Actually, modern Fortran isn't too bad a language. Much better than C for anything involving calculations IMO.
That's not to say that I'd use Fortran, only that it's hardly the worst choice out there. Ada? ASM? C (though despite its evils, more people do know C)? Pascal?
Qt is licensed under the GPL, with the option of a commercial license for a fee.
It's not LGPL, sure. That means that commerical developers must buy a license from TrollTech or make the source to their application availible under the GPL. Not ideal for developers, but TrollTech are not a charity, and in my view they're rather generous to permit Qt to be used under the GPL (yes, it's just good business, but still...).
I'd like Qt under the LGPL - or heck, the BSD license - too, but I don't see a viable way to keep Trolltech in business. I can't see any reason why they would release it under such a license, and think it'd be pretty dumb to ask them to. Additionally, TrollTech do the vast majority of the development on Qt, and I'd like it to continue improving so I can have more introspection and meta-object goodness in C++.
Commercial developers have two perfectly good options - use Gtk, or buy a Qt license. I don't see that as a big deal. Remember that the "competition" is hardly in the business of offering cross platform GUI toolkits.
'fraid I can't agree. I'm a heavy Python user myself, but writing portable Python apps is a pain. The code is portable, sure - but the user generally has to download, compile, and install things like mxDateTime, a DB interface, a GUI toolkit, etc. That, or use the distro shipped versions that may or may not be up to date and compatible.
Sure, I could use Tkinter and Gadfly, but for many purposes that just doesn't cut it, and Tkinter wastes a lot of my time compared to Qt.
Java may have an awful GUI toolkit (Swing) but at least it's there - and SWT from Eclipse is pretty darn impressive.
Generally I choose to use Python anyway, but if my app was to be very widely distributed and I couldn't just tell people "get non-mouldware versions of Python and the libraries" I'm not sure Python would be worth the trouble.
Exactly. That's why the copyright system needs reform - saner time limits, and probably automatic entry into the public domain if the rights holder decides to kill it.
I think sites like that reduce the chances of such reform happening.
It's the collateral damage I worry about. Most specifically, the introduction of even more stupid laws and extended protections to help the industry cling on in its current form. Laws that can do a LOT more harm outside the entertainment industry. Witness the DMCA, for example.
Sure, we could ignore the law. Which laws do we choose to ignore? How do we justify our action and then tell others we believe they're wrong about theirs? I don't think we can. Additionally, I'd rather NOT break my country's laws if I don't have to, and feel that in this case there is a realistic chance to change them instead.
Personally, I'm very far from convinced the entertainment (esp music/film) industry will go away, but I do expect them to be forced to change considerably. It's clear they don't like this;-)
Agreed, providing a list isn't illegal. Maintaining a list that you know is and will be used for copyright infringement might be though - hard to say. I didn't say I liked the way these people have been takend down (and we don't know why they were anyway), only that I wasn't sad to see them go.
I want to see things fixed properly and the copyright system restored to some sane balance. Ignoring the law it will only make that harder IMO. I've written more about this in other replies to replies to my original post.
I've explained this fully in my other replies to replies to my post, but in brief:
Agreed, I think it's stupid that they can entirely control their work when the've just built on the public domain. I don't like the current situation, I think it's totally unresonable and getting more so. I do think we should try to change the law rather than ignoring it or the problem will only get worse, and I think sites like this harm rather than help that aim.
You make a good point. It doesn't change the fact that I'm hardly sad to see them go (but see my other replies to replies to my post - lots of folks have asssumed I like the current laws and power balance, which is just right off), but you're quite right that they weren't hosting anything illegal.
Of course, they were tacitly condoning the hosting and downloading, which is probably what's shut them down. All we can do right now is guess anyway.
Hell, I'm with you. I think the current situation totally sucks. Check out my other replies so I don't repeat myself ad nausium.
As for technology - hell yes. Problem is, ignoring copyright law makes it less likely that we'll get anything like that, and more likely that if we do, it'll be so locked down with DRM that it's totally useless.
