Exactly right. His original article was so full of holes it was barely there. Even in the second article he seemed vague and unsure of his territory. The excuse that "he isn't writing for a tech readership" is bullshit: even more reason to get it right, when this may be the first his readership has heard on a given topic.
Linux remains a diverse, highly scalable, and powerful operating system, the only one which has been able to hop the current gap between PowerPC and x86
Right, point taken. I guess my original question was rhetorical. In more literal terms, I just meant: 'The books were not the original format; the radio show was.'
Why is it that people keep talking about the books as the authoritative original source which the films must be measured against? The books, while a good read, lack the immediacy and playfulness of the original radio show: by the time Adams came to write the books, he was, to a certain extent, the victim of his own success. The series became a franchise that was undeservedly bigger than its author (his Dirk Gently books were less pacey, but just as entertaining as the Hitch Hiker titles). For instance, Zaphod and Trillian, if my memory serves, were casually killed off in an episode of the radio show. He had full freedom. When translating the riotous, freewheeling romp through space that was the original radio show into book form, that episode was changed and the characters survived. I feel this change was made to preserve the Hitch Hiker franchise. The last three books in the five-part trilogy were, although quite amusing, increasingly tired attempts to massage some more life out of the original concept and characters, and did not have the same gusto as the radio show or the first two books (which were, I believe, that only ones that were adaptations of the shows).
Definitely not the point. I can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin but it doesn't really add to the software available for win32. From the standpoint of Joe User, the fact I can run an emulation layer and kind-of run my Windows apps with a big performance penalty does not add value to Linux as an option. Sure, if you are already committed to Linux/*BSD, you can work around stuff and find ways to improve the range of software available. As a FL/OSS advocate, I'm not interested in preaching to their choir...
Actually they have done their best to make the inclusion of OO.org sound like it has MSOffice:
Complete Microsoft Office file-compatible office software suite lets you easily create and share written files (.doc), spreadsheets (.xls) and presentations (.ppt). Even create PDFs and export presentations to Macromedia Flash
I sort of agree with an earlier poster that this kind of thing does make FL/OSS look like a bit of a ripoff.. I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Windows.
But Abiword is not the FL/OSS alternative to MS Office, as OO.org is. If there was a fully featured alternative to Photoshop, I would leave the Gimp alone.
I don't want it as a user; I want it to exist because I want Linux/*BSD to be credible as platforms for designers. Doesn't even have to be Open Source; if Adobe made a Linux port of PhotoShop I would be happy. The point is the available software for the platform.
Cinepaint, interesting. I note that nor does this project currently CYMK support (although they are planning it).
Re:Don't combine valid complaints with crap.
on
GIMP 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
I don't agree the UI is 'fixed'. I still see fat, ungainly widgets (really important when every bit of screen space is a bit you can't use to edit graphics) all over the shop.
Script-Fu and its more recent incarnations may not hurt anyone in themselves; my point was that development efforts should be concentrated on getting far more important missing features up to speed. So, in taking away efforts from those vital points, they are actually hurting the Gimp's contribution to the FL/OSS toolset as a whole. If there was a another comparable FL/OSS graphics app that offered such features, I wouldn't care.
Of course web graphics are useful. But say if OpenOffice.org had tried to say you didn't really need a spreadsheet, that most people just used word processors so they weren't going to bother releasing Calc. It's a non-argument, and OO.org would only cross the line from toy to real office suite once it delivered all the functionality people expect.
I am not trying to attack the developers. I know it is hard to develop software. The big picture, though, of the whole spectrum of FL/OSS software available, is slowly starting to fill in the gaps. The Gimp, and its development process, however, is of no interest to me as a potential user; as a FL/OSS advocate, though, it's very important in its potential to fill in the graphics gap. It's not doing that at the moment, and it won't do until it has native CMYK support and other features. Excuses do not a viable app make.
