I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this yet, but there is a somewhat helpful service: www.unclaimeddomains.com. I believe that it posts you a daily/weekly email of domains that have expired and are now available.
I have not tried the service, but some users have complained that 'expired' domains, are not being released by NSI. Kinda kills off the value of the service, eh?
Anyway, I figuure that someone might find it useful - I picked up the URL from thelist at evolt.org.
hearing that they plan to make their software purposely incompatible with the Palm Pilot.
Funnily enough, and unless I'm mistaken, the other week/. linked to an article about Microsoft developing the next version of Office for the Mac OS to specifically include support for the Palm Pilot ahead of it's own Pocket PC.
Will this service of theirs always be dependent on an external server, or will businesses run secure, internal servers? So, the outside lines to the Web can go down, but as long as the LAN is up, employees can still write their docs?
Remember that corporate/intranet demand is what *really* drives Microsoft. That's why Outlook, etc is, by default, insecure - because it's intended for use primarily behind big company firewalls where they need to send tonnes of HTML mail reports, and auto-running PowerPoint presentations, and all that junk. That's also why Internet Explorer doesn't abide by standards 100% - because it's coded in a way to facilitate functions demanded by the huge Microsoft customers (the companies).
I'm unaware of the exact licensing system they're proposing, but you'd think that shifting to an application rental system would stabilise their revenue stream somewhat. There are ways that it can work for the customers - which I'm sure they'll give a go.
And I don't think it's an entirely bad idea. I use a few applications from their Office suite (Outlook, Word, Access), and I only use Word occasionally. I'd prefer to pay-per-use, rather than have to fork out for every update, or buy all of Office, etc.
However, that said, for home users, being ever-reliant on a Net connection at this time is not going to work wonderfully. Perhaps in a couple of years when they release this thing, Net connections will be more reliable and affordable (especially here in Australia).
As has been answered above, the GIMP does not have all of that at all. It doesn't have in-layer text editing, magnetic selection tools, or optimising features (like FireWorks and ImageReady).
If it doesn't have these specific features, then it obviously can't do "a lot of that much better than Photoshop does".
A simple save of a PNG (or some other horrendously unsupported image format perhaps?) does not count as an optimising tool/feature.
I am a longtime and frequent Photoshop user (ie, any number of hours per day). I use the standard Photoshop filters, and even then - only a few of them. I tried Alien Skin and Kai's Power Tools and Swt-Flux when I first started using Photoshop, and have long since uninstalled them.
When I first saw The GIMP, I laughed at the number of filters - it was ridiculous.
More and more filters won't bring more people to the GIMP - if they won't use it, it's because it's just not Photoshop. The interface isn't the same. When I tried it briefly a few months ago, it felt flaky and I hated it.
That, coupled with the fact that every call for graphic designers in the employment pages asks for Photoshop knowledge, and the GIMP faces an incredibly hard battle to build acceptance amongst designers.
Does the GIMP currently have (or likely to add in the very near future): editable text layers, layer effects, in-layer text editing, magnetic selection tools, multiple-level undo, integration with optimising tools, etc?
Don't waste time with so many plug-ins and filters, and refine implementation of the fundamentals. The plug-ins should be a later priority.
2. "PowerPoint 2001 will incorporate a new tri-pane interface..."
Wow. I mean, honestly, that really isn't much "innovation", does it?
The line from Microsoft didn't seem to suggest that they thought it was particularly innovative - just new to Powerpoint. You will find examples of Microsoft's "innovation" if you visit their research subdomain. I happen to think that security issues aside, browser/email/etc integration with the OS is a great idea. Interestingly enough, it's something that Jakob Nielsen agrees with.
If Microsoft are split into OS and Applications, just watch them turn the browser INTO the OS, and begin their integration all over again (Office apps running from IE, Outlook from IE, etc). I don't know much about the Pocket PC of theirs but I'm sure they'll manage it there too.
Microsoft's move to sync with the Palm ahead of the Pocket PC is not at all silly. Notice in the article that an analyst calls it an "incredibly stupid" idea, but in the very next line admits that it makes sense. The Mac and Windows Office development teams are apparently fairly distinct and share little code. It'd be more viable for them to spend time syncing the Mac version of Office with Palm, but for the Windows release, going with Pocket PC and whatever else.
In the past there have undoubtedly been thousands of/. comments: "Why don't they just use (free/paid) digital downloads as a method of distribution?"