I find the industry's lack of imagination and determination to hang on to their existing distribution model very frustrating. I want it to change, because I don't want to have to break the law to watch a DVD for example. I think people who ignore the rules rather than try to change them harm the chances of that ever happening.
heh - check out my past posts if you want to see my view on the USA. Suffice it to say that I don't think you'll find I'm a bush fan;-)
I'm also hardly going to argue that breaking copyrigh law is in any way up there on the bad scale. That wasn't the point, though, and you're attempting to refute an argument I didn't try to make.
Of course, on/. if this was a company using GPL code, it _would_ be the end of the world. *sigh*. Yes, I'm a contributor to GPL projects, not a whining observer. I'd be pretty mad if it happened to me. Since my work is protected by the SAME LAW that these people are ignoring, they kind of shit me.
My view is that ignoring copyright law weakens our chances of fixing it and reduces our chances of actually making a more balanced system possible. In fact, it probably gives the large media powers more ability to make the law even less reasonable. Is that really a fair price for a few free movies?
I agree. However, I don't think the right solution is to ignore the law - rather, I think the solution is to attempt to fix the law. It'll be slow and painful, but I do think it's possible. If nobody respects the law and instead decides to ignore it, that will only give the corporate interests more ability to harm them and make it easier for them to persuade politicians that even stronger laws are required.
I'd be much happier with a more balanced copyright scheme, but think we have to work to change it rather than ignoring it. These people make me angry because they go around ignoring copyright law, then scream when someone does the same to them. I'm hardly perfect when it comes to hypocrisy, but at least I try.
My original statement was poorly phrased, but I think the point stands.
Agreed. I think it's rather shady to make it illegal to do so, too.
Nonetheless, that's the law. I think it's important to attempt to change that law so that things are more flexible, because I don't like the current state, but I don't think just ignoring the law is either ethical or helpful.
That's a darn good point - thanks. That message was posted partly out of irritation at all the/. "oh no, we can't download whatever we want anymore" whining, and could definitely have been clearer.
While I must agree, I don't think CMYK support is much good without colour management support. It's a non-trivial task and needs to be approached carefully - bad support is IMO worse than none at all.
Also, remember that there _is_ a class of users who don't care about CMYK in the slightest. Weird, I know, but they're out there. Some of them should be using CMYK and are too clueless to know it, but some of them either use decent printers and RIPs that handle ICC-tagged RGB correctly, or aren't targeting print.
In fact, some magazine printers now prefer ICC tagged RGB, because they can use extra inks for better photo colour, something that's not possible if the image is already in CMYK.
Frankly, I'd also like the option to have a path field always displayed. The lack is frustrating. Heck, even if the filename widget was added to the dialog by a keystroke and/or button, rather than popped up, that'd be fine.
That said, I don't think it should be there by default, and I do think it's a MASSIVE improvement over the gag-worthy gtk dialogs that were in use before.
I kid you not when I say that the inconsistent open/save dialogs are actually a MAJOR usability problem and a serious adoption barrier for Linux/OSS. Less bright users - that being users in general - get rather confused by all the open/save dialogs. It's understandable for people who don't understand the computer at all - and that's a training / education problem that isn't ever going to get properly solved IMO. Even for experienced user it can be really frustrating. Use tab completion in open/save dialogs? Do I use <enter> or <tab> in this one? *fume*
At least the new dialog still has good keyboard naviation.
While I can't really argue about the name, I think your UI criticisms are somewhat less valid.
Almost everybody I know with a problem with the GIMP's UI is an experienced photoshop user. I learned both apps at roughtly the same time, and find the GIMP 2.0's UI acceptably usable in comparison to that of Photoshop (on MacOS - the Windows photoshop UI makes the GIMP look like UI heven). I'm hardly one to claim it's perfect, but the GIMP 2.0's interface is IMO quite usable. (Lets just not talk about 1.x - ugh).
For those who want the GIMP to be Photoshop (not saying you're one of them) I think it would be valid to have a "photoshop user mode" for the GIMP, but in the end the GIMP is _not_ a photoshop clone, and the developers are trying to make a usable UI not clone the photoshop UI. I would also argue that there are better ways for them to spend their time than redoing the already working UI.