The initial roadmap for Gimp 2.0 included a few "professional" touches that previous releases were missing, such as native support for CMYK and 16 bit/channel image depth for video editing. These features have not made it into the 2.0 release, because the Gimp developers decided that it is better to release a good thing now than to delay much longer in the quest of better functionality.
What a joke! Without CMYK, the Gimp is a toy, useful for web graphics but little else. No good to design pros, or to anyone that wants to be able to produce documents to print -- I fall into that second category, and without Photoshop and/or Illustrator, or a Gimp with decent features like native CMYK, there's no way I'm shifting from OS X. Trust me, graphics people do not give a monkeys about Python-Fu.. they want decent tools, they want them to have professional features, they want a decent intuitive UI (anyone that claims the Gimp has this is either a fantatic, a troll, or has the pleasure nodes in his or brain switched with the pain ones). I am not saying this for my own sake, I'm happy using Photoshop, but for the sake of FL/OSS in general. The lack of a decent graphics package This may not sound such a big deal, but without a *n?x version of Photoshop, and the Gimp being in the state it is, this effectively cuts out the viability of using a FL/OSS OS as a graphics workstation.
I had never heard of the ICR. Looks more of a propaganda institution than educational though:) Similarly a white paper by one of those 'universities' where you can buy a degree online would be less credible than a reputable corporation's.
I see where you're going with your second point, but I'd say that only works with scientific discussion. Logic, facts and experiments can't reconcile, for instance, two opposing political persuations where it gets down to philosophy rather than just bare facts. Even within science, where there is controversy, different viewpoints are presented, along with the evidence, and eventually the scientific community will come to some kind of consensus. I'd say the clash of egos involved is necessary to further the dialectic process of distilling the dross from the truth.
I agree with the majority of your comments, Geoffreyerffoeg. However, I would argue that a distinction should be drawn between a corporation and an educational institution; while the former has no greater legitimacy than the latter, as a reader, I'd rather trust a reference book written and edited by staff at a university than a corporation (and probably, more so than I would Wikipaedia too, although it would depend on which university). That's just a very unscientific rule of thumb, but I think it makes common sense.
I'd also like to point out that there neutrality, or lack of bias, is an illusory goal. The best you can do is to present all arguments, but even then, this system can tend to magnify the arguments of a kooky minority, especially if those views coincide with those of a powerful group (witness all the exposure received by those tiny subset of climatologists that don't believe in global warming; or Creationists); or to marginalise valid points of view on the basis that less people hold them than those that don't, or that oppose them (impossible to think of an uncontroversial example).
The article on this freaky guy is a case in point. It's actually a very negative article, although it is trying hard to be objective. I totally agree with it; the guy is clearly a dickhead. But it's not really unbiased.. fair enough, considering his aggressive behaviour. But there always comes a time when the writer is personally involved.. and I would argue that happens every time s/he picks up a pen, though to a greater or a lesser degree.
I guess at the end of the day, no single source - or even a set of sources - can be definitive or comprehensive, unless you happen to have access to all the viewpoints of all the beings ever in the universe (i.e. you are God or some equivelant); and I suspect that, with all that information, whatever it was you wanted to learn about would seem kind of trivial anyway.
The best way to get a good handle on a subject is the old fashioned way: refinement by debate. This works better for some subject than others though: great for science but less useful for more subjective debates like humanities or politics, say.
Best to focus on music production, stuff that kids wanting to get into the industry will find really useful.
Least expensive would be to focus on software, and stuff you can do on normal computers. Tutorials in Cubase SX, Soundforge, Reason, Recyle, ProTools, VSTs...
Please note that these decisions were not based on accuracy testing
So - exactly why would anyone waste more than two seconds on these reviews? Just so we can find out what they think of the GUIs and how easy they are to install.. without an analysis of how effective they are at blocking spam? What crap.
You're talking about taking a feature and incorporating it into an existing system. How about someone just forking the tree, adding a stack of new features on top, and then selling it as a better system? They would have everything your system has plus more.
