The hard core slashdot readership hates Apple because they see them as both successful and non-open - a combination they hate to see. The better Apple are the more it invalidates their open is best philosophy.
Nice way to draw a conclusion that doesn't follow from the facts as you present them. Just because they are successful doesn't mean they are good (which happens to be quite ill defined as far as technology goes).
You're a moron.
Sure might be, but I know what a patch is. What the difference between humans and computers is. And know how the scientific community keeps (or doesn't) secrets...
I hate to break this to you, but a simple blood contact can be enough to infect someone with HIV. Not only has this glaring weakness has not been patched, it is also highly publicized by the people who discovered it...
And sometimes the user stumbles on a really obscure issue and you assume they are confused until you sit down with the issue.
One user was complaining about Excel hiding certain values from a drop down filter. User error, right? Turns out the values are indeed gone, exactly two of them. Never figured it out, thankfully wasn't critical.
Another had Excel locking up when scrolling down a sheet. Hidden values, large calculations, VB, something like that... Must be. Deleting everything left us with a blank sheet that locked up for half a minute when scrolling down. Took OO.o and a hex viewer to figure out that Excel had somehow managed to crap all over the file, without any visible results, and was processing about 2 MB of junk every time you scroll past a certain point.
Imagine if organized crime had thrown way more resources then this one doctor at the problem and to protect yourself you'd have to wear a patch on the eye opposite to your dominant hand until a proper fix would be released (which can be created in less then day and throughly tested within weeks).
Is he or is he not an asshole when he blogs about how to patch your eye?
There's nothing that says a development team must implement Joe User's suggestions.
Are we in the comment section for the same article?
What they should do, in my opinion, is be polite about it. It doesn't matter if the user is obnoxious or otherwise "less that perfect".
Even the ones who are polite are less likely to help "problem" users, so it does matter. And that is the case in both FLOSS and proprietary software developers.
A professional simply accepts the suggestion and either implements it or not, but doesn't respond childishly.
A professional is more likely to be polite because they are getting paid to do whatever they are doing, but many professionals still have low bullshit tolerance, being nice is not a requirement for being a professional. Either way, there is nothing childish about telling a user who actually is acting childish to fuck off. It's rude, call it that.
And these are large packages with tons of users, corporate backing with bugs that seriously affect usability.
And they would have fixed the bugs in question if it was proprietary software? As far as I can tell the major difference is transparency (we see all the shit that goes into developing some software), not the license.
I've had more then one feature suggestion promptly implemented in FLOSS. 64-bit XP, on the other hand, was a complete joke that we had the privilege paying for. Back to square one?
But the first step in that process is an admission that you're not perfect, and that your work can, in fact, be improved upon.
In FLOSS this attitude needs to be mutual. At the very least in my experience the developers of GIMP respond well to people who can admit that their suggestions might be less then perfect.
The development of Scribus has been spotty, but 1.4 finally seems to be reachable. You might want to try it, I can't really judge it, as I'm not familiar with DTP.
There is no such thing as working "natively in" raw, unless you are researching raw decoding you will always demosaic. Gimp has Ufraw for raw import, Photoshop has camera raw. Photoshop can also import raws as high color depth images and Levels will have all the information there was...
For one traffic can't be passively sniffed, a full out man in the middle attack is harder. For another a non-authority signed certificate doesn't mean I haven't verified the certificate out of band, that doesn't mean I want to sit through a show of security theater or, worse, explain to a less security aware friend that securely connecting to my server is only a matter of matching to the fingerprint I provided and the scary warning is just that.
You mean VP8 has been found different enough that the favorite optimizations of one x264 developer can't be directly applied and that same developer, who don't give one shit about patents or how to avoid them, decided that he was nonetheless qualified to express opinions on VP8's patent status. Note that MPEG LA isn't providing any legal protection for using H.264 and x264 devs wouldn't be able to tell you if their baby violates patents outside of the MPEG LA pool... or what it actually uses from the pool for that matter.
The post the parent linked to goes into extensive detail about the technical aspects of the codec
Like completely ignoring alternate reference frames and then only updating, after Google brought attention to them, with a dismissal about how they aren't B-Frames, so they suck anyway, no matter if they are more flexible in other ways?
There is absolutely no motive for them to lie about this sort of thing.
Free software projects dismiss unfamiliar aspects of competing projects all the time, and the linked article doesn't give VP8 a fair treatment on its own merits, it just picks apart the places where x264 optimizations are not applicable.
With H.264 base profile, yes. With high profile, no.
Since WebM is Google's answer to the codec problems of HTML5, baseline H.264 is the target. Mobile devices can't do much better, sometimes they can't even do baseline without restrictions. Besides, patent problems aside, x264 is basically the best H.264 codec out there, for better or worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this problem at least be mitigated through non-controlled/controlled source coordination?
