It's as though those behind Wikipedia believe there is no real truth. And if that's the case, why even bother to create an encyclopedia based on facts. To create a system of facts that you know are no true, because there is no truth, seems like an exercise in futility.
That's life. There is no hard black and white for every field, it's all shades of gray. I think that's where the problem is in this discussion. The people who don't think that Wikipedia is any good are the same kinds of people who believe that there is ultimately one correct answer to everything and that only the "experts" know it. But, there are only a scant few fields where this is possible and most topics in Wikipedia do not involve those domains of knowledge. If you take a wide step out and look at everything, you realize it's all bullshit. Academia is full of bullshit artists. The "unwashed masses" are also bullshit artists. Wikipedia is not about ultimate truth. It's not about facts. It's a source of basic information to whet the appetite. You wouldn't call a nice appetizer a gourmet meal would you?
If I didn't have access to a bunch of old National Geographic magazines, 50s science textbooks (which were pretty out of date by the time I used them) and twenty year old printed encyclopedias as a child in the 70s, I wouldn't be where I am today. The information in those books and magazines was incorrect in many cases by 1970s standards, but it got me interested in basic science, physics and electronics. That interest stayed with me and eventually culminated in my pursuit of more knowledge in those areas and the related field of computers.
In other words, I owe my career to those old, dusty and incorrect texts. I don't believe that I would have followed the same path if I wasn't exposed to that information at a yound age no matter how incorrect it was. With the training and education I worked hard to acquire I still refuse to call myself an expert. I've had friends and relatives refer to my knowledge of computers as being that of a "genius". I'm just a low level power user as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't even think of myself as a "geek". It's nice to be thought of as a genius, but I know it's not true because I've met other people who know far more than I'll ever forget and I still don't think of them as experts. I can't stand the arrogance required to accept or use the title. All the education, hard work and qualifications are useful, but they don't justify elitism.
Time and time again, I run into this wrong headed notion of the "expert". When I was a kid, I bought into it. I believed there were people who knew just about everything there is to know about a particular subject. As I got older, I saw these "experts" cut down one by one as they could no longer provide answers to questions for me. It happened first with my parents. Then with various teachers and librarians while I was in elementary school, junior high and high school. Finally, with my professors at the various colleges I went to. This is not to say that these people don't know a great deal, but there is not one person on the planet that can be called an expert.
The fool who wrote this critique of Wikipedia is attempting to defend the exclusivity of who can be considered to be informed and who can't. One of the worst things in the world you can do to any information resource is to make it exclusive. When you make it exclusive, you make it useless and inaccessible to the average person. It might be nice to have someone who has a deep knowledge of philosphy share their knowledge on Wikipedia, but if they can't speak in terms that others can understand, what good is it? Even with it's warts, Wikipedia provides people with better access to knowledge on various subjects than they previously had access to. That's the point. If one wishes to expand their knowledge on that subject, then they can feel free to delve deeper into it from more authoritative sources. The Wikipedia is not meant to be ultimately authoritative. The set of Encyclopedia Britanica Year books I have at home prove that to me. In the early 50s, their music reviewer (a supposed expert) claimed that rock and roll was a fad of insanity where children wanted to play and listen to tribal rhythms. Apparently, he was wrong since rock and roll had a long life beyond the 1950s. By the 1957 edition, he had been replaced by someone who was a little more flexible in their thinking. By the previous expert's opinions, I'm sure that the new reviewer was one the "rabble" or the "hoi polloi" who didn't understand the value of real music vs. those tribal jungle rhythms. (Note: the older reviewer did refer to rock music in increasingly racial terms between 1955 and 1956 editions, I believe)
My point is that there can be no experts because information is not immutable. It always changes and updates are required. Homosexuality used to be considered a psychological disorder that could be "cured". Blacks used to be considered sub-human as they didn't possess souls. These views are quite obviously wrong. But if you would have checked with an expert of the past, those are the answers you would have gotten. If Wikipedia never reaches a point where the information is 100% reliable at all times, it doesn't matter because it still does the job of opening minds to new subjects and areas of knowledge. I say, kick this guy in the bollocks and charge forward. If we want people to be armed with knowledge, Wikipedia is a pretty darn good tool.
