No, they probably just want it to have the same license as the rest of X. "But X uses the MIT license!", you say. Go compare the BSD and MIT licenses. They are almost the exact same thing. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
I've only used Photoshop once or twice, so I don't remember much about the interface. But when I hear your statement that Gimp has an "Impossible to use UI", I have to wonder what you mean. I've heard lots of people say this. Can you please explain what you mean?
No, I'm not depriving the artists of their income, because some of these movies aren't otherwise available. The artist wouldn't have gotten my money if I _hadn't_ bought them either. There's also a good chance I will buy the legit ones as they are released.
Coincidentally, I just found the boxed set for $95.00 US yesterday. A local video store has the set, and I've rented them in the past and found the quality to be good. So, when I saw them, I bought them. I usually don't buy movies, nor is anime my favorite type of movie, but I love Miyazaki.
What the fuck is so great about Gollum? He doesn't look remotely real! I preferred the days of yore, when characters of that sort, such as Yoda, were done with sophisticated puppets. Sure, they didn't get all the expressions right and were limited in their movements, but they were real, three-dimensional objects that were not pasted into their environment.
Speaking of CGI in general, I watched 2001 the other night, and I noticed how amazing the effects are in that movie, with its ancient scale models and optical printing technology, compared to virtually anything done recently with computer generated effects. CGI shit is so obviously fake and lacks the beauty and craftsmanship of models and puppets.
True, it's finely crafted. Nearly everything Miyazaki has ever done is. But I wouldn't put it in the masterpiece category. It certainly isn't his best work IMO. I'd put Laputa: Castle in the Sky or My Neighbor Totoro above it. Of course, you know, IMO, YMMV, and all that.
A very pompous, patronizing, condescending (and somewhat passive-aggressive) answer to what seems an honest and straightforward question.
Since when does a movie, or any piece of art, need to have "A Message"? Fine, if you think his answer has the first three attributes you mentioned, though I don't necessarily agree. But what on earth makes his statement passive aggressive? More likely it's your anonymous post that matches that assessment.
Yes, and flatware manufacturers should stop selling forks and spoons because terrorists might buy them and use them to eat. We need to do all in our power to make terrorists starve to death, therefore I call upon all makers of spoon, knives, and forks to please stop distributing these products.
I agree with you. There is nothing inherent in animation that makes it somehow lesser than live action. I've actually haven't seen The Two Towers yet, but I saw the first one, and I think Spirited Away and Grave of the Fireflies are easily better films than it was.
Wrong, I think. The director is practically everything. The producer gets the final say, but in films where the producer allows the director a degree of freedom, the director is what matters. Our local video store, Scarecrow Video, organizes the majority of films in the store by director. When I see a good film, I look to see who the director is, then I go get other movies by the same director. Most of the movies I see are good ones using this method.
Miyazaki conceives his work specifically for his medium, for what he knows will work in an animated film.
Actually, I don't think this is entirely true. For example, Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, is based on manga, which is far more detailed than a feature film can possibly be given time constraints. This is in fact my biggest problem with anime in general. Movies like Akira or Ghost in the Shell make no sense as movies because so much is cut out from the comic books.
I mostly agree with you about the other points, though. Miyazaki's films are gorgeous. I never thought they were "jerky", however. Quite the opposite. They seem smooth and rich compared to any other animation I've seen. A small example is when they are driving the car through the dirt road at the beginning of Spirited Away, and they go over a rough spot and the car dips down just *perfectly*, it's nearly photographic. Mmmm.
No, he doesn't look like an idiot. I've seen lots of anime, and I think Grave of the Fireflies is probably the only one I've seen that isn't a Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action film. I'm not knocking the genre, I like a lot of it, but his point is valid.
That's quite the opposite of my experience. About the same time ago, I had a dial-up account with them, and it was the most robust dial-up service I've ever experienced. They were also friendly to Unix using customers. Later, I switched to Speakeasy DSL. While waiting for the DSL connection, I used Speakeasy dial-up, and it was not as reliable as the NWLink account. But that's just my 2 cents, YMMV.
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that people should be forced to use KDE or Gnome, etc. What he meant was that the standards body should choose one and the distros that are standards compliant would use that one. being open source, you can be sure that there would still be options available. But dammit, there really does need to be one interface that people can rely on, and one that doesn't radically change every year or two.
It seems clear that Redhat doesn't want to be involved with United Linux, and they're married to Gnome, so Gnome is probably going to be the de facto standard in Linux desktops. Even though I think Gnome is years behind KDE in terms of usability, it's fine to standardize on Gnome as long as its interface doesn't change too drastically. Work on it should be behind the scenes, porting more applications to it, making apps integrate with each other better.
I was at a bookstore this evening and saw a book on "Getting to Know RedHat Linux" or something similar. It was a really nicely illustrated book and explained everything beautifully for a novice. But it was an old book, using Redhat 6.1, and I don't think anything in there applies to Redhat 8.0! They need to make sure that this doesn't happen again in the near future. Windows has changed greatly behind the scenes in the last seven years, but you can still rely on pretty much the same interface to get things done (if you're using the classic mode in XP at least). This is really important for making Linux a viable solution.
I think United Linux is a good idea, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere, and that's because Redhat isn't involved. Suse may be big in Europe, but Redhat has all the big contracts. And with Sun soon to be using Gnome on Solaris, I think it's clear that a Redhat/Gnome interface is the Linux GUI of the future. Even though I don't like it now, it will certainly improve, and it's what I probably will settle on using.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they probably just want it to have the same license as the rest of X. "But X uses the MIT license!", you say. Go compare the BSD and MIT licenses. They are almost the exact same thing. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
Truly a profound observation.
