After Jedi, people were squeeling loudly about Ewoks and a bad story. The compalining was as bad then as EP I is now. But time settled it out, people got used to the story the way was it was, and old wounds healed.
Actually, ROTJ was held up by the strengths of the other two movies. You know, the old "two out of three ain't bad" rationale. And in fact, as a trilogy, you could overlook the ewoks and bad story because the first two were that damn good.
But now, if you look at all the moview, you have 2 good ones and 3 bad ones. Now all of a sudden, the truth comes out. Lucas got lucky with the first two (or they were good despite his involvement). Once he fully took over the reins, the franchise (in the truest sense of the word) took a quality nosedive. Sure, he still made tons of money, but the movies were terrible. Now, I don't consider the trilogy to be that great, I can weed out ROTJ because it fits in better with the other crap he made.
So you are right that time will tell, but not in the way you thought.
Everyone is copying from everyone else and it's not a bad thing. All the good ideas from old systems are implemented now with new stuff. The difference is: Apple does it better, cleaner (more intuitive) and before Microsoft.
*ahem* And to be fair, they do it better, cleaner, and before anyone, including OSS.
Actually if you read the DMCA closely you is not criminal to decrypt the data on your own photos - you are wing so *with* the authority of teh copyright holder.
In this case, if I take a photo, *I* am the copyright holder of that photograph. Think about that one.
Currently, 50 processes. The two highest (memory and VM wise) are Thunderbird which is using (60mb of main memory) and Firefox which is using 55mb of main memory. All the microsoft products I'm running like Visual Studio.NET 2003 are WAY down the list as none are using more than 10-15mb of main memory.
Did you just count those processes, or all of the shared DLLs that are loaded, explorer, etc that is necessary to run them?
Locate doesn't search inside files, and grep doesn't use a database (i.e., it's slow).
for file in `locate whatever` ; do grep "myterm" $file; done
Of course, searching inside images and word-processing files makes it a little more challenging.:)
Using a database would be cool, but I think that it would encourage sloppiness. "I can just save my files anywhere, because I can find whatever I need in them". IMO, that is a bad thing to encourage. However, I do think that it would be helpful to have metadata for backup purposes. Flag a file for backup, then you could just run a backup script to find all of them and back them up. Of course, if your database gets messed up, you are hosed. Unless you have stored your files in logical locations anyway.:)
If they weren't around I'd just be using Yahoo or whatever, and having less unused space in my various free web-based email accounts.
If Google wasn't around, I would be using
Yahoo or whatever for my search engine.
I'd probably still be using Mapquest for maps (and cursing it).
I don't know if I'd be able to search newsgroups the way I do. Would DejaNews still be around?
I guess I'd have to use local.yahoo.com instead of local.google.com to find things in my area.
Image searching - well, I'd be out of luck.
I'd just have to figure out how to do some conversions (like celcius to fahrenheit)
And I don't even use all of Google's features. They are important, because they changed the game. They innovated, in a very simple way (to the end user). Google maps is awesome, but up until Google did it, Mapquest was "good enough". That is why they are important, because they seem to do the things they do VERY well. It would be scary to companies if Google decided to enter their area of expertise.
How do I search? I use "locate", "|", and "grep". That's it. OK, sometimes I use "which" and "find". But I don't even have to use these very often, because I organize my work.
Why is desktop search such a big deal again? Are people just writing files to random locations on their hard drives? Even when I have to use Windows at work, I put things in logical places so I don't have to search for them.
Show all the CGI in the trailers you want, doesn't make it a good film... You notice how the original star wars trailers talk about an experience where as these new ones talk about emotions that morons will find appealing (e.g. how cool is it to blow stuff up!)
It's ALL marketing BS-speak. EVERYTHING now is greater than you can imagine. TV episodes are referred to as "television events" that "you can't afford to miss". Movies are "blockbusters" before they are even released. Every song is a "hit single". Every album is "best-selling". It is all just meaningless crap. Do they keep doing this because it works, or because marketing people are just slime at heart?
Uber-marketing has made words meaningless, unless of course you are a gullible sheep.
