostly full, and Eye of Gnome/F-Spot already duplicating most important functionality of gThumb/Gimp for typical users.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    8. Re:Shotwell is beta by Threni · · Score: 1

      It's taken this long for people to realise that Gimp is just an absurd, confusing mess for most users and dump that - don't rush them!

    9. Re:Shotwell is beta by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's time to make the default install disc a DVD. I know that there are still older machines without DVD drives, but it's time for the LiveCD to become a LiveDVD.

    10. Re:Shotwell is beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it the irrational fear that non-technical people will be confused by a GUI interface that looks slightly different? Because that's what they get in Windows all the time and they seem to cope.

      Non-technical people probably won't notice, but as a technical person, I am actually rather annoyed when GUIs don't match.

    11. Re:Shotwell is beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ditto for digikam. Swapping out f-spot for digikam is one of the first things I do on a new Ubuntu install.

      As a rule, I don't use any media manager that "imports" my media into its own database or filesystem structure (I'm looking at you, iTunes, f-spot, and rhythmbox). Digikam respects my directory structure. It does basic editing, tagging, organization, and easily exports to external editors. It's fast, it's clean, and it's mostly stable. If it dies, it doesn't take my photos with it. It sounds like Shotwell is just more of the same.

    12. Re:Shotwell is beta by drx · · Score: 1

      digiKam has a terrible, clumsy interface. When it comes to tagging it is probably the only software that got this concept more wrong than F-Spot.

      Also, the interface is not "slightly different looking", it is designed with quite a different concept. Just look for example at the amount of menu options and their ordering.

      (Disclaimer: I have been using digiKam for quite some time. After being annoyed by it to the core for years and some trying i went back to storing images in folders and browsing them in thumbnail view :))

    13. Re:Shotwell is beta by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      No, I was referring to the Ubuntu practice of ignoring perfectly good applications because they happen to use QT or some other toolkit. GTK and QT windows and widgets are only slightly different looking these days (with good theme settings), not any different looking than the various toolkits used on common Windows apps anyway.

      As for digikam, I'm sure it could be improved but it's a working, pretty fully featured app and Shotwell is half-baked - Ubuntu is just re-inventing the wheel instead of encouraging development to improve existing apps like digikam.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
  15. Features by lahvak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have never heard about shotwell, so I went to its website (it would be nice if the article actually included a link to that). As far as I can tell, there are some important features missing from shotwell. Namely, there is no information about raw, integration with ufraw or another raw developing software, editing photos in external editors (GIMP), or running external filters on photos.

    Also, it does not seem to have as many export options as f-spot.

    I am definitely not happy with f-spot, and always keep looking for a replacement, but so far I was unable to find one, and, as far as I can tell, shotwell with its current set of features is not going work for me.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Features by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      I too am unhappy with F-Spot. It seems to always be the most awkward place in my workflows, no matter what I am doing with the images.

      But it sounds like shotwell would be moving in the wrong direction.

      Anyone here familiar with F-Spot's performance wrt upgrades? Can we expect improvements in F-Spot at a steady pace, or is it a moribund project? I'm thinking that the next version of F-Spot might be closer to what would make me happy (Could we get a Linux version of IrfanView? I don't suppose IrfanView would run under wine in a way that would play well with GIMP, Inkscape, and Blender... but has anyone tried this?)

      --
      Will
    2. Re:Features by JanneM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There also seems to be no support for hierarchical tags or for having many tags in general, just a linear dump of all tags you've got. Not so much fun when you have tags in the many hundreds, and when you want one tag to actually generate two or more tags in the final taglist.

      And little to no support for having multiple versions of an image; the only thing seems to be this: "Shotwell stores your edits in a database and applies them on the fly as necessary.". Which is great fun, I guess, if your original image is a 300Mb MF film-scan and you have to wait for 30 seconds while edits are applied whenever you want to see another of your versions. In fact, doesn't this feature pretty much preclude using external tools altogether?

