I guess this will be done when you reorganise the GIMP code to split out all the UI-related code from the non-UI code. Then the UI-related code can be rewritten to use Aqua on OS X, Win32/avalond/redmond's-flavour-of-the-month on Windows, etc.
This is the only way to port something from one platform to another without ending up with a pile of crap.
There is a project called Gimpshop that replicates Adobe's key layouts for the benefit of those who have them permenantly burned in.
I must say, however, that the way you imply that the Gimp shortcuts are actively counter-intuitive, rather than merely different does make you come off as a bit of a closed minded jerk.
"I'm sure an option for hiding everything but the image window would help the interface/user experience on all platforms."
It annoyed me on Windows until recent (2.2?) changes that improved how the Gimp interacts with the Windows window manager. These days, only document windows are 'proper' windows that appear in the taskbar and alt-tab list.
Of course, the situation could be further improved by making the pallette windows use the small/thin/toolbox style window borders, and having them automatically hide and show themselves when a Gimp document window loses and gains the focus.
Re:GIMP is becoming a real threat for Photoshop
on
First Look at GIMP 2.4
·
· Score: 2, Informative
For those that just can't let go of Windows 3: Deweirdifiyer plugin for GIMP.
Google hits for "Java 2.0": 163000 Google hits for "Java2": 178000000
He probably meant Java 1.2 AKA Java2. This is still years out of date. We are currently up to Java 1.5, AKA Java2 5.0.
Now I'm not saying Sun's marketing department isn't retarded; just that it is pretty hypocritical for someone to go around making statements such as "I am sorry that you have not taken the time to really look at.NET, Your statement that you would put it behind VB really shows your ignorance of the platform" and "I would be willing to listen to your argument if you were more informed with more experience in the subject", while in the same post demonstrating ignorance of the Java platform is pretty, well, dumb.
But I don't give a shit about such applications. Mono lets me run Beagle and Tomboy. I don't see any similar applications being written with java-gnome.
I don't give a crap about whether Mono allows me to run shitty Windows-centric apps on my system. I bother with Mono because it makes it easy to rapidly develop and deploy programs for the linux desktop. Mono is a good enough product in its own right.
The excellent java-gnome project is the Java equivalent of GTK#/GNOME#, but I don't see nearly as many programs being developed for it. In fact, a quick apt-cache rdepends reveals that there are precicely zero applications using libgtk-java in Debian, whereas libgtk-cil is used by projects such as tomboy, graphmonkey, gnunit, beagle and blam. There are also a load of programs that have not yet been packaged; assuming that the same proportion of GTK# and java-gnome apps have been packaged, it seems that there is a lot more developer interest--buzz--around Mono than there is around Java. Mono-based programs are certainly mentioned more often (read: at all) on the feeds I read than Java-based ones; and how many "Creating Java applications for Linux" articles have been posted to Slashdot recently?
So why is this? I recon it's simply down to how easy it is to get started using the platforms in question. Say I want to run Beagle--I apt-get install beagle. Now let's say I want to run the hypothetical jeagle. I have to navigate, with a graphical browser no less, Sun's gargantuan site; agree to a huge, no-doubt soul-selling bullshit EULA; run Sun's crappy installer that shits untracked files all over my system... and I still can't apt-get install jeagle because Sun's crappy installer doesn't know about dpkg. As a Debian user who actually knows what he is doing, I can use java-package to convert Sun's crap installer into a.deb that halfway complies with Debian poilicy, but by making me go through this procedure Sun has basically killed my enthusiasm for working with this platform--there is no longer any buzz.
"But Mono isn't made by Microsoft! It's not a fair comparison", you might say. To this I reply, I don't care! C# and Java are both nice, modern (perhaps I should say 'fashionable' to avoid being prodded by the Lispniks) languages that make software development fun and easy--but it is easier to get into C# because a platform that lets me use it is only an apt-get away.
Now, perhaps Sun could turn this around by hiring a couple of Debian Developers to make some really high quality Debian packages of Java, and granting Debian permission to distribute them in non-free; but this only solves the problem for users of Debian and Debian-derived distributions. Sun would also have to find someone to create decent packages for Fedora, Mandriva, Suse, Slackware, whatever. But hold on a minute--Mono has people coming out of the walls to package it for their favourite distribution, so why should Sun have to put in extra effort to make this possible--and still be playing catch-up? It's because Mono has buzz! The openess, liberty and low barrier-to-entry have drawn developers to the Mono platform, while Java has languished under Sun's iron fist.
