But take it from someone who's been using photoshop since around version 4.0 (which begat 5, then 5.5, then 6, then 7, and now CS, just FYI), it is still drastically different.
I personally can't use it, because I use so many keyboard shortcuts, within a matter of about 15 seconds of using the gimp, I'm so violently frustrated I want to punch a hole in my monitor.
- if you distribute, along with the GPL code a work that is dependant on that code, you have to distribute the whole work under the GPL terms.
I have a problem with this statement, since the line you quoted specifically mentions "derived" works.
I do not believe writing a GUI for a piece of GPL'd software is writing software derived from said GPL work.
Re:Shit, who wouldn't buy a mac ..
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
you shouldn't pull stuff like that out of your ass, you can do yourself an injury you'll regret for the rest of your life.
I just upgraded my son's PC for his birthday, and I've just got a Mac mini. He's got a PC because he's a gamer, and his PC is a hell of a lot more powerful than my mini, but just the upgrades ended up costing a significant chunk of the price of that mini... so I think I have a pretty good idea of what you can get for $500.
And, basically, right now, across the board... the "Mac Tax" for equivalent hardware to a PC is about 50%. You'll end up paying 50% more to get a Mac instead of a comparable PC. Oh, it's not exact, and there's a lot more options on the PC side, but the days when the cost hit was a factor of two and a bit (I don't think it was ever a matter of three or four times) are gone.
Thats what I can't get over, the entry price. To buy a piece of hardware, an os, and applications, that I might not even end up "liking" - let alone be more productive using (I'm pertty sure I just butchered the english language there, so forgive me).
Um, you really want me to say that it's *cheaper* than the comparable PC now? No, that'd be a bit much, right?
It performs better on my Mac mini than on my old IBM Thinkpad, which is not quite up to the specs of a modern $500 white-box PC but beats the Mini in every "objective" dimension. So I think it'd be pretty close to comparable, and the rest of the system just fits together so much better than Windows that you might be most amazingly surprised how much more you get done.
Or not, I don't know, some people hate OS X. Maybe you're one of them... but if you're thinking that it'd be good for you I'm thinking the price difference shouldn't be as big a hurdle as you're making out.
No, no, no! I definitely don't *hate* OS X! I haven't even gotten to play with it! But I do love *nix and I do *hate* X Windows, so it seems like it would be fantastic. The more I read and hear about it, the more interested I am to give it a shot. I seriously love the direction Apple seems to be heading, and I love being able to say that. I love having options and alternatives. And Apple is honestly, day by day, becoming a viable option for me.
What I'm really considering is picking up an old(er) Powerbook to play with. I just have so many things to do (work, running my other company, side projects, hobbies) thats its tough for me to find time to replace something that works perfectly well for everything I have to do. But, on the same token, I think I'd be doing myself a serious disservice if I didn't honestly evaluate all my options.
I just wish I had a friend that was really into Apple that could give me a crash course, and let me play around with their setup.
I wish it sounded more like DCC, which is vastly superior.
Re:Shit, who wouldn't buy a mac ..
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and that $500 headless mac would get me a factor of 1/3 to 1/4 the performance of a similiarly priced PC. (Random numbers pulled out of my ass, without any factual basis by the way, just to enhance my point.)
Don't get me wrong, its well within my financial means to go buy a $2,000 G5, cash, right now, I just can't justify it. I will not get 4x the work done, or 4x the quality of work. Do you really think that photoshop will perform better on a $500 Mac-mini-whatever than my $500 white box PC?
I could also go buy a Rolex, but its just not worth it to me. My cheap (in comparison) watch keeps the time just as well, but it may not look as "cool":-)
Shit, who wouldn't buy a mac ..
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
PowerPC + BSD + a decent GUI for web browsing (read: OS X)?
Shit I'd love to have one. I'm just not willing to cough up the $2k entry price.
No thanks, I'll stick with my sub $500 pc that does everything I need it to.
Ouch. Am I the only one who thinks it a bit much when applications software costs more than the OS?
Although I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks that, I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement.
3D modeling packages cost thousands of dollars - would you consider that absurd too, simply because it costs more than the OS?
I don't understand what would make you think that the cost of the OS is a measuring stick for the cost of the applications that run on top of it.
We're talking about $600 for the industry standard image editing software. The best. Hands down, no question, without a doubt, nothing else close - THE BEST. Its targeted at professionals, who will recoup that $600 within the first week.
