However, everyone's eyes interpret the colors differently. Think about color blindness, only to a lesser extent. I'm pretty sure that everybody perceives colors differently. So what looks right to the graphic designer would look different to every single person looking at the design.
Does your license expire if you don't renew it often enough? Does it lose some of it's functionality as time goes on? I would think not. If the new version doesn't justify the price, you don't have to pay for it. Even $600 a year for software would be nothing if the tool is really as great as everyone says (I've tried photoshop, as an amateur, I can't say I like it that much, but to each their own).
Another tool that I find really good from the closed source world is Visual Studio. While it has some of it's own problems, I find that overall, it's a really great IDE. Probably in the top 3 on all IDEs out there. Even VS.Net 2002 is beyond where most open source ones are. So while free tools can be nice for those of us who just want to use them for hobby purposes, paying money for the closed source alternative, can save you a lot of time, and let you turn out a much better product.
Re:Software freedom is better.
on
GIMP 2.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you're a professional, than the $600 price tag probably won't phase you . That's probably what you'd bill your clients for a days work. $600 is nothing. However, for the hobbyist and basic home user, GIMP probably does just about everything then need it to do, and is increasing in functionality all the time. It also comes with a price tag of $0. So while I think it's important for GIMP to strive to be as good as Photoshop, being not quite as good, but very good and free still makes it a very good tool.
What I've always wondered is how do the graphic designers see what the output will actually be on their screen? Of the color that is printed is indeed different then what they are seeing, then how do they visualize what the printed result will look like?
See, that model falls apart once you have a database with 50 tables. Because you have to load and parse a lot of script for every page load. I'm not sure how much (if anything) is cached by PHP, and how much recompiling has to be done on each load. Also, if you want to break you stuff up into a lot of different classes, with each class in a different file, then it quickly becomes a large mess of stuff to include in each page. I find that this is one of the major advantages of having a compiled language.
Applications requiring one database or another should be ancient history. However, whenever you look up a how to access MySQL from PHP, you'll find stuff that recommends using all the mysql_* functions. This is the quick way to creating an app that absolutely depends on MySQL. Really people should be using PDO, instead of mysql_ or pgsql_. Of course the real solution is to use a database abstraction layer, but I've never found a good way to create an n-tier web appliction in PHP.
I'd say that OpenOffice Base competes with Access. As does Filemaker Pro (do they still sell that?). Most other databases do not because they are just storage engines, and don't really offer much in terms of a user interface for creating data entry forms, or displaying reports.
But the wireless spectrum is very limited. For the first 100,000 people or so on the wireless network, it could probably remain pretty fast. But try running all the computers in New York City on a wireless network, and see what kind of speed you can achieve at each node. So as a starter point, to get the first few people in the country on a network, or to connect a small village, wireless networks could prove extremely useful. However, if you want to take all the network communication in a large city and try to accomplish that without wires, you'd probably fail very quickly. Don't even start to mention current cellular networks, because there's still a lot of wires involved.
I still find that wires (or optical cables for that matter) offer many advantages to wireless. For one, they are much less susceptible to interference. They are much faster. I'm not sure where they get their numbers from, but I have gigabit Ethernet at my house, and that's 1000 Mbits/s. That's 18 times faster than 802.11g. Now, if you have a good switch, you can get that same speed to the any number of computers on the same network. With wireless, all the computers on the same network are sharing whatever bandwidth is available. So if you have 10 computers on your wireless network, your effective bandwidth is 5.4 Mbits/s per computer.
It could on cost. Using fiber in many areas requires that you lay new lines. Even if it's not quite as fast as copper, or has a little more latency (light is faster than electrical signals), you could probably make quite a bit of money since there's a much smaller investment.
How exactly would you measure fractions of a bit? A bit is the smallest unit you can measure. Either you have the bit, or you don't. You can't have half a bit. It would be like saying you have half an atom of hydrogren.
Exactly. You'd probably be better off setting up and HTTP server and having the people you want to communicate with post a message directly to you over SSL. Couldn't ISPs just give everyone a domain name (probably a long one), so that instead of email, with messages bouncing all over the place, you just post directly to someones computer. It's not like anybody remembers emails addresses anyway, just store them in an address book.
However, Mandriva comes with everything. The $107 Vista won't let you legally play DVDs either. You have to get a separate program to do that. Also, Mandriva has a full suite of servers (HTTP,SQL,DNS,SMTP,POP3,IMAP,....) which don't come with Windows Home versions.