In the end it's not about Java-the-language vs. C#; it's about the openess of the platforms: Java-the-closed/inaccessible platform vs the GPL'd Mono. Development of the components of an open source Java platform has been slow because Sun have already created a 'good enough' implementation of Java on GNU/Linux--but Mono has everything to to play for; the stakes are high, there are no grumpy old gits saying "Microsoft's GNU/Linux.NET implementation is good enough, Mono will never beat it", this is an exciting time when men are men, women are women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centuri are real small furry creatures... etc, etc.
To summarise: Mono is exciting. Java is a pain in the ass.
It doesn't sound so crazy to me... it's about barrier to entry. I'm about to post a much longer comment lower down this thread about this, I'd be interested to read anyone's responses!
Now, a better comparision would be mono vs. jikes+sablevm, fastjar, sablevm and classpath-tools--but these tools are not capable of running most Java software.
Insofar as it is possible to come up with meaningful ways to compare the performances of "languages", where language encompasses a language, the libraries it uses, the compiler used for the benchmark in question, the libraries used and the VM the benchmark is run on (if any), and everythig else beneath it in the stack all the way down to the hardware, it seems that Java 1.4.2 w/hotspot performs most of the tasks slightly quicker than Mono.
For my own safety I think I'll configure my copy of bind to not resolve names in the bt.com zone. BT's IDS is famously overzealous--anyone remember that 'hacker' gaoled for using Lynx story from last year? That was BT's fault as well.
The XMLHttpRequest class that fashionable web applications use is not a standard, but it is pretty simple; it looks like the only difference between using it in IE and Mozilla/KHTML is how you create an instance of it.
Affero already did the lawyer thing... the Nessus devs could have relicenced under the Affero license. It's the same as the GPL plus this:
2. d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.
Who knows and/or cares? My point is that it's cheaper to take responsibility for your own systems and keep them patched, than it is to attempt to recover your costs by going to the courts.
"... who gets jurisdiction over what governments/companies are allowed to execute code on my PC?"
You do. If you don't want people exploiting holes in your PC, then patch them yourself.
If you disagree you are entitled to try getting by without patching, instead suing those who take advantage of your PC for theft of resources, or some such, but isn't an ounce of prevention better than a pound of cure? It is surely cheaper to run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade nightly...
I am sure someone who actually knows about biology will correct me if I'm wrong... but surely the reason we are alive today is because we are descended from the people who were immune to the original strain of the virus?
Slashdot Mirror
Or it's booted into a fake BIOS screen in order to trick you and steal your private keys.
I guess this will be done when you reorganise the GIMP code to split out all the UI-related code from the non-UI code. Then the UI-related code can be rewritten to use Aqua on OS X, Win32/avalond/redmond's-flavour-of-the-month on Windows, etc.
This is the only way to port something from one platform to another without ending up with a pile of crap.
I must say, however, that the way you imply that the Gimp shortcuts are actively counter-intuitive, rather than merely different does make you come off as a bit of a closed minded jerk.
Press tab.
It annoyed me on Windows until recent (2.2?) changes that improved how the Gimp interacts with the Windows window manager. These days, only document windows are 'proper' windows that appear in the taskbar and alt-tab list.
Of course, the situation could be further improved by making the pallette windows use the small/thin/toolbox style window borders, and having them automatically hide and show themselves when a Gimp document window loses and gains the focus.
For those that just can't let go of Windows 3: Deweirdifiyer plugin for GIMP.
Then what's the point of making a Java applet that just wraps a native library with JNI? Why not just release a browser plugin...
Morons!
Google hits for "Java 2.0": 163000
.NET, Your statement that you would put it behind VB really shows your ignorance of the platform" and "I would be willing to listen to your argument if you were more informed with more experience in the subject", while in the same post demonstrating ignorance of the Java platform is pretty, well, dumb.
Google hits for "Java2": 178000000
He probably meant Java 1.2 AKA Java2. This is still years out of date. We are currently up to Java 1.5, AKA Java2 5.0.
Now I'm not saying Sun's marketing department isn't retarded; just that it is pretty hypocritical for someone to go around making statements such as "I am sorry that you have not taken the time to really look at
But I don't give a shit about such applications. Mono lets me run Beagle and Tomboy. I don't see any similar applications being written with java-gnome.
It would be strictly correct to chastise them for dropping the ball by removing Linux (and apparantly any non-Windows platform) compatibility.
The worst thing is that there is probably just a stupid if statement at the start of the applet that aborts if the JVM is not being run on Windows!
Morons, I'm surrounded by morons!