I don't know. You tell me. That's not what I said, that's what you said. The only thing I was pointing out was that Tech TV was not for people with more than a passing interest in computer technology. There's more to computers than gaming, basic office work or network administration. Let's put it this way... a knowledge of electronics and circuit design is pretty much a necessity if you want to be considered someone with an interest in electronics. Just going to Best Buy (insert any other megamall shop here) and buying gadgets doesn't do the same thing. There IS a difference.
The level of "insightful" information was lower than that of the typical Microsoft Wanker here on/. And that's not saying much. I hated TechTV since it mostly seemed to appeal to the armchair techy. You know what I mean... the guys who won't pop open a CLI other than to run ping, telnet, ftp, nslookup or a "net use" command in Windows.
...there should be multiple parallel highways. One for people who got special license that verified they could handle speeds that exceed 65 MPH. You can't pass the test, you don't get to use the road. Another one for commercial vehicles. And finally another one for normal drivers who keep under 65 (or 55 depending on your state). But, a key to making this a bit more aesthetically pleasing is to make sure the roads are actually sunk into valleys that keep them below the sightline of commercial and residential areas. There would need to be good drainage to prevent the valleys from filling with water too. So, this project sounds like a similar version to my thinking. It's too bad that they'll probably savage some green space in the process thereby making the world slightly uglier.
I'd have to say this qualifies as "News for nerds. Stuff that matters". In fact, it's the first front page article in a little while I've seen that qualifies. Thanks guys, for doing your job right at least once.;P
This bit here illustrates that they don't understand the "why" of Linux:
So, Bill and I are here today to discuss the similarities and differences between Windows and Linux and open-source alternatives. Microsoft believes that customer needs drive the competitive debate. We know the only way we win with customers is by having a much better solution to offer our customers in making sure that we're addressing their pains over and above Linux and open-source alternatives.
Linux doesn't exist to satisfy the business requirements of PHBs or bean counters. Linux exists to serve the needs of users who want to get more out of their computers. In some cases this CAN benefit the above mentioned PHBs and bean counters, but it's not the driving raison d'être of Linux. The needs of the people come first, and business second.
For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source.
This is something we can agree on. Microsoft isn't necessarily anti-open source. The misconception comes from the confusion over the differences between GNU GPL (aka free software: free as in speech) software and open source. Many people think that the primary goal of free software is to provide the course code. Of course this is not completely true, but merely a subset of what free software is. The 'free' in free software means that a user is free to do whatever they want with the software as long as they don't impact other people's freedoms (keeping modified GPL code to yourself if you are making profit impacts other people's freedoms). Microsoft is not anti-open source, they are anti-GPL. There is a difference as much as they want to muddy the waters.
We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards that can allow companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, as well as other types of software and other types of technologies to work together and still co-exist in a competitive environment.
That's why it's possible for me to use a Mac to administer a Windows Active Directory domain? Right? (cue: sound of wind);P
It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about -- that Linux is Unix.
Ask a "suit" a technical question and get a stupid answer.;P Seriously, Bill and Martin you must be talking to the wrong people. Most technology managers worth their salt know the distinction between Linux and Unix, Free and Open Source, and the various Linux distributions. If you're getting people who think that Linux is Unix, then those companies must be putting you in touch with the golf set and not the real IT folks. There are certainly major differences between distributions, but there is one thing that all of them are capable of that you are overlooking. You can grab the source for many useful programs and compile it for whatever distro you're on. I've been doing this for years now. I want a media player that didn't come with Redhat, Mandrake or Fedora? I just download the source for mplayer or xine and I've got what I need.
And you have to take a look, Martin, at the ecosystems around those technologies...