Then when someone steps up to try it, thousands of/.ers start screaming "I can't wait to crack this protection scheme to escape having to pay for it!"
There's your answer to "Why won't they use online distribution?"
You know those films that tonnes of people enjoy? The Matrix, etc? They cost a shitload of money to make. By cracking protection schemes, you contribute to the lack of progression in the industry from via-cinema, via-DVD, and via-videotape to online distribution. And the less viable these huge films are to produce, the fewer will be created.
(And not all of the money gets wasted on big name actors. Look at The Matrix, they avoided ultra expensive actors (I'm doubting that Keanu was paid a Tom Cruise salary...) and still spent a fortune on special effects that nearly everyone loved to bits.)
There is no doubt that online distribution is one of the pathways to the future (especially with the introduction of higher bandwidth for most users), but anyone who cracks the first steps, or urges others to do the same, is discouraging other production houses to try online distribution too.
I read a version of the article on MacWeek.com. It was a fairly neutral article, but the user comments were mostly negative. Photoshop 6 doesn't seem to have too many new features - but at least they're pushing the layer limit past 99. I hate having to merge layers to keep under that threshold in the latter stages of a project.
One feature they desperately need is layer groups/folders. You can link layers, etc, but being able to shift groups of them around in the layers palette (not changing the x/y positioning within the document itself though, just the z) would be very handy.
And also, they need to switch the usage of the M key back to Photoshop 4 style, where it switched between rectangular and circular marquee select modes. In Photoshop 5 it just selects the previously used one, and repeatedly hitting it does SFA (unless it's just my version).
After all, it's still protected by copyright, isn't it?
From previous articles and comments (the 'Microsoft suing' issue specifically), one would think that copyright means nothing to some slashdot.org users...
I don't think that something being "open source" necessitates it being free, but if this group (slashdot readers) is considered somewhat representative of the viewpoints of programmers in general, then I can understand the reluctance of companies to disclose their source code.
Link: Managing Director of Crimenet says visitors to the updated site must state if they are jurors on a trial before they can access information.
Link: "Queensland has joined New South Wales and Victoria in expressing concern about the impact of an Internet site which contains details on criminals."
Link: "Australian attorneys-general will consider ways to protect the jury system, after an Internet site forced a murder trial to be aborted."
And yet, despite all the efforts of the US government, surely there would still be many government departments approving the purchase of further Microsoft software, and the standardising of further government networks on Microsoft software, right?
If you don't like the practises of a certain business, the first thing you do is take your business elsewhere... Is the US government doing this 100%?
Or are they handing Microsoft more money with which to legally defend themselves?
They are laughing at the GPL, and others will follow. When violations are discovered, nothing is done about it; how will this discourage other companies from making future violations themselves?
If you ripped off the company in question, do you think that they'd give you a few weeks to get your shit together? Do you think that you'd get away with a little apology? I don't think so - they'd come after you, and hard.
Supporters of the GPL should not sit back for a couple of weeks and let this slide. Open up your eyes...
(sorry if this has already been mentioned - i read at a threshold of 2, so i might've missed this comment being made.)
in australia, old government hardware is generally auctioned off. don't they do this in the states?
storing stuff in warehouses for 10 years is gonna leave them with virtually worthless machines that not many people will want. at least if they dump stuff while it's still half-useful, they can get back some cash...
evolt.org has a positive review of Napster here, with a walkthrough on how to use it. A couple of people have posted follow ups with some extra info.
As others have posted, Wired is reporting that the RIAA is suing Napster - because apparently alot of Napster traffic is made up of unauthorised music.
Alot of Internet traffic relates to illegal activites, etc, so err, let's sue it!;p
One of these additions suggests that the Unisys patent is not enforceable in Australia (among a few other major countries). I encourage people to read the article linked, and (even though it was posted back in August) feel free to add further information likely to be considered relevant.
Please note that evolt.org is a resource largely for Web designers, so even though there are many OSS-related postings, a lot of the content is aimed at those who produce their images on Windows/MacOS machines. As such, the original article is more of a "if you are using Photoshop, then calm down - you're OK!" type thing, than applicable to those using free image-manipulating software.
not sure if anyone else has posted this yet, but arstechnica did some benchmarking, and you can read the article here.
