Oh really? When did Microsoft start bundling Mozilla Firefox with Windows?;)
The point I was getting at is that more people care about web browsers than do professional-level* image editing software.
the UI model in general. When I raise a document window, it should raise ALL associated palette dialogs with it. I should not have to manually hunt for each dialog and raise it manually. They implemented a partial fix in preferences but it does not work well.
First, understand that The GIMP is cross-platform, and that different platforms use different UI models. The platform you're running it on probably isn't the one it was initially designed for. Second, understand that The GIMP is not a window manager, and therefore it is not (or at least, should not be) its job to manage windows! If you're having problems with managing The GIMP's windows, get a better window manager (and if you're using MS Windows, and therefore can't replace the window manager, get a better operating system).
Those G-D file open/save dialogs. The Gtk developer who decided dumbing those down makes workflow easier out to be drawn-and-quartered. Those dialogs are what I hate the absolute most about Gnome in general.
Perhaps the best idea would be for the GTK developers to make their toolkit support native dialogs when running on non-X platforms.
Effects are lost after making any changes (in effect, to mimic Photoshop's effect you clone what you want to have an effect on to another layer, run a suite of filters on it, and adjust the opacity - such as outer glow or shadowing on text. Make a change to the original and you have just lost that effect and have to re-do the entire thing by hand)
- Text styles are lost after making any changes.
- layer handling is unintuitive. The floating layers are a good idea, but there should be a "paste as new layer" option to simplify it for new users; don't complicate it by turning it into many steps.
Now these are legitimate gripes. I only hope they get (can and do) fixed once GEGL is complete.
Some of the posters in here claim that Gimp hurts because it tries to do so much; this sounds like the "one task, one tool" mantra that drove Unixy operating systems for about 30 years. In a CLI that philosophy makes sense, but in a suite one should try to offer a complete solution to improve workflow.
Those people ought to just use ImageMagick and quit complaining about The GIMP. I think we can safely ignore them.
Personally I hope Adobe makes their suite available on Linux - it would be interesting to see what happens to gimp and inkscape. Would they continue to gain market share (albeit slowly) or would interest in them die?
I don't know about The GIMP, but -- at least, according to my girlfriend, who is a 2D computer artist -- Inkscape is actually good. She actually prefers it to Adobe Illustrator. On the other hand, she does not prefer The GIMP to Photoshop.
(*assume for the purpose of this post that the GIMP counts as "professional level" -- AFAIK that's the goal, at least)
I can see smaller businesses and some mid sized ones not renewing, but most of the larger ones will probably continue to do so because it's easier.
I would think just the opposite: since larger businesses buy more software, they would have more to gain by cutting back. Also, large businesses are more likely to afford to dedicate someone to the task.
Here's a clue, dumbass: the problem with Sony's formats is not that they were new, but because they were proprietary. Did you see me complaining about (for example) CompactFlash or SecureDigital? No? Gee, I fucking wonder why!
Some companies are smart enough to invent a format and not seek draconian control over it. Sony isn't one of them.
So, suppose he allows me to install another Samba of mine, but by doing so, I lose access to features A, being only allowed to access feature B.
Ah, in your previous posts you weren't stating this clearly. Now I see what you really meant.
Unfortunately, it's a completely different situation than the person you replied to was talking about. In your case, the system actively checks the version of Samba and allows or disallows access based on that. You're right, this isn't allowed.
In contrast, the situation we were talking about is where the system restricts anything, including the manufacturer-supplied Samba, via (e.g.) a system call that implements DRM. It would go something like this: "PID n wants to open a (DRM'd) file -> kernel checks whether the proper key is supplied -> kernal refuses to decrypt the file."
If you try to lock down your system so that my Samba doesn't have the same access that yours have, you're in breach of the license, and must adjust your system by: a) allowing any Samba access to both features A and B; or b) denying any Samba access to feature A, including yours own deployed version; or c) removing Samba entirely and replacing it by a non-GPLv3 software package.
The original post was talking about situation (b) from the beginning. You misread it.
I don't know why everyone is Sony-hating, but they've been doing it for a long time.
The PS3 isn't the only thing Sony screwed up. Remember the rootkit?