      F-spot is pretty stable for me by now, and it can cope with the amount of images I have in a way that no other organizer tool I've tried on linux can. There's a few missing features still - a "light table" mode, where you can collect and compare a set of images directly would be great - but it works fairly well if you have to keep track of a largish number of images from very different sources.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Features by vjoel · · Score: 1

      (Could we get a Linux version of IrfanView? I don't suppose IrfanView would run under wine in a way that would play well with GIMP, Inkscape, and Blender... but has anyone tried this?)

      IrfanView does run well under wine. In fact, it's one of the few useful windows programs that does, in my experience.

      But I can't speak to how well it plays with others.

      --
      What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
    4. Re:Features by lahvak · · Score: 1

      That's true, F-spot (or mono) has been much more stable lately, I still have an occasional crash every once a while, but I didn't have one in which I would loose any work or data in at least a year. A light table mode would be great, one where you can see several versions of a photo, zoom and pan them simultaneously, etc.

      The feature I would most welcome a possibility to filter a photo through an external command, and read the result in as a new version. I often find myself exporting photo to a folder, opening a terminal, running a command on the photo, then opening the result in GIMP. The going back to f-spot, opening the photo in GIMP with new version created, switching to GIMP, dragging the background layer from the modified photo to the new version of photo opened from f-spot, deleting the original background layer in the new version of the photo and adjusting the size of the image if necessary, and saving thus overwritten new version to f-spot. This is a lot of work in order to do something that could be so easy. It should be possible to implement this as a plugin, but I just cannot figure out how to even start writing plugins for f-spot. I found some documentation on the web, but it only confused the hell out of me. I have written number of scripts in order to extend functionality of programs I use, such as emacs, jed, slrn, vim, ipe, and number of others, I don't mind having to edit configuration files to get a functionality I need, but this one simply did not make any sense to me.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      DigiKam is amazing. Best photo manager I've ever used, regardless of OS.

    6. Re:Features by JanneM · · Score: 1

      That's one thing that could be improved I agree. What I do is edit the image in whatever way I wanted to. Then I go to "Photo->New Version" to make a new copy of the image, right-click on the image and copy the place (the qualified filename) and then, in a terminal simply copy the edited one I made to the new version.

      One thing that could help (apart from making a simpler plugin interface) would be to be able to simply tell F-spot that "this image is actually just a version of that one". Could be as easy as drag and drop one image onto another to add a copy of it as a version of the target. The opposite - dragging one image in a stack out between other images - would make a copy as a separate image. That way you could use any tools at all, import the image, then just drop it where it belongs.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    7. Re:Features by arose · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, there are some important features missing from shotwell.

      Like f-spot's killer feature, fucking with timestamps.

      Namely, there is no information about raw

      Will be in the next stable, works great in the development version.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    8. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't even support .png
      WTF?

    9. Re:Features by devent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try Gwenview. It have all kinds of exports, batch processing, tools, crop, resize, red eyes removal and perhaps more.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    10. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XnView is similar to IrfanView and runs on Linux.

    11. Re:Features by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Yup, the fact that it doesn't appear to even be in the Ubuntu Software Centre (at least on 9.04) probably isn't a good sign.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    12. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use the word "workflow" when talking about your images then neither F-Spot nor Shotwell will ever be for you.

      Try Bibble

    13. Re:Features by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Looking into both xnview and irfanview on wine...

      Thanks!

      --
      Will
    14. Re:Features by QBasicer · · Score: 2, Informative
      I just had a look inside their git news (http://git.gnome.org/browse/f-spot/tree/NEWS) and saw:

      f-spot 0.7.0 - Jun 16 2010 - Full Steam Ahead!

      • First release of the unstable 0.7 development series. Massive changes.
      • Reparenting and detaching support
      • A new Mallard-based documentation
      • No longer embeds flickrnet, uses distribution copy
      • Adoption of a large amount of Hyena functionality
      • No longer embeds gnome-keyring-sharp
      • Completely rewritten import, much faster and less memory hungry
      • No longer use gphoto2-sharp, now uses gvfs which is less crash-pron [SIC]
      • Fix Facebook support
      • Modernized unit tests
      • Revamped build
      • Much improved duplicate detection (much faster too)
      • Mouse selection in Iconview
      • Image panning support using middle mouse button
      • Timeline slider now restricted to the size of the window
      • Over 90 bugs closed

      So it looks promising in the short term. Perhaps there's been a bit of pressure on them? Too little too late?