At least you don't seem to expect the app to just clone the Photoshop UI, which seems to be the most common expectation from folks who dislike the GIMP's UI. Seriously, Photoshop is not the be-all and end-all of user interface design - I find it cluttered and frustrating, though mostly due to the train wreck that is window management under MacOS. I find the Windows MDI version even worse. I think it's the best UI out there for a graphics app, but it's hardly perfect and it's severely limited by the braindead window management of major platforms.
For me personally, the real issue with the GIMP is technical limitations. The lack of CMYK support, colour management, and 48 bit colour means that for my personal needs - prepress photo manipulation - it's basically useless. Of course, that's only one small area in a very big field.
Re:Seriously... Why would you use this?
on
GIMP 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Why use Photoshop?
Speed CMYK support Colour management 48bit colour
If you're working with images a lot, it's simply worth the money assuming your time is worth something.
I find the GIMP very handy and like it quite a bit, but IMO it's no Photoshop substitute.
That's a darn good point. I think the chances are good, but you're quite right - there's no evidence. Assumptions are dangerous things, so thanks for calling this one.
These sites really had it coming, frankly. While I'm concerned about corporate power, and less than thrilled with the modern media, they weren't trying to do anything about that - they were just plain illegal. Not in a recent way, either - they were ignoring the same copyright laws that protect the software I write, and the GPL so many here are so fond of.
I'd find it far easier to understand a site that restricted its self to things not otherwise availible than sites like these that appear to have no problem with full scale piracy. Yes, I realise that would still be illegal - but IMO rather less offensive.
I used to be a bit more sympathetic to this stuff, but I know too many people who view it as their RIGHT to access other people's work for free, without their permission. I guess its just another version of the "information wants to be free" zealotry (Free Software bigots who don't actually understand free software and usually hypocrites. The few, very loud ones that give the whole community a bad name to some.).
Regarding the speed of IMAP, I most vehemently disagree. There are many ways to make IMAP access faster that clients can - and do - implement. Options include:
Local header and flags cache with UUID invalidation
Smart header downloading (eg messages in client's current view, then new messages, then old messages)
Local message caching
Background message downloading
If you want to see the difference a client can make, I strongly suggest you compare mutt and Ximian Evolution. Evolution isn't even all that good - mulberry leaves it in the dust.
As for maildir - I agree. I like the maildir design, and when I need local mailboxes I always end up using maildir or some close relation of it. I didn't mention it earlier simply because it wasn't relevent - I wasn't writing a comprehensive mail storage format summary. My personal needs mean that an IMAP server is better for me (though the IMAP server I use, Cyrus IMAPd, has maildir-like back-end storage), and I find it performs very well indeed.
One issue you didn't mention with maildir is its dependency on the filesystem not being crap. Maildir really needs a _fast_ filesystem - especially fast at handling many small files. It also needs a filesystem that doesn't have low limits on directory size. Not a problem for me, but a very real one for others.
TB and Mozilla Mail before it do use MBOX files, with all the advantages and problems. They also use index files that mean they don't have to load the whole MBOX to get a message.
If TB takes a long time to start up, I don't want to think about the user's mail database size - and I have 800,000 or so messages myself.
MBOX:
Needs external index for seeking not to suck
Corrupted more easily than single-file stores
Harder to corrupt than database stores
Deleting is extremely slow, so most mail clients only actually delete messages by "compacting" periodically and just flag things for deletion the rest of the time.
Fast to read sequentially
Access from multiple clients sucks
Frankly, I think win2k3 and RHEL are both priced out of the SMB market. The fact that people buy them anyway probably has more to do with their lack of knowledge of the alternatives than anything else.
RH has a fairly hefty annual subscription - not too bad for US companies, but fairly punishing for many outside the US. OTOH, you can connect as many clients to it as you want.
Win2k3, on the other hand, only costs you once, but you have to pay fairly hefty fees to connect new clients to it.
In the end, while I think it does depend on what you need to do, I think BOTH are just too darn expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, modern Fortran isn't too bad a language. Much better than C for anything involving calculations IMO.
That's not to say that I'd use Fortran, only that it's hardly the worst choice out there. Ada? ASM? C (though despite its evils, more people do know C)? Pascal?