No, just like all residential services, they will probably have some stipulation about not being allowed to use it to host servers. Also, I'm not sure they off a real SLA, so it would seem that you might be down when you most need the service.
As a long time Mandriva user (since 1999) I never really saw the draw of Ubuntu. For me, Ubuntu never offered anything that Mandriva didn't offer, and always seemed to be lacking in quite a few areas.
Yeah, he should be using a better distro like Mandriva, which can play them perfectly legally if you pay for the powerpack version. And it costs only $59 for the download version, or $89 for the boxed version. Much cheaper than Vista.
A quick google turned up this. Seems a teething remedy called farouk is commonly used in the middle east and contains lead. This could be what you're referring to.
Exactly. There is no reason why Vista with or without Aero should be as slow as it is. I'm dual booting Vista (came preinstalled) and Mandriva on a laptop with 512 MB RAM, 1.6 GHz Celeron, and Intel GMA 650. Compiz Fusion runs extremely quick and flawlessly. Vista won't even run Aero, and running without Aero is extremely show, so I wouldn't even want to venture into running Aero. There's no reason why adding a 3D desktop should make your machine so much slower, and there's no reason why Vista shouldn't be faster.
This is my view of it. Nobody has to use windows. It would be different if they were they were selling some kind of patented drug that kept you alive. Then we could say that you had to use it. But being that windows is basically an operating system, well, nobody has to use it. You don't even have to use a computer if you don't want to. There are plenty of people living their lives every day without ever touching a computer. I use windows where it works for me, Linux where it works for me. The truth is, is that you don't have to use windows. It's very feasible to run Linux on your computer. You may not be able to run certain applications, but they most likely aren't things that you have to be running.
How is it counter to the American way of thinking. Education (through highschool), police, firefighters, highway system, social security (I know this doesn't work well), and many other things are provided to the American people in a socialized fashion. What makes healthcare any different from the services that are already provided?
From what I've heard, Mac OS doesn't do this kind of stuff either. It's a little different, since it requires specific apple hardware to run the OS, but there's nothing stopping you from running out and getting a pirated copy of Leopard once it gets released, and running that on your older Mac. I understand how stopping pirates is a good thing, but it should never be done at the expense of your paying customers.
Slashdot Mirror
However, everyone's eyes interpret the colors differently. Think about color blindness, only to a lesser extent. I'm pretty sure that everybody perceives colors differently. So what looks right to the graphic designer would look different to every single person looking at the design.
Does your license expire if you don't renew it often enough? Does it lose some of it's functionality as time goes on? I would think not. If the new version doesn't justify the price, you don't have to pay for it. Even $600 a year for software would be nothing if the tool is really as great as everyone says (I've tried photoshop, as an amateur, I can't say I like it that much, but to each their own).
Another tool that I find really good from the closed source world is Visual Studio. While it has some of it's own problems, I find that overall, it's a really great IDE. Probably in the top 3 on all IDEs out there. Even VS.Net 2002 is beyond where most open source ones are. So while free tools can be nice for those of us who just want to use them for hobby purposes, paying money for the closed source alternative, can save you a lot of time, and let you turn out a much better product.
If you're a professional, than the $600 price tag probably won't phase you . That's probably what you'd bill your clients for a days work. $600 is nothing. However, for the hobbyist and basic home user, GIMP probably does just about everything then need it to do, and is increasing in functionality all the time. It also comes with a price tag of $0. So while I think it's important for GIMP to strive to be as good as Photoshop, being not quite as good, but very good and free still makes it a very good tool.
What I've always wondered is how do the graphic designers see what the output will actually be on their screen? Of the color that is printed is indeed different then what they are seeing, then how do they visualize what the printed result will look like?
Got any open source code? I'd like to see an example of how this works.
See, that model falls apart once you have a database with 50 tables. Because you have to load and parse a lot of script for every page load. I'm not sure how much (if anything) is cached by PHP, and how much recompiling has to be done on each load. Also, if you want to break you stuff up into a lot of different classes, with each class in a different file, then it quickly becomes a large mess of stuff to include in each page. I find that this is one of the major advantages of having a compiled language.
Applications requiring one database or another should be ancient history. However, whenever you look up a how to access MySQL from PHP, you'll find stuff that recommends using all the mysql_* functions. This is the quick way to creating an app that absolutely depends on MySQL. Really people should be using PDO, instead of mysql_ or pgsql_. Of course the real solution is to use a database abstraction layer, but I've never found a good way to create an n-tier web appliction in PHP.