      --
      x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
    15. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you tried Digikam? The interface is a bit complex... but if you use ufraw, that shouldn't daunt you. (-: It also supports external editors ("Open with..."), but for most edits I find it's built in editor to be superior and fast (cropping, colour & white balance correction, etc).

    16. Re:Features by jd · · Score: 1

      I use XV. The fish is cool.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  16. Linux 'purity' religious views strike again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why crap on about MONO AGAIN..!!! ENOUGH.. (yes the f-Spot is a JAB at MONO..)

    If your so anti-patent... Try and use your linux box without:

    * DVD
    * H264
    * Blueray
    * MP3
    * etc etc etc etc..

    Or the other stuff which is stolen/questionable in origins.

    If people don't want MONO.. simply uninstall it.. Just like they can uninstall/install DVD/MP3/etc etc..

    But don't go pushing your BIASED 'pure linux religon' onto everyone else..

    Linux is a great OS.. And I wish it all the success in the world, but with idiots constantly complaining about MONO, but not other patents is just proof of double standards.

    1. Re:Linux 'purity' religious views strike again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mono's a slow boggy piece of shit like Java from 10 years ago.

      That alone should be enough to rule it out.

    2. Re:Linux 'purity' religious views strike again... by xororand · · Score: 1

      The difference is that media like the ones you listed can be converted with relative ease, consuming only CPU time. If the owners of codec related imaginary property threaten to sue, it's mostly a matter of transcoding stuff to alternatives like Theora, Vorbis or VP9. Programs written in C# or another .NET dependent language however can't be converted to a different language without a lot of actual human work.

    3. Re:Linux 'purity' religious views strike again... by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Lets see, check check..check and check, but no matter...

      While you can easily get away with installing software which is patented (at least in the stupid United Corporations of America), corporations, since they have a lot of money, are the targets of lawsuits by patent holders/sharks/trolls/etc, so they can't include them and it is simply dangerous. So, when and where you are able to, convert your things to truly open formats. While I could also argue using patented things may actually help companies try to fight software patents, not using them of course removes the power these patents have as well. While I'd prefer the law was changed, sadly the latter might be the better choice because the more money which is at stake, the more lobbyists there will be, so it will be less probable that the laws will actually be overhauled intelligently.

      Any way, I converted all my media away from patented formats long ago. There are several, for example, MP3 to OGG converting programs available, and while lossy to lossy conversions are normally bad, it works surprisingly well. Not to mention, OGG Vorbis is just fucking kick ass, and MP3 should have been vanquished long ago. I don't care if your ipod can't play OGG, maybe you should be buying something like a Cowon instead then.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  17. XSANE works - what alternative do you have? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

    It's worked with all the scanners I have tried (3 different multi-purpose devices) without any trouble. It may not be the best piece of software in the world but it works fairly well - what are you going to replace it with? Or should users just go without completely until there is scan software meeting your standards? I can tell that if there was no XSane or equivalent I would not be using Ubuntu on any of my machines (currently 5 running various flavours of Ubuntu).

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    1. Re:XSANE works - what alternative do you have? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You can always install a scanning or image editing tool from the repositories. The stupid thing is that the NDIS tool is not installed by default so you need to use a different type of network to download a tool to get some wireless cards to work.

    2. Re:XSANE works - what alternative do you have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those scanning tools would work without Sane as backend. Your point about NDIS is not relevant at all (which why I won't go into why it's wrong).

    3. Re:XSANE works - what alternative do you have? by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      Vuescan (http://www.hamrick.com). Yes, it's a "commercial" product, but I'll confess that since I bought a license I haven't really paid attention to the state of scanning on Linux, because when I need to scan stuff it just works, works well, and the quality of the output is outstanding*. Sometimes the FLOSS approach doesn't produce the best solution. Go figure.