Here's a wild feed if anyone's interested.
I've only used Photoshop once or twice, so I don't remember much about the interface. But when I hear your statement that Gimp has an "Impossible to use UI", I have to wonder what you mean. I've heard lots of people say this. Can you please explain what you mean?
IE is an etch-a-sketch
its a feature poor, crash prone, non standards complient, ugly piece of code.
why do people insist its somehow powerful?
its NOT
I used to think IE was a great browser. But then I read your post, and I realized how wrong I was. Thanks for making the truth so clear.
Yeah, or maybe he wants a professional quality system that Just Works.
Hahahahahaha..aha, a, uh, uhuh. Where did you learn to be so damn clever?
No, I'm not depriving the artists of their income, because some of these movies aren't otherwise available. The artist wouldn't have gotten my money if I _hadn't_ bought them either. There's also a good chance I will buy the legit ones as they are released.
Coincidentally, I just found the boxed set for $95.00 US yesterday. A local video store has the set, and I've rented them in the past and found the quality to be good. So, when I saw them, I bought them. I usually don't buy movies, nor is anime my favorite type of movie, but I love Miyazaki.
Speaking of CGI in general, I watched 2001 the other night, and I noticed how amazing the effects are in that movie, with its ancient scale models and optical printing technology, compared to virtually anything done recently with computer generated effects. CGI shit is so obviously fake and lacks the beauty and craftsmanship of models and puppets.
True, it's finely crafted. Nearly everything Miyazaki has ever done is. But I wouldn't put it in the masterpiece category. It certainly isn't his best work IMO. I'd put Laputa: Castle in the Sky or My Neighbor Totoro above it. Of course, you know, IMO, YMMV, and all that.
Since when does a movie, or any piece of art, need to have "A Message"? Fine, if you think his answer has the first three attributes you mentioned, though I don't necessarily agree. But what on earth makes his statement passive aggressive? More likely it's your anonymous post that matches that assessment.
They do? I've only heard:
Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.
--Henry Spencer
If they can still afford it after losing this round.
Anyone have anything clever to add to that?
Yes, and flatware manufacturers should stop selling forks and spoons because terrorists might buy them and use them to eat. We need to do all in our power to make terrorists starve to death, therefore I call upon all makers of spoon, knives, and forks to please stop distributing these products.
I agree with you. There is nothing inherent in animation that makes it somehow lesser than live action. I've actually haven't seen The Two Towers yet, but I saw the first one, and I think Spirited Away and Grave of the Fireflies are easily better films than it was.
Wrong, I think. The director is practically everything. The producer gets the final say, but in films where the producer allows the director a degree of freedom, the director is what matters. Our local video store, Scarecrow Video, organizes the majority of films in the store by director. When I see a good film, I look to see who the director is, then I go get other movies by the same director. Most of the movies I see are good ones using this method.
Man, unibrow or not, Frida Kahlo was a damn sexy woman. You wouldn't know it from her self portraits, though.
Actually, I don't think this is entirely true. For example, Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, is based on manga, which is far more detailed than a feature film can possibly be given time constraints. This is in fact my biggest problem with anime in general. Movies like Akira or Ghost in the Shell make no sense as movies because so much is cut out from the comic books.
I mostly agree with you about the other points, though. Miyazaki's films are gorgeous. I never thought they were "jerky", however. Quite the opposite. They seem smooth and rich compared to any other animation I've seen. A small example is when they are driving the car through the dirt road at the beginning of Spirited Away, and they go over a rough spot and the car dips down just *perfectly*, it's nearly photographic. Mmmm.
No, he doesn't look like an idiot. I've seen lots of anime, and I think Grave of the Fireflies is probably the only one I've seen that isn't a Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action film. I'm not knocking the genre, I like a lot of it, but his point is valid.
Maybe he was discovered to be the "Alfred Pythonstein", "Matt Dillon", et al, troll. Could it be?
That's quite the opposite of my experience. About the same time ago, I had a dial-up account with them, and it was the most robust dial-up service I've ever experienced. They were also friendly to Unix using customers. Later, I switched to Speakeasy DSL. While waiting for the DSL connection, I used Speakeasy dial-up, and it was not as reliable as the NWLink account. But that's just my 2 cents, YMMV.
Hahahahaha!
+1 Funny
It seems clear that Redhat doesn't want to be involved with United Linux, and they're married to Gnome, so Gnome is probably going to be the de facto standard in Linux desktops. Even though I think Gnome is years behind KDE in terms of usability, it's fine to standardize on Gnome as long as its interface doesn't change too drastically. Work on it should be behind the scenes, porting more applications to it, making apps integrate with each other better.
I was at a bookstore this evening and saw a book on "Getting to Know RedHat Linux" or something similar. It was a really nicely illustrated book and explained everything beautifully for a novice. But it was an old book, using Redhat 6.1, and I don't think anything in there applies to Redhat 8.0! They need to make sure that this doesn't happen again in the near future. Windows has changed greatly behind the scenes in the last seven years, but you can still rely on pretty much the same interface to get things done (if you're using the classic mode in XP at least). This is really important for making Linux a viable solution.
I think United Linux is a good idea, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere, and that's because Redhat isn't involved. Suse may be big in Europe, but Redhat has all the big contracts. And with Sun soon to be using Gnome on Solaris, I think it's clear that a Redhat/Gnome interface is the Linux GUI of the future. Even though I don't like it now, it will certainly improve, and it's what I probably will settle on using.