Marketroid speak. The whole concept of the "ecosystem" is kind of lame. It's more like a universe. Some things work together and perform a beautiful dance (like solar systems) and other collide and cause major damage (like asteroids and planets or moons). But even that analogy is flawed because the world of computer software is it's own entity with it's own properties. Trying to make analogies to dumb it down for marketing purposes is pointless. Just as we had to get used to cars because they really weren't "horseless carriages", we have to get used to the sof
Bah. Idiot mods. They usually have no sense of humor, no insight, and well... no sense at all. However, I will say this. I've noticed that if someone says something that may annoy one of the Slashdork crew, you tend to get a ton of "Offtopic" or "Overrated" mods. I wish I could meet one of the mods in person just once. Just once...;P
That's damn smooth.:) Kind of like those laptops and PCs that will turn on just their DVD or CD players without having to boot the OS only cooler. MUCH cooler. But not as cool as the software defined radio peripherals mentioned (GNURadio) earlier today. Thanks for the clarification.
...from the movie "True Stories" by David Byrne. This one character played by Spalding Gray ended one of his sentences with "...what with the end of the world coming and all". I think I'm going to start using this liberally in all of my conversations... what with the end of the world coming and all.;P
I once interned at this audio production studio where the owner/producer used a really high end Mac based digital audio system (Studer Dyaxis). He loved the power and the flexibility of it. I got a chance to watch him and it was truly amazing what he could do with it. I also got a few chances to play with it myself, with his permission. I found it to be difficult to use since I was used to Digidesign ProTools. However, the reason I bring this up in reference to your post is that this producer once made a comment to me about user interfaces. We had been discussing PC vs. Mac (this was 1994) for audio production and I was saying how the program I just got (S.A.W. for Windows 3.1) wasn't any great shakes, but I could get used to it. He looked at me and said something to the effect of, "You should never have to get used to a good program. It should just work". I thought about it for a bit and then realized that he had fallen victim to his own propaganda. No one can just pick up any kind of tool (software or otherwise) and just start using it unless they have some background. His background was in audio production and he was very used to standard studio gear. I think the Studer Dyaxis was written for those users. Any ProTools jockey would feel the same about the Studer Dyaxis that some pirate of Photoshop would feel if faced with the GIMP. It proved to me that you HAVE to get used to your tools. The Dyaxis was a great system, but only in the hands of those who know how to use it. The GIMP is that same. It does WAYYYY more than you can do with any other free or inexpensive (ie. below $30) image editing software. So, I think the idea that the GIMP sucks come from people who really don't have the knowledge or interest to pursue it's flexibility.
To can the bastards!!! The GNAA is about as worthless as a shit smear in a public toilet. They aren't gay. They aren't black. They're just some stupid assholes with too much time on their hands. Any rebuttals to my comments will be ignored. We all know I speak the truth.
Interesting choice of moderation. Did the mod stop to think for an instant that maybe, just maybe, I meant what I said? I love computers and electronic machines in general. I tend to like them more than most people. They are easier to deal with and muc more flexible and they never disappoint you. (Unless you don't know how to use them) Anyway, to the mod: hello, you made a mistake.
Oh how I wish I had mod points today. The fact is that GIMP works just fine if you don't look at it as a Photoshop replacement. I actually moved from Photoshop 3.0 to GIMP back in 2000 and never looked back. I was able to open all of my PSD files just fine and convert them to XCF files (to preserve layers). Most of the people who complain about GIMP are looking for a Photoshop replacement. It's kind of like the people who try something made with Carob and expecting Chocolate. Carob != Chocolate. If you eat Carob on it's own as it's own flavor, it's quite tasty. To all the people who whine about GIMP: get over it. If you want Photoshop, go out and buy a copy. If you want to try a really good (becoming great as of v 2.2) digital image manipulation program, download GIMP.
As a second point, I think the time has come to make a distinction between geeks and artists. For a while, a lot of people I know have referred to me as a "geek" because of my interests in computers. I even thought of myself as a geek for a while. But, over time, I've come to see that I really don't have a lot in common with "geeks". I think a lot of other people here on Slashdot also have fallen for accepting the "geek" moniker when it really doesn't fit. So what am I? I'm an artist. The main reason I got into working with computers and electronics at all is because of my interest in music and graphics. These are NOT geek interests. I could give a rat's ass about business, making money or the bottom line. The thing is that in order to do a lot of what I wanted to do with music and graphics, I had to move from traditional tools and instruments to computers. For me the computer is the instrument. The thing that matters the most to me about software is whether it can do what I want it to or not. GIMP CAN do everything I need it to do and more. So it's the right tool for me. The same goes for Rosegarden and it's MIDI capabilities and Ardour and it's audio capabilitites.