Image viewing and Gmail in FF/Opera
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
All the good features in Firefox (gestures, tabbed browsing) were around for a long time in Opera. Likewise, if you've ever used GMail, you have used an imitation of Opera's M2 mail client.
Yes, I have used Gmail. In fact, using Gmail was what made me switch from Opera to Firefox. Gmail didn't work with Opera.
Here is something that Firefox messed up - How about allowing me to have a separate program open images? I don't want FF to handle images in web pages, I want them to open in Irfanview. I can't get this to work in FF (1.0.2). They just took away the option. I tried an extension, it didn't work. Firefox, why take away functionality?
If Gmail works with this new version of Opera, I may have to switch back. It's zoom and mouse gestures are better. If I accidentally close my last tab in Opera, the browser doesn't shut down. i.e. I can have Opera open with no tabs open. If I do that in FF, the browser closes (grrrrrr). With mouse gestures, it is easy to do.
OK, it is probably BS. But how would the RIAA then be able to go after people? How could they prove that you downloaded any copyrighted works? It isn't illegal to download junk files, is it?
You have to grant that IE 6's security flaws never reach seem to reach beyond the Windows platform.
Exactly. But think of the other side of that. 13 security flaws for IE - they all affected Windows. 21 security flaws for Firefox. Let's say, just as an example, that 3 of those were Linux only, and 1 was Mac only. That means that Windows users were only affected by 17 of them. So 13 vs. 17 doesn't seem that far off.
Of course, these are just example numbers, and the original article didn't address it at all.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if more new security problems were located in Firefox in the recent past than in IE during the same time period. That doesn't imply that there are fewer problems in IE than in Firefox, just that fewer were found in a given time period.
Exactly. Not that vulnerabily counts aren't important, but you have to dig for more information. The article said there were 13 reported for IE and 21 for Firefox in the same time period. OK. How many of those have been fixed in IE and in Firefox? What was the breakdown on severity? What platforms were affected?
If the author didn't want to go into all this detail to give a more accurate picture, he shouldn't have just thrown out those numbers. I won't go as far as to say they are meaningless, but they don't paint an accurate picture.
Because Dell looked at the numbers and determined that the exclusively-Intel price discount that Dell gets is more valuable than the potential revenue they'd get by offering AMD.
Exactly. Dell makes business decisions, not decisions that necessarily benefit their customers directly. I am sure there were lots of factors that went into it, like the deals (and pressure) they get from Intel, manufacturing and delivery capabilities, etc.
Of course, it reminds me of the Flaming Homer episode, where Moe is making tons of money off of Homer's drink recipe...
Homer: You just lost yourself a customer! Moe: Wha? I'm sorry, Homer I couldn't hear you Homer: I said you just lost yourself a customer! CHA-CHING Moe: Huh? Homer: You just lost yourself a customer! CHA-CHING Moe: Homer you're going to have to speak up! Homer: You just lost yourself a customer, Moe! CHA-CHING Moe: I've forced myself to wha? Homer: You just lost yourself a customer! CHA-CHING Moe: Homer.. I'll talk to you tomorrow! Homer: You just lost yourself a customer! CHA-CHING Moe: Yeah you can use it!
I have to say that the most useful design documents that I've seen are ones that contain diagrams, flowcharts, and other "pictures" of how the system (or the module, component, whatnot) functions.
Amen. I do Quality Assurance (and for those who don't know, that isn't just testing). I use design docs to figure out how something is supposed to work before I get it. Pictures are good. You can (intentionally) bury information in a 50 page document. It is hard to bury information in pictures. I say "intentionally" above because in the past I worked with a guy who was the director of a development group. He didn't like to design things, or tell people about how things were going to work. So his requirements and design documents were vast containers of information. His standard answer to questions was: It's in the document.
Me: What is the flow of events from beginning to end?
Him: It is in the document.
Me: I couldn't find it. Where is it?
Him: It's in there, you just have to find it. See, here on page 3, and on page 10, and...ummm... You just have to piece the information together, but it is all in there.
Talk about information hiding. In meetings, people would ask questions, and he would say "It's all in the document, should I go get it?" Nobody wanted to spend meeting time sifting through it for answers. And sometimes, the answers weren't there, and we would always get the "I'll add it". Of course, nobody ever checked to make sure he added it.