Slashdot Mirror
"No network no programs, no data as well"
No longer true:
http://gears.google.com/
Granny Smiths declared far superior to Valencia oranges.
Exactly right. His original article was so full of holes it was barely there. Even in the second article he seemed vague and unsure of his territory. The excuse that "he isn't writing for a tech readership" is bullshit: even more reason to get it right, when this may be the first his readership has heard on a given topic.
Yes indeed. Dice are only worthwhile when money is involved.
This (on page 2 of the article):
.. is nonsense.
How would that make riot cops any safer? Surely they would way more dangerous with such suits.
Right, point taken. I guess my original question was rhetorical. In more literal terms, I just meant: 'The books were not the original format; the radio show was.'
I remember hearing the show on JJJ, a radio station in Australia, which is where I was living at the time - I think around 82 or 83.
Why is it that people keep talking about the books as the authoritative original source which the films must be measured against? The books, while a good read, lack the immediacy and playfulness of the original radio show: by the time Adams came to write the books, he was, to a certain extent, the victim of his own success. The series became a franchise that was undeservedly bigger than its author (his Dirk Gently books were less pacey, but just as entertaining as the Hitch Hiker titles). For instance, Zaphod and Trillian, if my memory serves, were casually killed off in an episode of the radio show. He had full freedom. When translating the riotous, freewheeling romp through space that was the original radio show into book form, that episode was changed and the characters survived. I feel this change was made to preserve the Hitch Hiker franchise. The last three books in the five-part trilogy were, although quite amusing, increasingly tired attempts to massage some more life out of the original concept and characters, and did not have the same gusto as the radio show or the first two books (which were, I believe, that only ones that were adaptations of the shows).
... only old people use broadband.
LOL. I'm with ya on that one! :)
Definitely not the point. I can run PostgreSQL on Cygwin but it doesn't really add to the software available for win32. From the standpoint of Joe User, the fact I can run an emulation layer and kind-of run my Windows apps with a big performance penalty does not add value to Linux as an option. Sure, if you are already committed to Linux/*BSD, you can work around stuff and find ways to improve the range of software available. As a FL/OSS advocate, I'm not interested in preaching to their choir...
Actually they have done their best to make the inclusion of OO.org sound like it has MSOffice:
I sort of agree with an earlier poster that this kind of thing does make FL/OSS look like a bit of a ripoff .. I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Windows.
But Abiword is not the FL/OSS alternative to MS Office, as OO.org is. If there was a fully featured alternative to Photoshop, I would leave the Gimp alone.
I don't want it as a user; I want it to exist because I want Linux/*BSD to be credible as platforms for designers. Doesn't even have to be Open Source; if Adobe made a Linux port of PhotoShop I would be happy. The point is the available software for the platform.
I didn't say 'usable'. Of course it's usable. I said 'intuitive'.
Cinepaint, interesting. I note that nor does this project currently CYMK support (although they are planning it).
I don't agree the UI is 'fixed'. I still see fat, ungainly widgets (really important when every bit of screen space is a bit you can't use to edit graphics) all over the shop.
Script-Fu and its more recent incarnations may not hurt anyone in themselves; my point was that development efforts should be concentrated on getting far more important missing features up to speed. So, in taking away efforts from those vital points, they are actually hurting the Gimp's contribution to the FL/OSS toolset as a whole. If there was a another comparable FL/OSS graphics app that offered such features, I wouldn't care.
Of course web graphics are useful. But say if OpenOffice.org had tried to say you didn't really need a spreadsheet, that most people just used word processors so they weren't going to bother releasing Calc. It's a non-argument, and OO.org would only cross the line from toy to real office suite once it delivered all the functionality people expect.
I am not trying to attack the developers. I know it is hard to develop software. The big picture, though, of the whole spectrum of FL/OSS software available, is slowly starting to fill in the gaps. The Gimp, and its development process, however, is of no interest to me as a potential user; as a FL/OSS advocate, though, it's very important in its potential to fill in the graphics gap. It's not doing that at the moment, and it won't do until it has native CMYK support and other features. Excuses do not a viable app make.