Wikipedia claims that you can regain 70-85%, just how much off are they?
Nice way to draw a conclusion that doesn't follow from the facts as you present them. Just because they are successful doesn't mean they are good (which happens to be quite ill defined as far as technology goes).
You're a moron. Sure might be, but I know what a patch is. What the difference between humans and computers is. And know how the scientific community keeps (or doesn't) secrets...
I hate to break this to you, but a simple blood contact can be enough to infect someone with HIV. Not only has this glaring weakness has not been patched, it is also highly publicized by the people who discovered it...
And sometimes the user stumbles on a really obscure issue and you assume they are confused until you sit down with the issue.
One user was complaining about Excel hiding certain values from a drop down filter. User error, right? Turns out the values are indeed gone, exactly two of them. Never figured it out, thankfully wasn't critical.
Another had Excel locking up when scrolling down a sheet. Hidden values, large calculations, VB, something like that... Must be. Deleting everything left us with a blank sheet that locked up for half a minute when scrolling down. Took OO.o and a hex viewer to figure out that Excel had somehow managed to crap all over the file, without any visible results, and was processing about 2 MB of junk every time you scroll past a certain point.
Seems like the NHSTA wouldn't.
Imagine if organized crime had thrown way more resources then this one doctor at the problem and to protect yourself you'd have to wear a patch on the eye opposite to your dominant hand until a proper fix would be released (which can be created in less then day and throughly tested within weeks).
Is he or is he not an asshole when he blogs about how to patch your eye?
Are we in the comment section for the same article?
Even the ones who are polite are less likely to help "problem" users, so it does matter. And that is the case in both FLOSS and proprietary software developers.
A professional is more likely to be polite because they are getting paid to do whatever they are doing, but many professionals still have low bullshit tolerance, being nice is not a requirement for being a professional. Either way, there is nothing childish about telling a user who actually is acting childish to fuck off. It's rude, call it that.
GNU Image Manipulation Program is not only the official name, but also happens to be 4 letters shorter...
And they would have fixed the bugs in question if it was proprietary software? As far as I can tell the major difference is transparency (we see all the shit that goes into developing some software), not the license.
I've had more then one feature suggestion promptly implemented in FLOSS. 64-bit XP, on the other hand, was a complete joke that we had the privilege paying for. Back to square one?
In FLOSS this attitude needs to be mutual. At the very least in my experience the developers of GIMP respond well to people who can admit that their suggestions might be less then perfect.
So... Would Adobe just implement whatever he asked for?
So... Photoshop on OS X sucks?
The development of Scribus has been spotty, but 1.4 finally seems to be reachable. You might want to try it, I can't really judge it, as I'm not familiar with DTP.
Let me link to a comment in response to a UI complaint about Photoshop.
Can we drop the double standard that GIMP has to be magically intuitive?
There is no such thing as working "natively in" raw, unless you are researching raw decoding you will always demosaic. Gimp has Ufraw for raw import, Photoshop has camera raw. Photoshop can also import raws as high color depth images and Levels will have all the information there was...
I'm aware of the mess most SSL authorities are. Just amused by the notion that somehow the rubberstamping is worth $60 (cheap even!).
And with features like: "Automated validation delivers your SSL Certificate to you in minutes without faxing documents.", so is the security.
For one traffic can't be passively sniffed, a full out man in the middle attack is harder. For another a non-authority signed certificate doesn't mean I haven't verified the certificate out of band, that doesn't mean I want to sit through a show of security theater or, worse, explain to a less security aware friend that securely connecting to my server is only a matter of matching to the fingerprint I provided and the scary warning is just that.
You mean VP8 has been found different enough that the favorite optimizations of one x264 developer can't be directly applied and that same developer, who don't give one shit about patents or how to avoid them, decided that he was nonetheless qualified to express opinions on VP8's patent status. Note that MPEG LA isn't providing any legal protection for using H.264 and x264 devs wouldn't be able to tell you if their baby violates patents outside of the MPEG LA pool... or what it actually uses from the pool for that matter.
Like completely ignoring alternate reference frames and then only updating, after Google brought attention to them, with a dismissal about how they aren't B-Frames, so they suck anyway, no matter if they are more flexible in other ways?
Free software projects dismiss unfamiliar aspects of competing projects all the time, and the linked article doesn't give VP8 a fair treatment on its own merits, it just picks apart the places where x264 optimizations are not applicable.
Not to mention "ready for commercial use", unlike the competition.
Since WebM is Google's answer to the codec problems of HTML5, baseline H.264 is the target. Mobile devices can't do much better, sometimes they can't even do baseline without restrictions. Besides, patent problems aside, x264 is basically the best H.264 codec out there, for better or worse.