      In my opinion, the Linux experience would be much better if small commercial software developers were encouraged a bit more to brave the dangers of this ecosystem rather than being vilified and completely excluded from the culture. Nothing focuses the mind like needing to buy groceries and pay the mortgage, which is the one motivation that an army of volunteers can't bring to the table (unless you are using a FLOSS project as part of making a living, but in that case the motivation still comes from outside the project itself). Under the right conditions, the result seems to be a better product than can be had by "scratching the itch" or noodling around because it's fun.

      *The same goes for Turboprint (http://www.turboprint.info) - printing is a breeze and I don't have to think about it at all. ZEDOnet's licensing policy is a bit more assholish than Vuescan's, but their shit works, so I grudgingly have to admit it was worth the money).

    4. Re:XSANE works - what alternative do you have? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it doesn't have Linux support for any of my three scanners. So to use it I'd either have to switch to Windows/MacOS or spend a lot of money to buy new scanners that it will support. Like much software its support for devices is very weak on Linux compared to the Windows/Mac support. It may be a great product but to me XSane is much much better because it actually supports the devices I have on the OS I have. YMMV.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  18. Fedora 13 already replaced F-Spot with Shotwell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  19. Good, I hated F-Spot by kuriharu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    F-spot makes duplicates of my photos. Good riddance! One copy of each pic is enough, thank you!

    1. Re:Good, I hated F-Spot by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      F-spot makes duplicates of my photos. Good riddance!

      The version in lucid doesn't seem to do that any more whereas Shotwell does this. So it's not "good riddance". They finally fixed the problem only to bring it back again in a different photo manager..

    2. Re:Good, I hated F-Spot by kuriharu · · Score: 1

      AARRRGGHGHH!! Out of the frying pan into the fire! I haven't tried Shotwell so I guess I spoke too soon. I use Picasa anyway. The Linux version isn't as good as the Windows version, but I like it better than the other ones out there.

  20. Fedora 13 did it first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The latest Fedora release, 13, already has Shotwell enabled. And the good package maintainers help getting the experience right the first time, too.

    1. Re:Fedora 13 did it first. by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      From the blog you posted...

      Unlike F-Spot which pulls in a lot of Mono dependencies and requires you to import the photos into it’s library,...

      Firstly, F-Spot doesn't require you to import photos, there is a checkbox that says "Copy files to the Photos folder"

      Secondly, Shotwell has the exact same tickbox and is enabled by default exactly like F-Spot.

      It is written in Vala and super fast.

      Personally I prefer something this works rather then a program whose only remarkable feature is "it is written in Vala". So they're replacing Microsoft dependent Mono with Gnome dependent Vala, sweet..

    2. Re:Fedora 13 did it first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they're replacing Microsoft dependent Mono with Gnome dependent Vala, sweet..

      What the hell does this mean? I've tried to parse "gnome-dependent Vala" a few times and it still means nothing.

      Maybe you meant "Vala uses GObject, which I dislike, so it sucks" or "The GObject introspection is not entirely there yet, so Vala sucks" -- those arguments might make some sense but those arguments are also entrirely different from "Gnome dependent".

    3. Re:Fedora 13 did it first. by pizzach · · Score: 1

      Both Shotwell and F-Spot have dependencies on various Gnome libraries. (Maybe just Gtk+?) But Vala is only a compile time dependency. Not a runtime one. You don't have to have a Vala dll installed.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  21. Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by Per+Cederberg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As long as developers keep rewriting apps from scratch every 2-3 years, they'll never become truly stable or usable. And they won't progress much beyond tech demos or the basic feature checklists.

    When will we see true progress in integration, usability or features?

    1. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Amarok, Rhythmbox, and Firefox all seem to be coming along nicely (but you know they'll replace Firefox with Epiphany and Rhythmbox with something else sooner or later). The problem is very obvious: Gnome is suffering from creeping elegance, and noone will admit it.

      --
      $ make available
    2. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by Funnnny · · Score: 1

      They're just getting rid of Mono

    3. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by sohp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the single biggest failing of the FOSS ecosystem.