And, of course, DEC 19 is when they hex you.
Oh wow - that some darn hot coffee. Pressurised and probably explosive, in fact. Ouch.
Oh, Fahrenheit. That's very much less entertaining, and the lack of lawsuits will be disappointing, too. *sigh*.
Qt is licensed under the GPL, with the option of a commercial license for a fee.
It's not LGPL, sure. That means that commerical developers must buy a license from TrollTech or make the source to their application availible under the GPL. Not ideal for developers, but TrollTech are not a charity, and in my view they're rather generous to permit Qt to be used under the GPL (yes, it's just good business, but still...).
I'd like Qt under the LGPL - or heck, the BSD license - too, but I don't see a viable way to keep Trolltech in business. I can't see any reason why they would release it under such a license, and think it'd be pretty dumb to ask them to. Additionally, TrollTech do the vast majority of the development on Qt, and I'd like it to continue improving so I can have more introspection and meta-object goodness in C++.
Commercial developers have two perfectly good options - use Gtk, or buy a Qt license. I don't see that as a big deal. Remember that the "competition" is hardly in the business of offering cross platform GUI toolkits.
'fraid I can't agree. I'm a heavy Python user myself, but writing portable Python apps is a pain. The code is portable, sure - but the user generally has to download, compile, and install things like mxDateTime, a DB interface, a GUI toolkit, etc. That, or use the distro shipped versions that may or may not be up to date and compatible.
Sure, I could use Tkinter and Gadfly, but for many purposes that just doesn't cut it, and Tkinter wastes a lot of my time compared to Qt.
Java may have an awful GUI toolkit (Swing) but at least it's there - and SWT from Eclipse is pretty darn impressive.
Generally I choose to use Python anyway, but if my app was to be very widely distributed and I couldn't just tell people "get non-mouldware versions of Python and the libraries" I'm not sure Python would be worth the trouble.
Exactly. That's why the copyright system needs reform - saner time limits, and probably automatic entry into the public domain if the rights holder decides to kill it.
I think sites like that reduce the chances of such reform happening.
It's the collateral damage I worry about. Most specifically, the introduction of even more stupid laws and extended protections to help the industry cling on in its current form. Laws that can do a LOT more harm outside the entertainment industry. Witness the DMCA, for example.
;-)
Sure, we could ignore the law. Which laws do we choose to ignore? How do we justify our action and then tell others we believe they're wrong about theirs? I don't think we can. Additionally, I'd rather NOT break my country's laws if I don't have to, and feel that in this case there is a realistic chance to change them instead.
Personally, I'm very far from convinced the entertainment (esp music/film) industry will go away, but I do expect them to be forced to change considerably. It's clear they don't like this
Agreed, providing a list isn't illegal. Maintaining a list that you know is and will be used for copyright infringement might be though - hard to say. I didn't say I liked the way these people have been takend down (and we don't know why they were anyway), only that I wasn't sad to see them go.
I want to see things fixed properly and the copyright system restored to some sane balance. Ignoring the law it will only make that harder IMO. I've written more about this in other replies to replies to my original post.
I've explained this fully in my other replies to replies to my post, but in brief:
Agreed, I think it's stupid that they can entirely control their work when the've just built on the public domain. I don't like the current situation, I think it's totally unresonable and getting more so. I do think we should try to change the law rather than ignoring it or the problem will only get worse, and I think sites like this harm rather than help that aim.
You make a good point. It doesn't change the fact that I'm hardly sad to see them go (but see my other replies to replies to my post - lots of folks have asssumed I like the current laws and power balance, which is just right off), but you're quite right that they weren't hosting anything illegal.
Of course, they were tacitly condoning the hosting and downloading, which is probably what's shut them down. All we can do right now is guess anyway.
Hell, I'm with you. I think the current situation totally sucks. Check out my other replies so I don't repeat myself ad nausium.
As for technology - hell yes. Problem is, ignoring copyright law makes it less likely that we'll get anything like that, and more likely that if we do, it'll be so locked down with DRM that it's totally useless.