I fought for months to get him to add a flow diagram in a doc. He kept insisting that all the information was there and that a diagram was useless. After months and months, he finally added it. The FIRST thing that someone said at the next meeting was how useful that diagram was, and they pointed out some improvements to it. It turned out those comments sparked conversations that led to the discovery of flaws that went unnoticed for months. I'll leave it up to the reader to guess who got credit for the diagram in the document. (hint: Senior QA person or director of development)
That was the gp's point. Now Comcast will rewrite this so that it does say they may give away personal information.
And my point is - too late. They already gave out the personal information, and the TOS doesn't say that they can do that. Therefore, they deserve to have their asses handed to them in court.
It's the sound of a thousand TOS agreements being rewritten in every ISP/broadband provider across the country.
"Well you agreed to it when you clicked "yes" on that 400k text file."
Directly from their website:
" Important Note: Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") from time to time without notice by posting a new version of this document on the Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or any successor URL(s)). All revised copies of the Policy are effective immediately upon posting. Accordingly, customers and users of the Comcast High-Speed Internet Service should regularly visit our web site and review this Policy to ensure that their activities conform to the most recent version. In the event of a conflict between any subscriber or customer agreement and this Policy, the terms of this Policy will govern. Questions regarding this Policy and complaints of violations of it by Comcast customers and users can be directed to http://online.comcast.net/contactus/ "
And this...
"Copyright Infringement
Comcast is committed to complying with U.S. copyright and related laws, and requires all customers and users of the Service to comply with these laws. Accordingly, you may not store any material or content on, or disseminate any material or content over, the Service (or any part of the Service) in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including rights granted by U.S. copyright law. Owners of copyrighted works who believe that their rights under U.S. copyright law have been infringed may take advantage of certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the "DMCA") to report alleged infringements. It is Comcast's policy in accordance with the DMCA and other applicable laws to reserve the right to terminate the Service provided to any customer or user who is either found to infringe third party copyright or other intellectual property rights, including repeat infringers, or who Comcast believes in its sole discretion is infringing these rights. Comcast may terminate the Service at any time with or without notice for any affected customer or user.
Copyright owners may report alleged infringements of their works that are stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features by sending Comcast's authorized agent a notification of claimed infringement that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA. Upon Comcast's receipt of a satisfactory notice of claimed infringement for these works, Comcast will respond expeditiously to either directly or indirectly (i) remove the allegedly infringing work(s) stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features or (ii) disable access to the work(s). Comcast will also notify the affected customer or user of the Service of the removal or disabling of access to the work(s). If the affected customer or user believes in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then that person may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the person who sent the original notification of claimed infringement and will follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification. In all events, you expressly agree that Comcast will not be a party to any disputes or lawsuits regarding alleged copyright infringement."
However, nowhere does it say that they may give away your personal information. It just says that they can shut off your service. You can read the entire TOS here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
Amen. Does it mean that I am violating a social contract if I run a website and don't put advertising on it?
Advertisers made their own bed. I remember a few years ago, there was a website up that hosted clips of funny TV commercials. They had a rating system in place, and it was really cool. Then they were shut down, for rights infringement of some kind.
So let me get this straight - advertisers create commercials for their products, and they do so in such a way to get people to watch them. But then they shut down a website that was giving them FREE advertising of their products. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and speaks to the general lunacy of advertising in general.
Is anyone concerned that MP/RIAA would want to know their "enemy" better in order to discover its weaknesses and close it down more effectively? I can picture the discussion with Mr Cerf, and the movie guy is nodding and taking notes furiously, saying, "yes, do go on". It's the same reason some men read Cosmo magazine- it's like getting behind the lines and into the mind of the adversary.
This applies to the ??AA and those men you mention who read Cosmo:
You won't get anywhere until you stop treating those you are trying to understand as adversaries.