      Someone starts a piece of software and gets some of the desired features working. Shortly after that, someone else, either working on the project or using it, decides one of several problems plague the program. Either it's development is too slow, it has crummy architecture, someone else thinks they can do better, philosophically or technically, or they are half-baked programmers who look at existing code, can't figure it out, and decide to start over from scratch. Or maybe the project's lead(s) decide that their way of doing things, technically or philosophically, is the only "right" way, and hit would-be contributors over the head with attitude (I'm looking at for example developers of VLC and cdparanoia, not to mention the issue of Linux kernel schedulers and sound subsystem).

      So we end up with multiple half-baked programs all doing sort of the same thing in different ways but none of them doing the whole job. Naturally, when someone sees the situation, the first reaction is "All this mess! I'm going to start a NEW project and do it RIGHT this time!"

      If we FOSS users and developers are lucky, eventually there will be a tipping point when a majority gravitate to one project and things get more or less sorted out. If not, well, we can always use ANOTHER, say, media player; some college CS major can tackle it as a senior project, release it, and then forget all about it. If Amarok, Audacious, Beep, BMPx, Banshee, Kaffeine, Miro, Rhythmbox, VLC, Winamp, XMMS, xine and whatever else I'm forgetting don't offer enough choice for you.

      Glad to see that yet another category of software is joining the party.

    4. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Upstream forking as much as they want isn't the problem.

      The problem is with distributions which do everything you just described.

    5. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by Lord+Juan · · Score: 1

      That is one of the reasons I like KDE, I know that it isn't complete yet, and I sure have experienced some annoyances and bugs when it passed from 3 to 4, but there is consistency and it offers an experience that gnome won't offer, not to mention it counts with some excellent apps for a variety of things.

    6. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the whole job by your standards.

    7. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by sohp · · Score: 1

      No, upstream forking and people starting a new project instead of working to finish or improve existing stuff IS the problem. Whether it's caused by the original project's developers being unable to play nice or new developers deciding they can do better by starting over, either way you end up with a dozen half-baked programs competing for the same uses with overlapping but sometimes mutually exclusive feature sets. Then the distros are stuck having to pick from this mess, and sometime throw in 2 or 3 just because there's no single one that does what people want to use the computer to do.

    8. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by sohp · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, the fact that we have BOTH Gnome and KDE is itself a manifestation of the effect. KDE fans diss Gnome and Gnome fans diss KDE, and Ubuntu ships with Gnome but there's Kubuntu which uses KDE instead.

    9. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      No, upstream forking and people starting a new project instead of working to finish or improve existing stuff IS the problem.

      Except it's not because upstream doesn't have any say into what Ubuntu or Debian decides to change in their distro.

      Then the distros are stuck having to pick from this mess

      Except that's not happening here, is it. What they've done here is replace a completely working program with a piece of junk.

      They could quite easily wait until Shotwell is actually worth using before adding it by default to the distro.

    10. Re:Yet another application rewritten in Gnome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't solely plague Linux.

      Just from 5 seconds of searching: Windows has the same problems in the same catagories.

      The only real issue is that most Windows users don't see out what alternatives are available, nor fork their own, and many alternatives require payment for equally crappy features. OSX tends to avoid the community fragmentation problem only by providing bundled software "good enough" for most user's needs, but the alternatives still exist.

  22. s/VP9/VP8/ by xororand · · Score: 1

    When I said VP9 I actually meant VP8.

  23. maybe it's not about software by samjam · · Score: 1

    Your observation is spot on, and part of the cause is the iron fist of the original devs, often imitated by for forkers.

    In time, they learn how to do things better, but (possibly sadly) a new cohort of devs come along ready to learn the same lessons.

    It may not be good for the code-base but it's good for the humans.
    So we see how coding helps anti-social computer geeks learn how to be better humans! Pretty neat!