I'd say that OpenOffice Base competes with Access. As does Filemaker Pro (do they still sell that?). Most other databases do not because they are just storage engines, and don't really offer much in terms of a user interface for creating data entry forms, or displaying reports.
But the wireless spectrum is very limited. For the first 100,000 people or so on the wireless network, it could probably remain pretty fast. But try running all the computers in New York City on a wireless network, and see what kind of speed you can achieve at each node. So as a starter point, to get the first few people in the country on a network, or to connect a small village, wireless networks could prove extremely useful. However, if you want to take all the network communication in a large city and try to accomplish that without wires, you'd probably fail very quickly. Don't even start to mention current cellular networks, because there's still a lot of wires involved.
I still find that wires (or optical cables for that matter) offer many advantages to wireless. For one, they are much less susceptible to interference. They are much faster. I'm not sure where they get their numbers from, but I have gigabit Ethernet at my house, and that's 1000 Mbits/s. That's 18 times faster than 802.11g. Now, if you have a good switch, you can get that same speed to the any number of computers on the same network. With wireless, all the computers on the same network are sharing whatever bandwidth is available. So if you have 10 computers on your wireless network, your effective bandwidth is 5.4 Mbits/s per computer.
It could on cost. Using fiber in many areas requires that you lay new lines. Even if it's not quite as fast as copper, or has a little more latency (light is faster than electrical signals), you could probably make quite a bit of money since there's a much smaller investment.
How exactly would you measure fractions of a bit? A bit is the smallest unit you can measure. Either you have the bit, or you don't. You can't have half a bit. It would be like saying you have half an atom of hydrogren.
Just imagine the network you could build with Monster cables.
Exactly. You'd probably be better off setting up and HTTP server and having the people you want to communicate with post a message directly to you over SSL. Couldn't ISPs just give everyone a domain name (probably a long one), so that instead of email, with messages bouncing all over the place, you just post directly to someones computer. It's not like anybody remembers emails addresses anyway, just store them in an address book.
However, Mandriva comes with everything. The $107 Vista won't let you legally play DVDs either. You have to get a separate program to do that. Also, Mandriva has a full suite of servers (HTTP,SQL,DNS,SMTP,POP3,IMAP,....) which don't come with Windows Home versions.
No, just like all residential services, they will probably have some stipulation about not being allowed to use it to host servers. Also, I'm not sure they off a real SLA, so it would seem that you might be down when you most need the service.
Well, to get the most of it, you'll have to connect to a bunch of different servers at the same time.
As a long time Mandriva user (since 1999) I never really saw the draw of Ubuntu. For me, Ubuntu never offered anything that Mandriva didn't offer, and always seemed to be lacking in quite a few areas.
Yeah, he should be using a better distro like Mandriva, which can play them perfectly legally if you pay for the powerpack version. And it costs only $59 for the download version, or $89 for the boxed version. Much cheaper than Vista.
A quick google turned up this. Seems a teething remedy called farouk is commonly used in the middle east and contains lead. This could be what you're referring to.
Exactly. There is no reason why Vista with or without Aero should be as slow as it is. I'm dual booting Vista (came preinstalled) and Mandriva on a laptop with 512 MB RAM, 1.6 GHz Celeron, and Intel GMA 650. Compiz Fusion runs extremely quick and flawlessly. Vista won't even run Aero, and running without Aero is extremely show, so I wouldn't even want to venture into running Aero. There's no reason why adding a 3D desktop should make your machine so much slower, and there's no reason why Vista shouldn't be faster.
This is my view of it. Nobody has to use windows. It would be different if they were they were selling some kind of patented drug that kept you alive. Then we could say that you had to use it. But being that windows is basically an operating system, well, nobody has to use it. You don't even have to use a computer if you don't want to. There are plenty of people living their lives every day without ever touching a computer. I use windows where it works for me, Linux where it works for me. The truth is, is that you don't have to use windows. It's very feasible to run Linux on your computer. You may not be able to run certain applications, but they most likely aren't things that you have to be running.
How is it counter to the American way of thinking. Education (through highschool), police, firefighters, highway system, social security (I know this doesn't work well), and many other things are provided to the American people in a socialized fashion. What makes healthcare any different from the services that are already provided?
From what I've heard, Mac OS doesn't do this kind of stuff either. It's a little different, since it requires specific apple hardware to run the OS, but there's nothing stopping you from running out and getting a pirated copy of Leopard once it gets released, and running that on your older Mac. I understand how stopping pirates is a good thing, but it should never be done at the expense of your paying customers.