So I urge those of you who think you are geeks but are really artists who happen to use computers (including Perl scripting, Bash scripting and C) to throw off the inappropriate title and re-evaluate what you really are. You are artists and the computer is both a tool and a medium.
Seriously, this looks like it will be good for beginners and will provide a good alternative to Photoshop Elements. The transparent toolboxes is a nice touch, but would never be of much use in a real photo editing environment where you don't want anything altering the colors of what you're editing. Nice eye candy though.
...I run my own mail server. After having had the experiences of Hotmail eating my e-mail a few years back and my original ISP (Corecomm can go eat a dick) giving my user ID and e-mail address to someone else when they ate Stratos.net (this used to be a good ISP until Corecomm fucked it up), I decided that this would never happen again. I now host my own e-mail on my own server. The freedom of doing this yourself is cool as hell. I have over a terabyte of space I can use to store my mail. This is what needs to happen for everyone in the US. Home appliances that host basic mail and web space that is only used between family and friends. This would cut down on viruses, and data loss. The only problem is... making it "idiot proof". After all, you don't put all of your important papers in someone else's care, do you?
"moral and intellectual elite"? What the hell is that? As far as I know, there is no "elite". All I'm saying is that stupidity should be eradicated. Or as close to it as possible. The best way to fight stupidity is to educate people and arm them with knowledge. Everyone. I have no dreams of some kind of "elite" as you put it. That's the biggest fiction the right wing has cooked up and it needs to be dispelled because there is no truth to it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That's life. There is no hard black and white for every field, it's all shades of gray. I think that's where the problem is in this discussion. The people who don't think that Wikipedia is any good are the same kinds of people who believe that there is ultimately one correct answer to everything and that only the "experts" know it. But, there are only a scant few fields where this is possible and most topics in Wikipedia do not involve those domains of knowledge. If you take a wide step out and look at everything, you realize it's all bullshit. Academia is full of bullshit artists. The "unwashed masses" are also bullshit artists. Wikipedia is not about ultimate truth. It's not about facts. It's a source of basic information to whet the appetite. You wouldn't call a nice appetizer a gourmet meal would you?
If I didn't have access to a bunch of old National Geographic magazines, 50s science textbooks (which were pretty out of date by the time I used them) and twenty year old printed encyclopedias as a child in the 70s, I wouldn't be where I am today. The information in those books and magazines was incorrect in many cases by 1970s standards, but it got me interested in basic science, physics and electronics. That interest stayed with me and eventually culminated in my pursuit of more knowledge in those areas and the related field of computers.
In other words, I owe my career to those old, dusty and incorrect texts. I don't believe that I would have followed the same path if I wasn't exposed to that information at a yound age no matter how incorrect it was. With the training and education I worked hard to acquire I still refuse to call myself an expert. I've had friends and relatives refer to my knowledge of computers as being that of a "genius". I'm just a low level power user as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't even think of myself as a "geek". It's nice to be thought of as a genius, but I know it's not true because I've met other people who know far more than I'll ever forget and I still don't think of them as experts. I can't stand the arrogance required to accept or use the title. All the education, hard work and qualifications are useful, but they don't justify elitism.
Time and time again, I run into this wrong headed notion of the "expert". When I was a kid, I bought into it. I believed there were people who knew just about everything there is to know about a particular subject. As I got older, I saw these "experts" cut down one by one as they could no longer provide answers to questions for me. It happened first with my parents. Then with various teachers and librarians while I was in elementary school, junior high and high school. Finally, with my professors at the various colleges I went to. This is not to say that these people don't know a great deal, but there is not one person on the planet that can be called an expert.