    Sam

  24. gthumb by roalt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been following developments of gthumb lately and I've seem a significant increase in improvements the last year. I'm pretty sure it's triggered by competition with F-Spot and possibly Shotwell. The main reason for me to use gthumb is the superior import facility for your digital photos. You can store them in your own hierarchy/folders in the way you like it.

    1. Re:gthumb by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

      I used to use gthumb for importing until it broke in Ubuntu 10.04... Searching for alternatives, i found Shotwell, which while basic and new, its blazing fast.

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
  25. Import f-spot db? by pmontra · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately it seems that shotwell doesn't import f-spot's tags database. That's a big annoyance for anybody who tagged an extensive photo collection and it could be a motivation to keep using f-spot. The ability to import data from competing software has been a very important feature for any new program that wants to divert users from an existing one (Firefox imports IE bookmarks, Thunderbird imports mails and address book from Outlook Express, etc) so I'm surprised the shotwell didn't do that from its very first release.

    1. Re:Import f-spot db? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Which is why importing tags and other data from F-Spot is in Ubuntu's plan for replacing F-Spot with Shotwell. Also see the related bug report

  26. Wrong criteria by frisket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who gives a tinker's spit about "managing" your "photos"? I want to edit images, so I'll install GIMP and set all the filetypes back where they belong. Iff I connect my camera, then perhaps I want to invoke something to offload selected pix and file them by date. F-Spot was about as useful as a wet paper bag at managing photos, with an incomprehensible interface and no editing.

    1. Re:Wrong criteria by TheoCryst · · Score: 1

      Lots of people care about managing photos, and I absolutely agree that a solid photo manager is crucial in any consumer-oriented OS, including Ubuntu. A powerful image editor, like the GIMP, is a nice bonus, but less important to most end-users. All most people need is an app that can create albums, crop, and remove red-eye.

      Does Shotwell meet these criteria? A quick look at their website seems to indicate yes. I'll probably download it tonight and see if their claims stand up.

      --
      Warning: Contents May Be Flammable. Keep Out Of Reach Of Children.
  27. WTF is wrong with Eye of Gnome? by Akoman · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it gets the job done and if you need more you inevitably have to go all the way to GIMP. Constantly being asked to use F-Spot has been aggravating as hell so hopefully shotwell is less intrusive, but I just use EoG + GIMP and that covers all my usecases.

  28. we are getting there... still... by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 1

    Well... this is a way lesser evil. But still vala is not in my heart, and tomboy has to go away too: gnome official dependence on mono must become optional.

  29. That is not an option, is a trap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ballmer and other people at MS go on and on about their precious patents.

    The best way to avoid them is not to use anything that originates at MS.

    Although C# is clearly inspired by Java, and thus any patents on this regard would mots likely be baseless, why should people risk it?

    You like C#? Then install Mono on your own, you have the choice, but distro makers have to make sure that they use as little as possible stuff that may be MS tainted.

  30. why not gthumb? by allo · · Score: 0

    just tested shotwell: -it does not support png (wtf?) -the "improve" option sharpens the image without any options or preview wtf, shotwell seems even worse than f-spot. gthumb was pretty good, though.

  31. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHO CARES?

  32. The Scorpion and the Frog by pizzach · · Score: 1

    One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

    The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

    Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

    "Hellooo Mr. RMS!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

    "Well now, Mr. MS! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

    "Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

    Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

    "This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

    "Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

    "Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

    So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

    Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

    "You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

    The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

    "I could not help myself. It is my nature."

    Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

    Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  33. mc is old... try ranger! by schamarty · · Score: 1

    try ranger instead of mc. It doesn't have VFSs but it is much faster and nicer. I especially like the tree traversal key strokes, and the fact that each directory remembers marked (tagged) files separately, so you don't lose your Ctrl-T tags just because you temporarily dipped into a subdir to see what it contains.

    And the multiple tab feature is very nice too...

  34. You'rs may be bigger ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... but mine tastes better.

    *TaDUM* *Crash* *Thud*

    Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.
    Try the fish.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  35. Saying a thing, doesn't make it true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Shotwell and it has a feature not to import the same photo twice, so err, that makes half of your post invalid right there dopey.