Very good point. This has been in their bugzilla (as a feature enhancement) since Sept '03.
Check this out, from their wiki:
What a joke! Without CMYK, the Gimp is a toy, useful for web graphics but little else. No good to design pros, or to anyone that wants to be able to produce documents to print -- I fall into that second category, and without Photoshop and/or Illustrator, or a Gimp with decent features like native CMYK, there's no way I'm shifting from OS X. Trust me, graphics people do not give a monkeys about Python-Fu .. they want decent tools, they want them to have professional features, they want a decent intuitive UI (anyone that claims the Gimp has this is either a fantatic, a troll, or has the pleasure nodes in his or brain switched with the pain ones). I am not saying this for my own sake, I'm happy using Photoshop, but for the sake of FL/OSS in general. The lack of a decent graphics package This may not sound such a big deal, but without a *n?x version of Photoshop, and the Gimp being in the state it is, this effectively cuts out the viability of using a FL/OSS OS as a graphics workstation.
I had never heard of the ICR. Looks more of a propaganda institution than educational though :) Similarly a white paper by one of those 'universities' where you can buy a degree online would be less credible than a reputable corporation's.
I see where you're going with your second point, but I'd say that only works with scientific discussion. Logic, facts and experiments can't reconcile, for instance, two opposing political persuations where it gets down to philosophy rather than just bare facts. Even within science, where there is controversy, different viewpoints are presented, along with the evidence, and eventually the scientific community will come to some kind of consensus. I'd say the clash of egos involved is necessary to further the dialectic process of distilling the dross from the truth.
I agree with the majority of your comments, Geoffreyerffoeg. However, I would argue that a distinction should be drawn between a corporation and an educational institution; while the former has no greater legitimacy than the latter, as a reader, I'd rather trust a reference book written and edited by staff at a university than a corporation (and probably, more so than I would Wikipaedia too, although it would depend on which university). That's just a very unscientific rule of thumb, but I think it makes common sense.
I'd also like to point out that there neutrality, or lack of bias, is an illusory goal. The best you can do is to present all arguments, but even then, this system can tend to magnify the arguments of a kooky minority, especially if those views coincide with those of a powerful group (witness all the exposure received by those tiny subset of climatologists that don't believe in global warming; or Creationists); or to marginalise valid points of view on the basis that less people hold them than those that don't, or that oppose them (impossible to think of an uncontroversial example).
The article on this freaky guy is a case in point. It's actually a very negative article, although it is trying hard to be objective. I totally agree with it; the guy is clearly a dickhead. But it's not really unbiased .. fair enough, considering his aggressive behaviour. But there always comes a time when the writer is personally involved .. and I would argue that happens every time s/he picks up a pen, though to a greater or a lesser degree.
I guess at the end of the day, no single source - or even a set of sources - can be definitive or comprehensive, unless you happen to have access to all the viewpoints of all the beings ever in the universe (i.e. you are God or some equivelant); and I suspect that, with all that information, whatever it was you wanted to learn about would seem kind of trivial anyway.
The best way to get a good handle on a subject is the old fashioned way: refinement by debate. This works better for some subject than others though: great for science but less useful for more subjective debates like humanities or politics, say.
Best to focus on music production, stuff that kids wanting to get into the industry will find really useful. Least expensive would be to focus on software, and stuff you can do on normal computers. Tutorials in Cubase SX, Soundforge, Reason, Recyle, ProTools, VSTs ...
So - exactly why would anyone waste more than two seconds on these reviews? Just so we can find out what they think of the GUIs and how easy they are to install .. without an analysis of how effective they are at blocking spam? What crap.
You're talking about taking a feature and incorporating it into an existing system. How about someone just forking the tree, adding a stack of new features on top, and then selling it as a better system? They would have everything your system has plus more.