I find the industry's lack of imagination and determination to hang on to their existing distribution model very frustrating. I want it to change, because I don't want to have to break the law to watch a DVD for example. I think people who ignore the rules rather than try to change them harm the chances of that ever happening.
heh - check out my past posts if you want to see my view on the USA. Suffice it to say that I don't think you'll find I'm a bush fan ;-)
/. if this was a company using GPL code, it _would_ be the end of the world. *sigh*. Yes, I'm a contributor to GPL projects, not a whining observer. I'd be pretty mad if it happened to me. Since my work is protected by the SAME LAW that these people are ignoring, they kind of shit me.
I'm also hardly going to argue that breaking copyrigh law is in any way up there on the bad scale. That wasn't the point, though, and you're attempting to refute an argument I didn't try to make.
Of course, on
My view is that ignoring copyright law weakens our chances of fixing it and reduces our chances of actually making a more balanced system possible. In fact, it probably gives the large media powers more ability to make the law even less reasonable. Is that really a fair price for a few free movies?
I agree. However, I don't think the right solution is to ignore the law - rather, I think the solution is to attempt to fix the law. It'll be slow and painful, but I do think it's possible. If nobody respects the law and instead decides to ignore it, that will only give the corporate interests more ability to harm them and make it easier for them to persuade politicians that even stronger laws are required.
I'd be much happier with a more balanced copyright scheme, but think we have to work to change it rather than ignoring it. These people make me angry because they go around ignoring copyright law, then scream when someone does the same to them. I'm hardly perfect when it comes to hypocrisy, but at least I try.
My original statement was poorly phrased, but I think the point stands.
Agreed. I think it's rather shady to make it illegal to do so, too.
Nonetheless, that's the law. I think it's important to attempt to change that law so that things are more flexible, because I don't like the current state, but I don't think just ignoring the law is either ethical or helpful.
That's a darn good point - thanks. That message was posted partly out of irritation at all the /. "oh no, we can't download whatever we want anymore" whining, and could definitely have been clearer.
While I must agree, I don't think CMYK support is much good without colour management support. It's a non-trivial task and needs to be approached carefully - bad support is IMO worse than none at all.
Also, remember that there _is_ a class of users who don't care about CMYK in the slightest. Weird, I know, but they're out there. Some of them should be using CMYK and are too clueless to know it, but some of them either use decent printers and RIPs that handle ICC-tagged RGB correctly, or aren't targeting print.
In fact, some magazine printers now prefer ICC tagged RGB, because they can use extra inks for better photo colour, something that's not possible if the image is already in CMYK.
With that said... *clutches copy of Photoshop*
Frankly, I'd also like the option to have a path field always displayed. The lack is frustrating. Heck, even if the filename widget was added to the dialog by a keystroke and/or button, rather than popped up, that'd be fine.
That said, I don't think it should be there by default, and I do think it's a MASSIVE improvement over the gag-worthy gtk dialogs that were in use before.
I kid you not when I say that the inconsistent open/save dialogs are actually a MAJOR usability problem and a serious adoption barrier for Linux/OSS. Less bright users - that being users in general - get rather confused by all the open/save dialogs. It's understandable for people who don't understand the computer at all - and that's a training / education problem that isn't ever going to get properly solved IMO. Even for experienced user it can be really frustrating. Use tab completion in open/save dialogs? Do I use <enter> or <tab> in this one? *fume*
At least the new dialog still has good keyboard naviation.
While I can't really argue about the name, I think your UI criticisms are somewhat less valid.
Almost everybody I know with a problem with the GIMP's UI is an experienced photoshop user. I learned both apps at roughtly the same time, and find the GIMP 2.0's UI acceptably usable in comparison to that of Photoshop (on MacOS - the Windows photoshop UI makes the GIMP look like UI heven). I'm hardly one to claim it's perfect, but the GIMP 2.0's interface is IMO quite usable. (Lets just not talk about 1.x - ugh).
For those who want the GIMP to be Photoshop (not saying you're one of them) I think it would be valid to have a "photoshop user mode" for the GIMP, but in the end the GIMP is _not_ a photoshop clone, and the developers are trying to make a usable UI not clone the photoshop UI. I would also argue that there are better ways for them to spend their time than redoing the already working UI.