2 celeron 300A's OCed to 504MHz each vs 2 PIII 500's OCed to 560MHz each
there were a couple of differences in the systems, but the celerons beat the pIII's in almost every test... they're the only numbers i've seen on this issue - interesting at the very least
are you using photoshop 5.0.2? it handles text (esp at low point sizes i believe - helpful for designing for the web) better than v5
also, v5.5 is out soon, and it integrates ImageReady 2.0 plus a number of new web features. ImageReady will give you a hand in compressing JPEGs.
im using Photoshop 5.0.2 atm, and jumping across to ImageReady to optimise images for the web. it works very nicely. one thing pshop misses is applying text to a curve etc. i use freehand for that. wouldnt mind seeing that functionality added to pshop...
anyway, if you havent upgraded to 5.0.2, give it a go. there's a free patch somewhere on the adobe site i think.
unenforcable or not, it will still cost us a tonne of unnecessarily wasted money. the ABA will need to employ more people to cover all the complaints they plan on getting. they've already asked for increased funding, and i bet they'll get it...
and while the bill popped up occasionally in the news (mostly in The Australian on tuesdays - which features 50+ pages of tech news) when i asked my parents if they'd heard of it - they were not aware that it was going on.
i think we can pretty much kiss alot of future venture capital/investments in australian internet technology goodbye.:(
one day i'll set up http://censorship.is.f-cked.com...:p
(below stuff applies if the page in question is simply a string of banners. i couldnt be bothered looking to check for myself)
actually, hitting the page with banners hard, but *not* clicking through could get the guy's banner accounts terminated. alot of those places will kill accounts which are providing incredibly poor clickthrough ratios and/or poor signup ratios despite paying out for clickthroughs.
they also tend to have anti-spam regulations - just contact the owners of the banner ads, give them the details, and chances are, the dudes account will be finished. no cash for his clickthroughs. awwww.;p
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this yet, but there is a somewhat helpful service: www.unclaimeddomains.com. I believe that it posts you a daily/weekly email of domains that have expired and are now available.
I have not tried the service, but some users have complained that 'expired' domains, are not being released by NSI. Kinda kills off the value of the service, eh?
Anyway, I figuure that someone might find it useful - I picked up the URL from thelist at evolt.org.
hearing that they plan to make their software purposely incompatible with the Palm Pilot.
Funnily enough, and unless I'm mistaken, the other week /. linked to an article about Microsoft developing the next version of Office for the Mac OS to specifically include support for the Palm Pilot ahead of it's own Pocket PC.
So you can now feel slightly less outraged, eh?
Will this service of theirs always be dependent on an external server, or will businesses run secure, internal servers? So, the outside lines to the Web can go down, but as long as the LAN is up, employees can still write their docs?
Remember that corporate/intranet demand is what *really* drives Microsoft. That's why Outlook, etc is, by default, insecure - because it's intended for use primarily behind big company firewalls where they need to send tonnes of HTML mail reports, and auto-running PowerPoint presentations, and all that junk. That's also why Internet Explorer doesn't abide by standards 100% - because it's coded in a way to facilitate functions demanded by the huge Microsoft customers (the companies).
I'm unaware of the exact licensing system they're proposing, but you'd think that shifting to an application rental system would stabilise their revenue stream somewhat. There are ways that it can work for the customers - which I'm sure they'll give a go.
And I don't think it's an entirely bad idea. I use a few applications from their Office suite (Outlook, Word, Access), and I only use Word occasionally. I'd prefer to pay-per-use, rather than have to fork out for every update, or buy all of Office, etc.
However, that said, for home users, being ever-reliant on a Net connection at this time is not going to work wonderfully. Perhaps in a couple of years when they release this thing, Net connections will be more reliable and affordable (especially here in Australia).
As has been answered above, the GIMP does not have all of that at all. It doesn't have in-layer text editing, magnetic selection tools, or optimising features (like FireWorks and ImageReady).
If it doesn't have these specific features, then it obviously can't do "a lot of that much better than Photoshop does".
A simple save of a PNG (or some other horrendously unsupported image format perhaps?) does not count as an optimising tool/feature.
I am a longtime and frequent Photoshop user (ie, any number of hours per day). I use the standard Photoshop filters, and even then - only a few of them. I tried Alien Skin and Kai's Power Tools and Swt-Flux when I first started using Photoshop, and have long since uninstalled them.
When I first saw The GIMP, I laughed at the number of filters - it was ridiculous.
More and more filters won't bring more people to the GIMP - if they won't use it, it's because it's just not Photoshop. The interface isn't the same. When I tried it briefly a few months ago, it felt flaky and I hated it.