Personally, I was hating Sony before it was popular -- the company's infatuation with stupid proprietary formats (MemoryStick, UMD, MiniDisc, etc.) was enough to do it for me.
I'd be a fool to write "GPLv2 or later" on any piece of code I wrote.
No, you'd be trusting the FSF to write "GPLv2 or later" on any piece of code you wrote. Some would argue that "being a fool" and "trusting the FSF" are not necessarily equivalent!
TiVo wasn't really a loophole as the license was never intended in its original form to cover situations like that.
Actually it was, as I'll explain.
Where in the GPLv2 is there any indication that companies have to give you full access to every bit of hardware you purchase, just because it features GPL software?
If you're arguing about intent -- and you are -- then you can't look just in the license itself. For that, you need to read into the history of the GNU project:
I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a nondisclosure agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT AI lab the source code for the control program for our printer. (The lack of certain features in this program made use of the printer extremely frustrating.) So I could not tell myself that nondisclosure agreements were innocent. I was very angry when he refused to share with us; I could not turn around and do the same thing to everyone else.
Now, think about that example for a minute: RMS merely wanted his hardware to work. In this case, the software was restricted by a non-disclosure agreement. But what if, instead, the printer had been restricted by DRM'd firmware? In that case, RMS would have been complaining about DRM instead!
The only reason the GPL hasn't included prohibitions against DRM from the beginning is that it didn't exist. Hence, it's a loophole.
Look, I'm as much of a GPLv3 advocate as anyone. But face it: you're wrong. The GPLv3 will not prevent the situation the grandparent post described, because in that situation you would still be able to modify the copy of Samba and run it on the device (which is all the GPLv3 requires). It's just that, since you wouldn't be able to access the hypothetical DRM'd thing because something outside of Samba was disallowing it, modifying Samba wouldn't help you get around that limitation.
To prevent the situation under discussion here, the kernel would need to be GPLv3 also.
You seem knowledgable, so I'll ask you: does the OpenMoko include PIM apps? And, just as importantly, does it synchronize with anything (hopefully e.g. KDE PIM at the least, but bonus points for Apple's iSync...)?
I wish the GTA02 were to be available sooner; I would wait on a new phone...
You know, you can get a GTA01, whether it's supposed to be "for developers" or not. Sure, you miss out on the WiFi and graphics, but you get an extra battery and stuff. And you can buy it today.
The early wind turbines spun too fast for birds to avoid because they were small. Newer turbines are much larger, and spin much slower. They are no longer a threat to birds.
Also, what ocean floor habitats are you talking about? Anchors for the turbines wouldn't take up that much space, you know!
Here's a newsflash for you: the exam required to become a Professional Engineer, the bar exam (required to be licensed as a lawyer), etc. are in a completely different league than any of the utter bullshit CompTIA tries to pass off as certifications for computing.
Apple has done magic before with weight issues -- I have no doubt that they could make a lightweight, detachable iMac if they wanted.
The nature of an "iMac" has always been a desktop machine. If they did what you say it would be a dockable Newton or something -- something other than an iMac.
As for your comment about tablet PCs not being touchscreen -- okay Mr. Literal. Come up with a new name for them then. The iTablet. There you go. The iTablet will use a multi-touch screen with pressure sensitivity. I am so sorry Bill Gates for intruding upon your divine creation.
A "tablet," by definition, is intended to be written upon. This implies the use of a stylus, not a finger (or multiple fingers, for that matter). It also implies a difference in performance, which Wikipedia states best:
Compared to a resistive or capacitive touchscreen, a graphics tablet offers much higher precision, the ability to track an object which is not touching the tablet, and can gather much more information about the stylus, but is typically more expensive, and can only be used with the special stylus or other accessories.
Also, aside from the fact that only Microsoft makes software designed for tablets, that asshat Bill Gates' opinion has nothing to do with my statement. A computer running OS X could certainly qualify as a "Tablet PC," if it used a inducion-based stylus rather than (or even, in addition to) a touchscreen.
But that doesn't make it unconstitutional or mean that the federal government is overstepping it's authority.
The Federal government should always be presumed to be overstepping its authority until proven otherwise! (And so should all other governments, for that matter.)