At least you don't seem to expect the app to just clone the Photoshop UI, which seems to be the most common expectation from folks who dislike the GIMP's UI. Seriously, Photoshop is not the be-all and end-all of user interface design - I find it cluttered and frustrating, though mostly due to the train wreck that is window management under MacOS. I find the Windows MDI version even worse. I think it's the best UI out there for a graphics app, but it's hardly perfect and it's severely limited by the braindead window management of major platforms.
For me personally, the real issue with the GIMP is technical limitations. The lack of CMYK support, colour management, and 48 bit colour means that for my personal needs - prepress photo manipulation - it's basically useless. Of course, that's only one small area in a very big field.
Why use Photoshop?
Speed
CMYK support
Colour management
48bit colour
If you're working with images a lot, it's simply worth the money assuming your time is worth something.
I find the GIMP very handy and like it quite a bit, but IMO it's no Photoshop substitute.
That's a darn good point. I think the chances are good, but you're quite right - there's no evidence. Assumptions are dangerous things, so thanks for calling this one.
These sites really had it coming, frankly. While I'm concerned about corporate power, and less than thrilled with the modern media, they weren't trying to do anything about that - they were just plain illegal. Not in a recent way, either - they were ignoring the same copyright laws that protect the software I write, and the GPL so many here are so fond of.
I'd find it far easier to understand a site that restricted its self to things not otherwise availible than sites like these that appear to have no problem with full scale piracy. Yes, I realise that would still be illegal - but IMO rather less offensive.
I used to be a bit more sympathetic to this stuff, but I know too many people who view it as their RIGHT to access other people's work for free, without their permission. I guess its just another version of the "information wants to be free" zealotry (Free Software bigots who don't actually understand free software and usually hypocrites. The few, very loud ones that give the whole community a bad name to some.).
AC posts will be ignored.
Now - -1 flamebait me. You know you want to.
but the JavaScript that can be used in browsers is a very different beast, with a tangled nightmare of quirks, extensions, and compatibility problems.
Regarding the speed of IMAP, I most vehemently disagree. There are many ways to make IMAP access faster that clients can - and do - implement. Options include:
Local header and flags cache with UUID invalidation
Smart header downloading (eg messages in client's current view, then new messages, then old messages)
Local message caching
Background message downloading
If you want to see the difference a client can make, I strongly suggest you compare mutt and Ximian Evolution. Evolution isn't even all that good - mulberry leaves it in the dust.
As for maildir - I agree. I like the maildir design, and when I need local mailboxes I always end up using maildir or some close relation of it. I didn't mention it earlier simply because it wasn't relevent - I wasn't writing a comprehensive mail storage format summary. My personal needs mean that an IMAP server is better for me (though the IMAP server I use, Cyrus IMAPd, has maildir-like back-end storage), and I find it performs very well indeed.
One issue you didn't mention with maildir is its dependency on the filesystem not being crap. Maildir really needs a _fast_ filesystem - especially fast at handling many small files. It also needs a filesystem that doesn't have low limits on directory size. Not a problem for me, but a very real one for others.
TB and Mozilla Mail before it do use MBOX files, with all the advantages and problems. They also use index files that mean they don't have to load the whole MBOX to get a message.
If TB takes a long time to start up, I don't want to think about the user's mail database size - and I have 800,000 or so messages myself.
MBOX:
Needs external index for seeking not to suck
Corrupted more easily than single-file stores
Harder to corrupt than database stores
Deleting is extremely slow, so most mail clients only actually delete messages by "compacting" periodically and just flag things for deletion the rest of the time.
Fast to read sequentially
Access from multiple clients sucks
Frankly, I think win2k3 and RHEL are both priced out of the SMB market. The fact that people buy them anyway probably has more to do with their lack of knowledge of the alternatives than anything else.
RH has a fairly hefty annual subscription - not too bad for US companies, but fairly punishing for many outside the US. OTOH, you can connect as many clients to it as you want.
Win2k3, on the other hand, only costs you once, but you have to pay fairly hefty fees to connect new clients to it.
In the end, while I think it does depend on what you need to do, I think BOTH are just too darn expensive.