    Second point. Saying that an application cannot import 'PNGs' (which are a relatively small subset of all image files) does not justify the question, "What use is an photo manager that can't import images.." which implies a comprehensive inability to open all image files. These are schoolboy debating tactics. If you persist with them nobody will trust what you say, and you will be left wondering why.

  36. Should try DigiKam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try using DigiKam.

    No, wait, that's a KDE app. Guess its time to switch.

  37. Funny how Ballmer has no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how Ballmer has no problem despite being a loon and extreme in his outlook. Jobs is abrasive in getting his point across. Still, no worries there.

    The difference is that these two are raking in shitloads of money and for many libertarians, these people are therefore GODS.

  38. Re:Oh look!!! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    If they are going to copy something, they might as well copy Picasa.

    It is FAR less annoying.

    Sure, take a hierarchy of photos and flatten out the organization
    so scared housewives can't cope with it anymore so they end up
    burning their photo archive onto CD instead.

    There should be something in the HID guidelines about intentionally
    subjecting end users to unnecessary information overload.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  39. Yeah, I draw 'tashes on family photos too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I draw 'tashes on family photos too...

    Oh, hang on, no I don't. Out of ~5,000 photos NOT ONE has a bit of line art on it.

  40. why? by poptones · · Score: 1

    geequie (or gqview) is almost exactly the same as irfanview. But it's better, cuz it's not windows.

  41. Karel the robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [...] for some reason rotating a picture to the right is a lot faster than the same operation to the left.

    That is because the implementor is a big fan of Karel the robot. Rotating the picture to the left is the same as rotating it three times to the right. ;)

  42. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Picasa 3 is much better IMHO.
    Shotwell is still lacking basic features is why I knock it, but almost there for me.

  43. Re:um most Linux users run Ubuntu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding, right? There is no distro that "most Linux users run". There's a lot of popular ones, none comes close to being "the distro most users run"

  44. Good list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That actually is a pretty good list of crap that people have pretty roundly rejected. Thanks for proving the other guy's point.

    ps: having something forced on everyone by upstream is not an indication of popularity. In this case it's more a sign of abuse of influence by Migel and friends.

  45. ughhh by Twitch6000 · · Score: 1

    Great now they add more buggy software by default...

    --
    http://admincentralforums.com
  46. right or left hand? by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    Ah, the irony of Slashdot UID's - it's the only dick measuring contest where the winner is the smallest one...

    Interesting coincidence though that in the /. digits contest most people are around six though. Plus, I've heard people have paid to enhance their UID (sure four digits might be worth braggin about but paying to have yours made one digit is absurd).

  47. Re:um most Linux users run Ubuntu? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, by "most" I didn't mean 50% or more, I meant "majority".

    --
    Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  48. I actually like F-Spot and use it constantly by phuc_head · · Score: 1

    I don't understand all the bitching about Mono, it is a nice platform and runs very well in my experience. I love F-Spot and never have it crash, with my 100's of photos i take and import into it and export to my smugmug account. Also, Tommy Boy is a very well put together application that works great. Also, last i heard Shotwell was not as feature complete as F-Spot is, which is a stupid move, hey should we use this app that does 100% of what the users want and need as well as being pounded on for awhile being it was included in, at least, the defacto linux install for most linux users, or go with this new thing that does about half? That is a easy choice, lets remove functionality and throw out the more validated application. just stupid

  49. Crashing? Bah. by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Most of the times when I tried F-Spot, it just keeps crashing on me.

    Thanks, we now know you are biased. This is something based on personal experience, much like how Linux would "not work" for some people on some computers.

    Less Mono is good, though. Better speeds, less dependencies.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  50. Re:um most Linux users run Ubuntu? by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

    s/majority/plurality/. Majority means over 50%.

  51. Re:um most Linux users run Ubuntu? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia says "plurality", except in British English where it means the same as "majority", means the greatest subset, not 50%. So I meant non-British plurality then. But whatever. =P

    --
    Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  52. Great by jpenguin · · Score: 1

    Another APP that doesn't us MONO is alway welcome