That, coupled with the fact that every call for graphic designers in the employment pages asks for Photoshop knowledge, and the GIMP faces an incredibly hard battle to build acceptance amongst designers.
Does the GIMP currently have (or likely to add in the very near future): editable text layers, layer effects, in-layer text editing, magnetic selection tools, multiple-level undo, integration with optimising tools, etc?
Don't waste time with so many plug-ins and filters, and refine implementation of the fundamentals. The plug-ins should be a later priority.
2. "PowerPoint 2001 will incorporate a new tri-pane interface ..."
Wow. I mean, honestly, that really isn't much "innovation", does it?
The line from Microsoft didn't seem to suggest that they thought it was particularly innovative - just new to Powerpoint. You will find examples of Microsoft's "innovation" if you visit their research subdomain. I happen to think that security issues aside, browser/email/etc integration with the OS is a great idea. Interestingly enough, it's something that Jakob Nielsen agrees with.
If Microsoft are split into OS and Applications, just watch them turn the browser INTO the OS, and begin their integration all over again (Office apps running from IE, Outlook from IE, etc). I don't know much about the Pocket PC of theirs but I'm sure they'll manage it there too.
Microsoft's move to sync with the Palm ahead of the Pocket PC is not at all silly. Notice in the article that an analyst calls it an "incredibly stupid" idea, but in the very next line admits that it makes sense. The Mac and Windows Office development teams are apparently fairly distinct and share little code. It'd be more viable for them to spend time syncing the Mac version of Office with Palm, but for the Windows release, going with Pocket PC and whatever else.
In the past there have undoubtedly been thousands of /. comments: "Why don't they just use (free/paid) digital downloads as a method of distribution?"
/.ers start screaming "I can't wait to crack this protection scheme to escape having to pay for it!"
Then when someone steps up to try it, thousands of
There's your answer to "Why won't they use online distribution?"
You know those films that tonnes of people enjoy? The Matrix, etc? They cost a shitload of money to make. By cracking protection schemes, you contribute to the lack of progression in the industry from via-cinema, via-DVD, and via-videotape to online distribution. And the less viable these huge films are to produce, the fewer will be created.
(And not all of the money gets wasted on big name actors. Look at The Matrix, they avoided ultra expensive actors (I'm doubting that Keanu was paid a Tom Cruise salary...) and still spent a fortune on special effects that nearly everyone loved to bits.)
There is no doubt that online distribution is one of the pathways to the future (especially with the introduction of higher bandwidth for most users), but anyone who cracks the first steps, or urges others to do the same, is discouraging other production houses to try online distribution too.
You know, a troll would've responded with "The super-human vision is to allow him to find his penis, and the bionic claw is for... Oouuuuuuch!"
:)
But I don't want to start any trouble...
I read a version of the article on MacWeek.com. It was a fairly neutral article, but the user comments were mostly negative. Photoshop 6 doesn't seem to have too many new features - but at least they're pushing the layer limit past 99. I hate having to merge layers to keep under that threshold in the latter stages of a project.
One feature they desperately need is layer groups/folders. You can link layers, etc, but being able to shift groups of them around in the layers palette (not changing the x/y positioning within the document itself though, just the z) would be very handy.
And also, they need to switch the usage of the M key back to Photoshop 4 style, where it switched between rectangular and circular marquee select modes. In Photoshop 5 it just selects the previously used one, and repeatedly hitting it does SFA (unless it's just my version).
Some companies are going down all the time too - check out this entertaining site: FuckedCompany .
Score points for predicting the death of dotcoms... Kinda like e-Trade with a cooler URL, eh?
;)
After all, it's still protected by copyright, isn't it?
From previous articles and comments (the 'Microsoft suing' issue specifically), one would think that copyright means nothing to some slashdot.org users...
I don't think that something being "open source" necessitates it being free, but if this group (slashdot readers) is considered somewhat representative of the viewpoints of programmers in general, then I can understand the reluctance of companies to disclose their source code.
Link: Managing Director of Crimenet says visitors to the updated site must state if they are jurors on a trial before they can access information.
Link: "Queensland has joined New South Wales and Victoria in expressing concern about the impact of an Internet site which contains details on criminals."
Link: "Australian attorneys-general will consider ways to protect the jury system, after an Internet site forced a murder trial to be aborted."