I really could give a flying fuck about Windows. I use Linux, I like it better for what I do. As long as I can keep using it, and it keeps improving, I don't care if it "takes over the desktop" or not. If "taking over the desktop" means that the mass population of the US uses it, then I sure don't want that to happen. Because the American Public is, collectively, stupid. We fall for Nigerian scams, watch NASCAR, sit our fat asses in front of the TV for half of our day, eat fast food, watch American Idol, and vote a complete moron into the highest office.
I don't want Linux to take over the desktop, and I am not sure why anyone else does either.
Every time something like this happens, it pushes large companies a step closer towards realizing that perhaps software patents are not an entirely Good Thing for the industry as a whole.
Quite honestly, Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the industry as a whole. Microsoft cares about Microsoft, and overall software patents are a net gain for them. So they have to settle with some small company for pocket change - they win in the end, because they most likely got away with this behavior many times before. And will get away with it again. (and it just isn't Microsoft that does this kind of thing)
From a pure and simple business perspective, I am amazed that the recording industry is still fighting digital music. 5 years ago, you could argue that they were trying to understand this new market. But I think it is quite obvious, now more than ever, that people want to download digital music. The RIAA is content to sue people for this, instead of embracing it and capitalizing on their HUGE catalog of music. I don't think that there has ever been such a no-brainer business decision - they have a proven market. There is no question as to if people want to download music in MP3 format. It is zero risk that music downloads will be accepted. Providing downloads at a reasonable price is just a technical feat at this point, and that is certainly no hurdle.
I simply do not understand why music downloads have not been embraced by the people who own the music. They are being extremely short-sighted.
Irfanview is one of the best pieces of software I have used. I really really wish that it was ported to Linux, I haven't found anything close to it. It is free and it simply kicks ass. It is fast, feature-rich, and has new features added often. It isn't full of restrictions and is not evil. It is the exception to the proprietary software model.
THAT'S for all the short, unhelpful, condescending, a-hole answers given to people who come to the Debian world looking for help but they have failed to phrase their question to your liking.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, ROTJ was held up by the strengths of the other two movies. You know, the old "two out of three ain't bad" rationale. And in fact, as a trilogy, you could overlook the ewoks and bad story because the first two were that damn good.
But now, if you look at all the moview, you have 2 good ones and 3 bad ones. Now all of a sudden, the truth comes out. Lucas got lucky with the first two (or they were good despite his involvement). Once he fully took over the reins, the franchise (in the truest sense of the word) took a quality nosedive. Sure, he still made tons of money, but the movies were terrible. Now, I don't consider the trilogy to be that great, I can weed out ROTJ because it fits in better with the other crap he made.
So you are right that time will tell, but not in the way you thought.
I have never heard anyone wish that Lucas would make *more* Star Wars movies.
*ahem* And to be fair, they do it better, cleaner, and before anyone, including OSS.
In this case, if I take a photo, *I* am the copyright holder of that photograph. Think about that one.
Did you just count those processes, or all of the shared DLLs that are loaded, explorer, etc that is necessary to run them?
for file in `locate whatever` ; do grep "myterm" $file; done
Of course, searching inside images and word-processing files makes it a little more challenging.
Using a database would be cool, but I think that it would encourage sloppiness. "I can just save my files anywhere, because I can find whatever I need in them". IMO, that is a bad thing to encourage. However, I do think that it would be helpful to have metadata for backup purposes. Flag a file for backup, then you could just run a backup script to find all of them and back them up. Of course, if your database gets messed up, you are hosed. Unless you have stored your files in logical locations anyway.
If Google wasn't around, I would be using
Yahoo or whatever for my search engine.
I'd probably still be using Mapquest for maps (and cursing it).
I don't know if I'd be able to search newsgroups the way I do. Would DejaNews still be around?
I guess I'd have to use local.yahoo.com instead of local.google.com to find things in my area.
Image searching - well, I'd be out of luck.
I'd just have to figure out how to do some conversions (like celcius to fahrenheit)
And I don't even use all of Google's features. They are important, because they changed the game. They innovated, in a very simple way (to the end user). Google maps is awesome, but up until Google did it, Mapquest was "good enough". That is why they are important, because they seem to do the things they do VERY well. It would be scary to companies if Google decided to enter their area of expertise.