My 12" screen has a 1400x1050 native resolution. Granted, it's not a Mac (Lenovo X60, with basically the same hardware as a Mac Mini), but it's a Hell of a lot better than a cellphone (or iPhone, or PDA, or Nokia 770, or even some 15" laptops, for that matter!).
Besides, I could run OS X on it if I wanted (where "if I wanted" means "if OS X had a Tablet Input Panel and suitable stylus-driven applications").
I would imagine the iMac will be detachable from its base...
You do realize that iMacs weigh about 20lbs, right? Although they use some laptop components -- not all, though, as they have 3.5" hard drives and desktop-quality screens -- they are not portable! They don't even have a battery.
Now, granted, Apple could go in the direction you describe, but considering that TFA says they're making them even bigger (= heavier) by dropping the 17" model, I doubt it.
As you said, a tablet pc, but without all the moving parts.
A multi-touch interface is not a Tablet PC! A tablet PC requires a stylus, preferably Wacom, with pressure sensitivity and the ability to hover (i.e., read the position of the stylus without it touching the display or registering a click). PDAs are not Tablet PCs. The iPhone is not a Tablet PC. A multi-touch iMac (or even MacBook) would not be a Tablet PC. If you had ever used a Tablet PC you would understand this.
Slashdot Mirror
The point I was getting at is that more people care about web browsers than do professional-level* image editing software.
First, understand that The GIMP is cross-platform, and that different platforms use different UI models. The platform you're running it on probably isn't the one it was initially designed for. Second, understand that The GIMP is not a window manager, and therefore it is not (or at least, should not be) its job to manage windows! If you're having problems with managing The GIMP's windows, get a better window manager (and if you're using MS Windows, and therefore can't replace the window manager, get a better operating system).
Perhaps the best idea would be for the GTK developers to make their toolkit support native dialogs when running on non-X platforms.
Now these are legitimate gripes. I only hope they get (can and do) fixed once GEGL is complete.
Those people ought to just use ImageMagick and quit complaining about The GIMP. I think we can safely ignore them.
I don't know about The GIMP, but -- at least, according to my girlfriend, who is a 2D computer artist -- Inkscape is actually good. She actually prefers it to Adobe Illustrator. On the other hand, she does not prefer The GIMP to Photoshop.
(*assume for the purpose of this post that the GIMP counts as "professional level" -- AFAIK that's the goal, at least)
I would think just the opposite: since larger businesses buy more software, they would have more to gain by cutting back. Also, large businesses are more likely to afford to dedicate someone to the task.
<smartass reply>Uh, for the same reason that Internet Explorer is MUCH MORE popular than Photoshop?</smartass reply>
Here's a clue, dumbass: the problem with Sony's formats is not that they were new, but because they were proprietary. Did you see me complaining about (for example) CompactFlash or SecureDigital? No? Gee, I fucking wonder why!
Some companies are smart enough to invent a format and not seek draconian control over it. Sony isn't one of them.
Ah, in your previous posts you weren't stating this clearly. Now I see what you really meant.
Unfortunately, it's a completely different situation than the person you replied to was talking about. In your case, the system actively checks the version of Samba and allows or disallows access based on that. You're right, this isn't allowed.
In contrast, the situation we were talking about is where the system restricts anything, including the manufacturer-supplied Samba, via (e.g.) a system call that implements DRM. It would go something like this: "PID n wants to open a (DRM'd) file -> kernel checks whether the proper key is supplied -> kernal refuses to decrypt the file."
The original post was talking about situation (b) from the beginning. You misread it.
The PS3 isn't the only thing Sony screwed up. Remember the rootkit?
Personally, I was hating Sony before it was popular -- the company's infatuation with stupid proprietary formats (MemoryStick, UMD, MiniDisc, etc.) was enough to do it for me.
Hey, the graphics in my GPL aren't working. Do I need to upgrade my LSD or something?
No, you'd be trusting the FSF to write "GPLv2 or later" on any piece of code you wrote. Some would argue that "being a fool" and "trusting the FSF" are not necessarily equivalent!
Actually it was, as I'll explain.