Yeh, let them have their .god - it'll just make it easier for school libraries and family homes to filter out religious junk.
;)
Also, maybe it would stop people getting thousands of church URLs everytime they try to search for their porn...
Someone already grabbed fuck.god... ;(
And yet, despite all the efforts of the US government, surely there would still be many government departments approving the purchase of further Microsoft software, and the standardising of further government networks on Microsoft software, right?
If you don't like the practises of a certain business, the first thing you do is take your business elsewhere... Is the US government doing this 100%?
Or are they handing Microsoft more money with which to legally defend themselves?
They are laughing at the GPL, and others will follow. When violations are discovered, nothing is done about it; how will this discourage other companies from making future violations themselves?
If you ripped off the company in question, do you think that they'd give you a few weeks to get your shit together? Do you think that you'd get away with a little apology? I don't think so - they'd come after you, and hard.
Supporters of the GPL should not sit back for a couple of weeks and let this slide. Open up your eyes...
(sorry if this has already been mentioned - i read at a threshold of 2, so i might've missed this comment being made.)
in australia, old government hardware is generally auctioned off. don't they do this in the states?
storing stuff in warehouses for 10 years is gonna leave them with virtually worthless machines that not many people will want. at least if they dump stuff while it's still half-useful, they can get back some cash...
GST comes into effect in July. Censorship begins January 1, 2000, AFAIK.
evolt.org has a positive review of Napster here, with a walkthrough on how to use it. A couple of people have posted follow ups with some extra info.
;p
As others have posted, Wired is reporting that the RIAA is suing Napster - because apparently alot of Napster traffic is made up of unauthorised music.
Alot of Internet traffic relates to illegal activites, etc, so err, let's sue it!
There's an article at evolt.org ( Don't Panic About GIFs ) on this subject, with a few added comments /.-style from readers.
One of these additions suggests that the Unisys patent is not enforceable in Australia (among a few other major countries). I encourage people to read the article linked, and (even though it was posted back in August) feel free to add further information likely to be considered relevant.
Please note that evolt.org is a resource largely for Web designers, so even though there are many OSS-related postings, a lot of the content is aimed at those who produce their images on Windows/MacOS machines. As such, the original article is more of a "if you are using Photoshop, then calm down - you're OK!" type thing, than applicable to those using free image-manipulating software.
you're right - mac stuff in australia is ridiculously expensive: AU$9000 for a big monitor. that's approx US$6000+
bleargh.
not sure if anyone else has posted this yet, but arstechnica did some benchmarking, and you can read the article here.
2 celeron 300A's OCed to 504MHz each
vs
2 PIII 500's OCed to 560MHz each
there were a couple of differences in the systems, but the celerons beat the pIII's in almost every test... they're the only numbers i've seen on this issue - interesting at the very least
are you using photoshop 5.0.2? it handles text (esp at low point sizes i believe - helpful for designing for the web) better than v5
also, v5.5 is out soon, and it integrates ImageReady 2.0 plus a number of new web features. ImageReady will give you a hand in compressing JPEGs.
im using Photoshop 5.0.2 atm, and jumping across to ImageReady to optimise images for the web. it works very nicely. one thing pshop misses is applying text to a curve etc. i use freehand for that. wouldnt mind seeing that functionality added to pshop...
anyway, if you havent upgraded to 5.0.2, give it a go. there's a free patch somewhere on the adobe site i think.
good luck
unenforcable or not, it will still cost us a tonne of unnecessarily wasted money. the ABA will need to employ more people to cover all the complaints they plan on getting. they've already asked for increased funding, and i bet they'll get it...
:(
... :p
and while the bill popped up occasionally in the news (mostly in The Australian on tuesdays - which features 50+ pages of tech news) when i asked my parents if they'd heard of it - they were not aware that it was going on.
i think we can pretty much kiss alot of future venture capital/investments in australian internet technology goodbye.
one day i'll set up http://censorship.is.f-cked.com
(below stuff applies if the page in question is simply a string of banners. i couldnt be bothered looking to check for myself)
;p
actually, hitting the page with banners hard, but *not* clicking through could get the guy's banner accounts terminated. alot of those places will kill accounts which are providing incredibly poor clickthrough ratios and/or poor signup ratios despite paying out for clickthroughs.
they also tend to have anti-spam regulations - just contact the owners of the banner ads, give them the details, and chances are, the dudes account will be finished. no cash for his clickthroughs. awwww.