Why is desktop search such a big deal again? Are people just writing files to random locations on their hard drives? Even when I have to use Windows at work, I put things in logical places so I don't have to search for them.
It's ALL marketing BS-speak. EVERYTHING now is greater than you can imagine. TV episodes are referred to as "television events" that "you can't afford to miss". Movies are "blockbusters" before they are even released. Every song is a "hit single". Every album is "best-selling". It is all just meaningless crap. Do they keep doing this because it works, or because marketing people are just slime at heart?
Uber-marketing has made words meaningless, unless of course you are a gullible sheep.
Yes, I have used Gmail. In fact, using Gmail was what made me switch from Opera to Firefox. Gmail didn't work with Opera.
Here is something that Firefox messed up - How about allowing me to have a separate program open images? I don't want FF to handle images in web pages, I want them to open in Irfanview. I can't get this to work in FF (1.0.2). They just took away the option. I tried an extension, it didn't work. Firefox, why take away functionality?
If Gmail works with this new version of Opera, I may have to switch back. It's zoom and mouse gestures are better. If I accidentally close my last tab in Opera, the browser doesn't shut down. i.e. I can have Opera open with no tabs open. If I do that in FF, the browser closes (grrrrrr). With mouse gestures, it is easy to do.
OK, it is probably BS. But how would the RIAA then be able to go after people? How could they prove that you downloaded any copyrighted works? It isn't illegal to download junk files, is it?
Exactly. But think of the other side of that. 13 security flaws for IE - they all affected Windows. 21 security flaws for Firefox. Let's say, just as an example, that 3 of those were Linux only, and 1 was Mac only. That means that Windows users were only affected by 17 of them. So 13 vs. 17 doesn't seem that far off.
Of course, these are just example numbers, and the original article didn't address it at all.
Exactly. Not that vulnerabily counts aren't important, but you have to dig for more information. The article said there were 13 reported for IE and 21 for Firefox in the same time period. OK. How many of those have been fixed in IE and in Firefox? What was the breakdown on severity? What platforms were affected?
If the author didn't want to go into all this detail to give a more accurate picture, he shouldn't have just thrown out those numbers. I won't go as far as to say they are meaningless, but they don't paint an accurate picture.
Exactly. Dell makes business decisions, not decisions that necessarily benefit their customers directly. I am sure there were lots of factors that went into it, like the deals (and pressure) they get from Intel, manufacturing and delivery capabilities, etc.
Of course, it reminds me of the Flaming Homer episode, where Moe is making tons of money off of Homer's drink recipe...
Amen. I do Quality Assurance (and for those who don't know, that isn't just testing). I use design docs to figure out how something is supposed to work before I get it. Pictures are good. You can (intentionally) bury information in a 50 page document. It is hard to bury information in pictures. I say "intentionally" above because in the past I worked with a guy who was the director of a development group. He didn't like to design things, or tell people about how things were going to work. So his requirements and design documents were vast containers of information. His standard answer to questions was: It's in the document.
Me: What is the flow of events from beginning to end?
Him: It is in the document.
Me: I couldn't find it. Where is it?
Him: It's in there, you just have to find it. See, here on page 3, and on page 10, and...ummm... You just have to piece the information together, but it is all in there.
Talk about information hiding. In meetings, people would ask questions, and he would say "It's all in the document, should I go get it?" Nobody wanted to spend meeting time sifting through it for answers. And sometimes, the answers weren't there, and we would always get the "I'll add it". Of course, nobody ever checked to make sure he added it.
I fought for months to get him to add a flow diagram in a doc. He kept insisting that all the information was there and that a diagram was useless. After months and months, he finally added it. The FIRST thing that someone said at the next meeting was how useful that diagram was, and they pointed out some improvements to it. It turned out those comments sparked conversations that led to the discovery of flaws that went unnoticed for months. I'll leave it up to the reader to guess who got credit for the diagram in the document. (hint: Senior QA person or director of development)
Let me re-iterate: pictures are good.
And my point is - too late. They already gave out the personal information, and the TOS doesn't say that they can do that. Therefore, they deserve to have their asses handed to them in court.