If you're arguing about intent -- and you are -- then you can't look just in the license itself. For that, you need to read into the history of the GNU project:
Now, think about that example for a minute: RMS merely wanted his hardware to work. In this case, the software was restricted by a non-disclosure agreement. But what if, instead, the printer had been restricted by DRM'd firmware? In that case, RMS would have been complaining about DRM instead!
The only reason the GPL hasn't included prohibitions against DRM from the beginning is that it didn't exist. Hence, it's a loophole.
Have GCC and glibc gone GPLv3 (or LGPLv3, in the latter case) yet?
Look, I'm as much of a GPLv3 advocate as anyone. But face it: you're wrong. The GPLv3 will not prevent the situation the grandparent post described, because in that situation you would still be able to modify the copy of Samba and run it on the device (which is all the GPLv3 requires). It's just that, since you wouldn't be able to access the hypothetical DRM'd thing because something outside of Samba was disallowing it, modifying Samba wouldn't help you get around that limitation.
To prevent the situation under discussion here, the kernel would need to be GPLv3 also.
You still paid $400-odd dollars (plus games) for a game console, which is insane to begin with!
Only "consumers" stupid enough to buy a 360 or PS3 have been screwed. Everybody else is just fine, thankyouverymuch!
You seem knowledgable, so I'll ask you: does the OpenMoko include PIM apps? And, just as importantly, does it synchronize with anything (hopefully e.g. KDE PIM at the least, but bonus points for Apple's iSync...)?
You know, you can get a GTA01, whether it's supposed to be "for developers" or not. Sure, you miss out on the WiFi and graphics, but you get an extra battery and stuff. And you can buy it today.
The early wind turbines spun too fast for birds to avoid because they were small. Newer turbines are much larger, and spin much slower. They are no longer a threat to birds.
Also, what ocean floor habitats are you talking about? Anchors for the turbines wouldn't take up that much space, you know!
Here's a newsflash for you: the exam required to become a Professional Engineer, the bar exam (required to be licensed as a lawyer), etc. are in a completely different league than any of the utter bullshit CompTIA tries to pass off as certifications for computing.
Not to mention that the "address" of a web page is the IP address or domain name, not the full URL!
The nature of an "iMac" has always been a desktop machine. If they did what you say it would be a dockable Newton or something -- something other than an iMac.
A "tablet," by definition, is intended to be written upon. This implies the use of a stylus, not a finger (or multiple fingers, for that matter). It also implies a difference in performance, which Wikipedia states best:
Also, aside from the fact that only Microsoft makes software designed for tablets, that asshat Bill Gates' opinion has nothing to do with my statement. A computer running OS X could certainly qualify as a "Tablet PC," if it used a inducion-based stylus rather than (or even, in addition to) a touchscreen.
The Federal government should always be presumed to be overstepping its authority until proven otherwise! (And so should all other governments, for that matter.)
Uh, am I missing something? Because unless your iMac is old, it does contain the features of the AppleTV, namely, Front Row and a remote control.
My 12" screen has a 1400x1050 native resolution. Granted, it's not a Mac (Lenovo X60, with basically the same hardware as a Mac Mini), but it's a Hell of a lot better than a cellphone (or iPhone, or PDA, or Nokia 770, or even some 15" laptops, for that matter!).
Besides, I could run OS X on it if I wanted (where "if I wanted" means "if OS X had a Tablet Input Panel and suitable stylus-driven applications").
You do realize that iMacs weigh about 20lbs, right? Although they use some laptop components -- not all, though, as they have 3.5" hard drives and desktop-quality screens -- they are not portable! They don't even have a battery.
Now, granted, Apple could go in the direction you describe, but considering that TFA says they're making them even bigger (= heavier) by dropping the 17" model, I doubt it.
A multi-touch interface is not a Tablet PC! A tablet PC requires a stylus, preferably Wacom, with pressure sensitivity and the ability to hover (i.e., read the position of the stylus without it touching the display or registering a click). PDAs are not Tablet PCs. The iPhone is not a Tablet PC. A multi-touch iMac (or even MacBook) would not be a Tablet PC. If you had ever used a Tablet PC you would understand this.
If it requires anything other than a screwdriver (used correctly, not as a pry-bar) to open, it doesn't qualify as "easy!"
I think Steve Wozniak (the designer of the Apple I) would beg to differ!