The fool who wrote this critique of Wikipedia is attempting to defend the exclusivity of who can be considered to be informed and who can't. One of the worst things in the world you can do to any information resource is to make it exclusive. When you make it exclusive, you make it useless and inaccessible to the average person. It might be nice to have someone who has a deep knowledge of philosphy share their knowledge on Wikipedia, but if they can't speak in terms that others can understand, what good is it? Even with it's warts, Wikipedia provides people with better access to knowledge on various subjects than they previously had access to. That's the point. If one wishes to expand their knowledge on that subject, then they can feel free to delve deeper into it from more authoritative sources. The Wikipedia is not meant to be ultimately authoritative. The set of Encyclopedia Britanica Year books I have at home prove that to me. In the early 50s, their music reviewer (a supposed expert) claimed that rock and roll was a fad of insanity where children wanted to play and listen to tribal rhythms. Apparently, he was wrong since rock and roll had a long life beyond the 1950s. By the 1957 edition, he had been replaced by someone who was a little more flexible in their thinking. By the previous expert's opinions, I'm sure that the new reviewer was one the "rabble" or the "hoi polloi" who didn't understand the value of real music vs. those tribal jungle rhythms. (Note: the older reviewer did refer to rock music in increasingly racial terms between 1955 and 1956 editions, I believe)
My point is that there can be no experts because information is not immutable. It always changes and updates are required. Homosexuality used to be considered a psychological disorder that could be "cured". Blacks used to be considered sub-human as they didn't possess souls. These views are quite obviously wrong. But if you would have checked with an expert of the past, those are the answers you would have gotten. If Wikipedia never reaches a point where the information is 100% reliable at all times, it doesn't matter because it still does the job of opening minds to new subjects and areas of knowledge. I say, kick this guy in the bollocks and charge forward. If we want people to be armed with knowledge, Wikipedia is a pretty darn good tool.
I don't know. You tell me. That's not what I said, that's what you said. The only thing I was pointing out was that Tech TV was not for people with more than a passing interest in computer technology. There's more to computers than gaming, basic office work or network administration. Let's put it this way... a knowledge of electronics and circuit design is pretty much a necessity if you want to be considered someone with an interest in electronics. Just going to Best Buy (insert any other megamall shop here) and buying gadgets doesn't do the same thing. There IS a difference.
The level of "insightful" information was lower than that of the typical Microsoft Wanker here on /. And that's not saying much. I hated TechTV since it mostly seemed to appeal to the armchair techy. You know what I mean... the guys who won't pop open a CLI other than to run ping, telnet, ftp, nslookup or a "net use" command in Windows.
"Came on the desktop"? Eww!!! ;P
(I kid because I love. I use Linux pretty much exclusively at home)
...there should be multiple parallel highways. One for people who got special license that verified they could handle speeds that exceed 65 MPH. You can't pass the test, you don't get to use the road. Another one for commercial vehicles. And finally another one for normal drivers who keep under 65 (or 55 depending on your state). But, a key to making this a bit more aesthetically pleasing is to make sure the roads are actually sunk into valleys that keep them below the sightline of commercial and residential areas. There would need to be good drainage to prevent the valleys from filling with water too. So, this project sounds like a similar version to my thinking. It's too bad that they'll probably savage some green space in the process thereby making the world slightly uglier.
I'd have to say this qualifies as "News for nerds. Stuff that matters". In fact, it's the first front page article in a little while I've seen that qualifies. Thanks guys, for doing your job right at least once. ;P
So, Bill and I are here today to discuss the similarities and differences between Windows and Linux and open-source alternatives. Microsoft believes that customer needs drive the competitive debate. We know the only way we win with customers is by having a much better solution to offer our customers in making sure that we're addressing their pains over and above Linux and open-source alternatives.
Linux doesn't exist to satisfy the business requirements of PHBs or bean counters. Linux exists to serve the needs of users who want to get more out of their computers. In some cases this CAN benefit the above mentioned PHBs and bean counters, but it's not the driving raison d'être of Linux. The needs of the people come first, and business second.
For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source.
This is something we can agree on. Microsoft isn't necessarily anti-open source. The misconception comes from the confusion over the differences between GNU GPL (aka free software: free as in speech) software and open source. Many people think that the primary goal of free software is to provide the course code. Of course this is not completely true, but merely a subset of what free software is. The 'free' in free software means that a user is free to do whatever they want with the software as long as they don't impact other people's freedoms (keeping modified GPL code to yourself if you are making profit impacts other people's freedoms). Microsoft is not anti-open source, they are anti-GPL. There is a difference as much as they want to muddy the waters.