Directly from their website:
" Important Note: Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") from time to time without notice by posting a new version of this document on the Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or any successor URL(s)). All revised copies of the Policy are effective immediately upon posting. Accordingly, customers and users of the Comcast High-Speed Internet Service should regularly visit our web site and review this Policy to ensure that their activities conform to the most recent version. In the event of a conflict between any subscriber or customer agreement and this Policy, the terms of this Policy will govern. Questions regarding this Policy and complaints of violations of it by Comcast customers and users can be directed to http://online.comcast.net/contactus/ "
And this...
"Copyright Infringement Comcast is committed to complying with U.S. copyright and related laws, and requires all customers and users of the Service to comply with these laws. Accordingly, you may not store any material or content on, or disseminate any material or content over, the Service (or any part of the Service) in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including rights granted by U.S. copyright law. Owners of copyrighted works who believe that their rights under U.S. copyright law have been infringed may take advantage of certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the "DMCA") to report alleged infringements. It is Comcast's policy in accordance with the DMCA and other applicable laws to reserve the right to terminate the Service provided to any customer or user who is either found to infringe third party copyright or other intellectual property rights, including repeat infringers, or who Comcast believes in its sole discretion is infringing these rights. Comcast may terminate the Service at any time with or without notice for any affected customer or user. Copyright owners may report alleged infringements of their works that are stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features by sending Comcast's authorized agent a notification of claimed infringement that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA. Upon Comcast's receipt of a satisfactory notice of claimed infringement for these works, Comcast will respond expeditiously to either directly or indirectly (i) remove the allegedly infringing work(s) stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features or (ii) disable access to the work(s). Comcast will also notify the affected customer or user of the Service of the removal or disabling of access to the work(s). If the affected customer or user believes in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then that person may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the person who sent the original notification of claimed infringement and will follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification. In all events, you expressly agree that Comcast will not be a party to any disputes or lawsuits regarding alleged copyright infringement."
However, nowhere does it say that they may give away your personal information. It just says that they can shut off your service. You can read the entire TOS here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
Amen. Does it mean that I am violating a social contract if I run a website and don't put advertising on it?
Advertisers made their own bed. I remember a few years ago, there was a website up that hosted clips of funny TV commercials. They had a rating system in place, and it was really cool. Then they were shut down, for rights infringement of some kind.
So let me get this straight - advertisers create commercials for their products, and they do so in such a way to get people to watch them. But then they shut down a website that was giving them FREE advertising of their products. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and speaks to the general lunacy of advertising in general.
1. Nobody said it was new
2. It was hidden! So to a lot of people, it is new. It is new to me, and I use google every day.
I don't understand why this making the news is such a dork-irker. Geeks on their high-horses. *sigh*
This applies to the ??AA and those men you mention who read Cosmo: You won't get anywhere until you stop treating those you are trying to understand as adversaries.
I really could give a flying fuck about Windows. I use Linux, I like it better for what I do. As long as I can keep using it, and it keeps improving, I don't care if it "takes over the desktop" or not. If "taking over the desktop" means that the mass population of the US uses it, then I sure don't want that to happen. Because the American Public is, collectively, stupid. We fall for Nigerian scams, watch NASCAR, sit our fat asses in front of the TV for half of our day, eat fast food, watch American Idol, and vote a complete moron into the highest office.
I don't want Linux to take over the desktop, and I am not sure why anyone else does either.
Quite honestly, Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the industry as a whole. Microsoft cares about Microsoft, and overall software patents are a net gain for them. So they have to settle with some small company for pocket change - they win in the end, because they most likely got away with this behavior many times before. And will get away with it again. (and it just isn't Microsoft that does this kind of thing)
I simply do not understand why music downloads have not been embraced by the people who own the music. They are being extremely short-sighted.
Irfanview is one of the best pieces of software I have used. I really really wish that it was ported to Linux, I haven't found anything close to it. It is free and it simply kicks ass. It is fast, feature-rich, and has new features added often. It isn't full of restrictions and is not evil. It is the exception to the proprietary software model.
THAT'S for all the short, unhelpful, condescending, a-hole answers given to people who come to the Debian world looking for help but they have failed to phrase their question to your liking.