That's cool. I do appreciate the work done for GIMP/Gtk that I use. I use GNOME and other Gtk apps all of the time. And I'm only critical of GIMP because I know it could be so much better and I wish I had time to help/support GIMP and other projects like it.
All of my comments are based on user-type use and not code/API use, though I am a developer.
From my use experience I would say Gtk is usable and nice to have; since so many people can use it to make free/open software. But I would also say it is nowhere near what I would expect from a computer UI. We can do so many amazing things with software and UIs these days, but Gtk just comes across as outdated and user-unfriendly.
I hate to throw Apple into the mix, since I know it brings a lot of baggage and they aren't necessarily perfect or consistent, but their use and integration of elegant UI features is something that I enjoy and can be used as an example/reference.
I feel I'm only critical because I develop software and I believe I can imagine what a computer should be able to do. That Gtk is so useful means that did something right for developers, but I'm not convinced it is up to snuff for users--or maybe what I wish it could be.
My comment about the code wasn't based on seeing GIMP's code at all, because I've never looked at it.
It was about the final product which I use that I am commenting on. It's not difficult to image how horrible the GIMP code looks though based on the final result. Maybe the commercial code is also badly written, but that doesn't affect me in any way apart from my use of the interface.
The quality control is easy to assess without seeing any code at all, since quality of code isn't the important factor, it's quality of the user experience.
Maybe you made your comment because the GIMP code is elegant and beautiful, but then I don't care since the product is horrible. The developers might want to focus more on the user and less on code quality then...
Either way, my opinion of GIMP has nothing to do with it being open source or not.
GIMP was an attempt to rival commercial offerings? I'm sure the GIMP developers wanted to make the best software they could, but when you state it like that it just seems so painful.
From where I sit GIMP is a mess and no where near as nice any many commercial offerings, so it seems they failed pretty badly there. I do like the fact that it exists to some extent and it is free. Though I almost always use an alternative if I can.
Maybe I'm just really anal about code and quality control so I'm being too harsh here...
That's odd, because I remember the brothers said they intentionally used religion as a basis for their movies. Atleast the mythology behind it all.
Here is a quote: "We're interested in mythology, theology, and, to a certain extent, higher-level mathematics," Larry told Time in 1999. In a Warner Bros. Web chat that year, they were asked to what extent their allusions to myths and philosophy were intentional. "All of it," they said.
IANA-christian, but I think it's a disservice to not compare it with christianity.
I wrote a Java applet to do this a while back. You can play with the 8-rule 256 set or use a larger set (32-rule) and generate images based on that. Some of the 32-rule images are very cool. You can also control the starting patterns. It's on my website at ghostlotus.
I'm using windows 2000 terminal services right now to post this message. I can login to my 2000 server from any point on the internet and see my desktop. Ofcourse bandwith may be an issue, then you can use telnet server:) But terminal services is sooo much nicer than ssh (which I use to connect to the solaris boxen).
Don't get me wrong, I don't like M$ all that much myself, but I disagree with what you have to say. What you are saying is "don't let it out or it will get better than currently free OSes" =P While I think M$ should be forced to stop monopolizing etc...I don't think keeping a better product from the public is a good idea just because you are afraid you can't compete with it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's cool. I do appreciate the work done for GIMP/Gtk that I use. I use GNOME and other Gtk apps all of the time. And I'm only critical of GIMP because I know it could be so much better and I wish I had time to help/support GIMP and other projects like it.
All of my comments are based on user-type use and not code/API use, though I am a developer.
From my use experience I would say Gtk is usable and nice to have; since so many people can use it to make free/open software. But I would also say it is nowhere near what I would expect from a computer UI. We can do so many amazing things with software and UIs these days, but Gtk just comes across as outdated and user-unfriendly.
I hate to throw Apple into the mix, since I know it brings a lot of baggage and they aren't necessarily perfect or consistent, but their use and integration of elegant UI features is something that I enjoy and can be used as an example/reference.
I feel I'm only critical because I develop software and I believe I can imagine what a computer should be able to do. That Gtk is so useful means that did something right for developers, but I'm not convinced it is up to snuff for users--or maybe what I wish it could be.
My comment about the code wasn't based on seeing GIMP's code at all, because I've never looked at it.
It was about the final product which I use that I am commenting on. It's not difficult to image how horrible the GIMP code looks though based on the final result. Maybe the commercial code is also badly written, but that doesn't affect me in any way apart from my use of the interface.
The quality control is easy to assess without seeing any code at all, since quality of code isn't the important factor, it's quality of the user experience.
Maybe you made your comment because the GIMP code is elegant and beautiful, but then I don't care since the product is horrible. The developers might want to focus more on the user and less on code quality then...
Either way, my opinion of GIMP has nothing to do with it being open source or not.
GIMP was an attempt to rival commercial offerings? I'm sure the GIMP developers wanted to make the best software they could, but when you state it like that it just seems so painful.
From where I sit GIMP is a mess and no where near as nice any many commercial offerings, so it seems they failed pretty badly there. I do like the fact that it exists to some extent and it is free. Though I almost always use an alternative if I can.
Maybe I'm just really anal about code and quality control so I'm being too harsh here...
That's odd, because I remember the brothers said they intentionally used religion as a basis for their movies. Atleast the mythology behind it all.
Here is a quote:
"We're interested in mythology, theology, and, to a certain extent, higher-level mathematics," Larry told Time in 1999. In a Warner Bros. Web chat that year, they were asked to what extent their allusions to myths and philosophy were intentional. "All of it," they said.
IANA-christian, but I think it's a disservice to not compare it with christianity.
I wrote a Java applet to do this a while back. You can play with the 8-rule 256 set or use a larger set (32-rule) and generate images based on that. Some of the 32-rule images are very cool. You can also control the starting patterns. It's on my website at ghostlotus.
-john
I'm using windows 2000 terminal services right now to post this message. I can login to my 2000 server from any point on the internet and see my desktop. Ofcourse bandwith may be an issue, then you can use telnet server :) But terminal services is sooo much nicer than ssh (which I use to connect to the solaris boxen).
Just my opinion, I could be mislead!
Don't get me wrong, I don't like M$ all that much myself, but I disagree with what you have to say. What you are saying is "don't let it out or it will get better than currently free OSes" =P While I think M$ should be forced to stop monopolizing etc...I don't think keeping a better product from the public is a good idea just because you are afraid you can't compete with it.