We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards that can allow companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, as well as other types of software and other types of technologies to work together and still co-exist in a competitive environment.
That's why it's possible for me to use a Mac to administer a Windows Active Directory domain? Right? (cue: sound of wind) ;P
It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about -- that Linux is Unix.
Ask a "suit" a technical question and get a stupid answer. ;P Seriously, Bill and Martin you must be talking to the wrong people. Most technology managers worth their salt know the distinction between Linux and Unix, Free and Open Source, and the various Linux distributions. If you're getting people who think that Linux is Unix, then those companies must be putting you in touch with the golf set and not the real IT folks. There are certainly major differences between distributions, but there is one thing that all of them are capable of that you are overlooking. You can grab the source for many useful programs and compile it for whatever distro you're on. I've been doing this for years now. I want a media player that didn't come with Redhat, Mandrake or Fedora? I just download the source for mplayer or xine and I've got what I need.
And you have to take a look, Martin, at the ecosystems around those technologies...
Marketroid speak. The whole concept of the "ecosystem" is kind of lame. It's more like a universe. Some things work together and perform a beautiful dance (like solar systems) and other collide and cause major damage (like asteroids and planets or moons). But even that analogy is flawed because the world of computer software is it's own entity with it's own properties. Trying to make analogies to dumb it down for marketing purposes is pointless. Just as we had to get used to cars because they really weren't "horseless carriages", we have to get used to the sof
...to finally put a face to some of the more highly opinionated Slashdto readers. ;P
Bah. Idiot mods. They usually have no sense of humor, no insight, and well... no sense at all. However, I will say this. I've noticed that if someone says something that may annoy one of the Slashdork crew, you tend to get a ton of "Offtopic" or "Overrated" mods. I wish I could meet one of the mods in person just once. Just once... ;P
That's damn smooth. :) Kind of like those laptops and PCs that will turn on just their DVD or CD players without having to boot the OS only cooler. MUCH cooler. But not as cool as the software defined radio peripherals mentioned (GNURadio) earlier today. Thanks for the clarification.
...from the movie "True Stories" by David Byrne. This one character played by Spalding Gray ended one of his sentences with "...what with the end of the world coming and all". I think I'm going to start using this liberally in all of my conversations... what with the end of the world coming and all. ;P
I once interned at this audio production studio where the owner/producer used a really high end Mac based digital audio system (Studer Dyaxis). He loved the power and the flexibility of it. I got a chance to watch him and it was truly amazing what he could do with it. I also got a few chances to play with it myself, with his permission. I found it to be difficult to use since I was used to Digidesign ProTools. However, the reason I bring this up in reference to your post is that this producer once made a comment to me about user interfaces. We had been discussing PC vs. Mac (this was 1994) for audio production and I was saying how the program I just got (S.A.W. for Windows 3.1) wasn't any great shakes, but I could get used to it. He looked at me and said something to the effect of, "You should never have to get used to a good program. It should just work". I thought about it for a bit and then realized that he had fallen victim to his own propaganda. No one can just pick up any kind of tool (software or otherwise) and just start using it unless they have some background. His background was in audio production and he was very used to standard studio gear. I think the Studer Dyaxis was written for those users. Any ProTools jockey would feel the same about the Studer Dyaxis that some pirate of Photoshop would feel if faced with the GIMP. It proved to me that you HAVE to get used to your tools. The Dyaxis was a great system, but only in the hands of those who know how to use it. The GIMP is that same. It does WAYYYY more than you can do with any other free or inexpensive (ie. below $30) image editing software. So, I think the idea that the GIMP sucks come from people who really don't have the knowledge or interest to pursue it's flexibility.
I agree except for the disposable income part. Of course, I've already deremined I'm not a "geek" or a "nerd" per this post. Sometimes, some of us do it to save money. Other times, some of us do it because we can. And still other times, there is no greater satisfaction (sex excepted) that looking at something and thinking, "I made this!" Of course even with sex, if you go ALL the way, you can look at the result (baby) and thing "I made this!" ;P
...and doesn't care about the privacy/security issues, shouldn't be using a computer.