The excellent java-gnome project is the Java equivalent of GTK#/GNOME#, but I don't see nearly as many programs being developed for it. In fact, a quick apt-cache rdepends reveals that there are precicely zero applications using libgtk-java in Debian, whereas libgtk-cil is used by projects such as tomboy, graphmonkey, gnunit, beagle and blam. There are also a load of programs that have not yet been packaged; assuming that the same proportion of GTK# and java-gnome apps have been packaged, it seems that there is a lot more developer interest--buzz--around Mono than there is around Java. Mono-based programs are certainly mentioned more often (read: at all) on the feeds I read than Java-based ones; and how many "Creating Java applications for Linux" articles have been posted to Slashdot recently?
So why is this? I recon it's simply down to how easy it is to get started using the platforms in question. Say I want to run Beagle--I apt-get install beagle. Now let's say I want to run the hypothetical jeagle. I have to navigate, with a graphical browser no less, Sun's gargantuan site; agree to a huge, no-doubt soul-selling bullshit EULA; run Sun's crappy installer that shits untracked files all over my system... and I still can't apt-get install jeagle because Sun's crappy installer doesn't know about dpkg. As a Debian user who actually knows what he is doing, I can use java-package to convert Sun's crap installer into a
"But Mono isn't made by Microsoft! It's not a fair comparison", you might say. To this I reply, I don't care! C# and Java are both nice, modern (perhaps I should say 'fashionable' to avoid being prodded by the Lispniks) languages that make software development fun and easy--but it is easier to get into C# because a platform that lets me use it is only an apt-get away.
Now, perhaps Sun could turn this around by hiring a couple of Debian Developers to make some really high quality Debian packages of Java, and granting Debian permission to distribute them in non-free; but this only solves the problem for users of Debian and Debian-derived distributions. Sun would also have to find someone to create decent packages for Fedora, Mandriva, Suse, Slackware, whatever. But hold on a minute--Mono has people coming out of the walls to package it for their favourite distribution, so why should Sun have to put in extra effort to make this possible--and still be playing catch-up? It's because Mono has buzz! The openess, liberty and low barrier-to-entry have drawn developers to the Mono platform, while Java has languished under Sun's iron fist.
In the end it's not about Java-the-language vs. C#; it's about the openess of the platforms: Java-the-closed/inaccessible platform vs the GPL'd Mono. Development of the components of an open source Java platform has been slow because Sun have already created a 'good enough' implementation of Java on GNU/Linux--but Mono has everything to to play for; the stakes are high, there are no grumpy old gits saying "Microsoft's GNU/Linux
To summarise: Mono is exciting. Java is a pain in the ass.
It doesn't sound so crazy to me... it's about barrier to entry. I'm about to post a much longer comment lower down this thread about this, I'd be interested to read anyone's responses!
That's no good either.
Now, a better comparision would be mono vs. jikes+sablevm, fastjar, sablevm and classpath-tools--but these tools are not capable of running most Java software.
I haven't seen a link on this story yet, so I guess I will point you guys to the http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?te st=all&lang=java&lang2=csharp&sort=fullcpu.
Insofar as it is possible to come up with meaningful ways to compare the performances of "languages", where language encompasses a language, the libraries it uses, the compiler used for the benchmark in question, the libraries used and the VM the benchmark is run on (if any), and everythig else beneath it in the stack all the way down to the hardware, it seems that Java 1.4.2 w/hotspot performs most of the tasks slightly quicker than Mono.
One can apt-get install mono.
More people need to know about the Java-Gnome project!
For my own safety I think I'll configure my copy of bind to not resolve names in the bt.com zone. BT's IDS is famously overzealous--anyone remember that 'hacker' gaoled for using Lynx story from last year? That was BT's fault as well.
ECMA-262 (ECMAScript Language Specification).
The XMLHttpRequest class that fashionable web applications use is not a standard, but it is pretty simple; it looks like the only difference between using it in IE and Mozilla/KHTML is how you create an instance of it.
It makes more sense to create a program, we could call it Jigdo, that downloads the debs you want and constructs the iso on the client machine. ;)
Who knows and/or cares? My point is that it's cheaper to take responsibility for your own systems and keep them patched, than it is to attempt to recover your costs by going to the courts.
If you disagree you are entitled to try getting by without patching, instead suing those who take advantage of your PC for theft of resources, or some such, but isn't an ounce of prevention better than a pound of cure? It is surely cheaper to run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade nightly...
Fair enough. I thought that _everyone_ got the 1918 flu (pandemic), and that only those genetically resistant to it had survived.
I am sure someone who actually knows about biology will correct me if I'm wrong... but surely the reason we are alive today is because we are descended from the people who were immune to the original strain of the virus?
Incorrect. ;p