25 years is not enough time for Microsoft to make a decent, bug-minimal OS. Linux wins. :P
I voted...
To can the bastards!!! The GNAA is about as worthless as a shit smear in a public toilet. They aren't gay. They aren't black. They're just some stupid assholes with too much time on their hands. Any rebuttals to my comments will be ignored. We all know I speak the truth.
Interesting choice of moderation. Did the mod stop to think for an instant that maybe, just maybe, I meant what I said? I love computers and electronic machines in general. I tend to like them more than most people. They are easier to deal with and muc more flexible and they never disappoint you. (Unless you don't know how to use them) Anyway, to the mod: hello, you made a mistake.
Oh how I wish I had mod points today. The fact is that GIMP works just fine if you don't look at it as a Photoshop replacement. I actually moved from Photoshop 3.0 to GIMP back in 2000 and never looked back. I was able to open all of my PSD files just fine and convert them to XCF files (to preserve layers). Most of the people who complain about GIMP are looking for a Photoshop replacement. It's kind of like the people who try something made with Carob and expecting Chocolate. Carob != Chocolate. If you eat Carob on it's own as it's own flavor, it's quite tasty. To all the people who whine about GIMP: get over it. If you want Photoshop, go out and buy a copy. If you want to try a really good (becoming great as of v 2.2) digital image manipulation program, download GIMP.
As a second point, I think the time has come to make a distinction between geeks and artists. For a while, a lot of people I know have referred to me as a "geek" because of my interests in computers. I even thought of myself as a geek for a while. But, over time, I've come to see that I really don't have a lot in common with "geeks". I think a lot of other people here on Slashdot also have fallen for accepting the "geek" moniker when it really doesn't fit. So what am I? I'm an artist. The main reason I got into working with computers and electronics at all is because of my interest in music and graphics. These are NOT geek interests. I could give a rat's ass about business, making money or the bottom line. The thing is that in order to do a lot of what I wanted to do with music and graphics, I had to move from traditional tools and instruments to computers. For me the computer is the instrument. The thing that matters the most to me about software is whether it can do what I want it to or not. GIMP CAN do everything I need it to do and more. So it's the right tool for me. The same goes for Rosegarden and it's MIDI capabilities and Ardour and it's audio capabilitites.
So I urge those of you who think you are geeks but are really artists who happen to use computers (including Perl scripting, Bash scripting and C) to throw off the inappropriate title and re-evaluate what you really are. You are artists and the computer is both a tool and a medium.
..should be locked up for life. Machines are beautiful.
...I don't know... um... simplistic? ;P
Seriously, this looks like it will be good for beginners and will provide a good alternative to Photoshop Elements. The transparent toolboxes is a nice touch, but would never be of much use in a real photo editing environment where you don't want anything altering the colors of what you're editing. Nice eye candy though.
...I run my own mail server. After having had the experiences of Hotmail eating my e-mail a few years back and my original ISP (Corecomm can go eat a dick) giving my user ID and e-mail address to someone else when they ate Stratos.net (this used to be a good ISP until Corecomm fucked it up), I decided that this would never happen again. I now host my own e-mail on my own server. The freedom of doing this yourself is cool as hell. I have over a terabyte of space I can use to store my mail. This is what needs to happen for everyone in the US. Home appliances that host basic mail and web space that is only used between family and friends. This would cut down on viruses, and data loss. The only problem is... making it "idiot proof". After all, you don't put all of your important papers in someone else's care, do you?
Touche. ;) I guess I just don't want to see Linux "dirtied" with code that didn't originate in the open.
"moral and intellectual elite"? What the hell is that? As far as I know, there is no "elite". All I'm saying is that stupidity should be eradicated. Or as close to it as possible. The best way to fight stupidity is to educate people and arm them with knowledge. Everyone. I have no dreams of some kind of "elite" as you put it. That's the biggest fiction the right wing has cooked up and it needs to be dispelled because there is no truth to it at all.
Really? How is that? I didn't say anything remotely anti-gay. Oh I get it!!! YHBT. YHL. HAND! ;P