Remember - this isn't targeted for a home user to touch up pictures they took at their kid's birthday party. (Although it can easily be used for that). It is a *PROFESSIONAL* (as in, for profit) tool.
They may not be synonyms, but they definitely aren't antonyms. A raw image is also an uncompressed image.
Also - I think it may just have been poor editing, but I believe them to mean to seperate types of images, not to infer that a raw image is also an uncompressed image.
Well there are a lot of what-if's. You are running this on a windows platform. Might consider switching to Apache on Linux.
What webserver by the way? Also - what are the specs on the hardware?
It could be either: 1. Your webserver 2. Your hardware 3. (no offense) poor programming 4. Network problems 5. A combination of some or all of the above
You bet your ass I would. At $0.05 per song, I'd never illegally download another song again, guaranteed. Unless it was something that simply wasn't offered for sale (rare/obscure).
I've had a 1GB sandisk player for almost 6 months now, and its got an FM tuner, weighs 1oz, great ear buds, fm tuner, as well as a voice recorder, and I picked it up on newegg.com for a hundred and thirty five bucks. Its fantastic.
Is your position that Apache security updates are typically verified and made available at Apache.org within hours/days (link to study please), and that competent admins continuously monitor Apache.org for updates and make/install to production servers on a monthly+ basis?
Yes.
I'm confused: Are you bashing RedHat for not releasing Apache updates on a timely basis, Admins who refuse to compile from source, the authors of this study, M$, some combination of these, or all of the above?
Yes.
Well, not the authors of the study per say. I just think its a pretty useless study, and to say, simply based on this very finite investigation, boldly, that "Windows More Secure Than Linux" is very simple minded.
I don't think anyone is suggesting these systems simply be fork lifted. We're talking slow and steady migrations here, which have been proven, time and time again, to be very real and possible.
It was Redhat vs. Windows, as a web server, default installation. It was considered more secure because it took longer for redhat to issue specific patches than microsoft. If they would have simply compiled apache from source, like most competent administrators do, the patch would have been available in hours/days instead of weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
... our "idiots" ? Care to expound?
Thank you for reading my post for what it is, instead of reading what you want to read so you can bitch and moan.
I think Gimp is an incredible piece of software! I'm just not famaliar with it, thats it. Nothing else stated or implied!
I beg to differ.
Is GIMP Open Source? Is there a reason why such enhancements cannot be contributed back to the source?
...
Well, there is that little matter of copyright infringement
Yes - they do share a lot of the features.
:)
But take it from someone who's been using photoshop since around version 4.0 (which begat 5, then 5.5, then 6, then 7, and now CS, just FYI), it is still drastically different.
I personally can't use it, because I use so many keyboard shortcuts, within a matter of about 15 seconds of using the gimp, I'm so violently frustrated I want to punch a hole in my monitor.
So, with that said - I need to give this a try
- if you distribute, along with the GPL code a work that is dependant on that code, you have to distribute the whole work under the GPL terms.
I have a problem with this statement, since the line you quoted specifically mentions "derived" works.
I do not believe writing a GUI for a piece of GPL'd software is writing software derived from said GPL work.
you shouldn't pull stuff like that out of your ass, you can do yourself an injury you'll regret for the rest of your life.
I just upgraded my son's PC for his birthday, and I've just got a Mac mini. He's got a PC because he's a gamer, and his PC is a hell of a lot more powerful than my mini, but just the upgrades ended up costing a significant chunk of the price of that mini... so I think I have a pretty good idea of what you can get for $500.
And, basically, right now, across the board... the "Mac Tax" for equivalent hardware to a PC is about 50%. You'll end up paying 50% more to get a Mac instead of a comparable PC. Oh, it's not exact, and there's a lot more options on the PC side, but the days when the cost hit was a factor of two and a bit (I don't think it was ever a matter of three or four times) are gone.
Thats what I can't get over, the entry price. To buy a piece of hardware, an os, and applications, that I might not even end up "liking" - let alone be more productive using (I'm pertty sure I just butchered the english language there, so forgive me).
Um, you really want me to say that it's *cheaper* than the comparable PC now? No, that'd be a bit much, right?
It performs better on my Mac mini than on my old IBM Thinkpad, which is not quite up to the specs of a modern $500 white-box PC but beats the Mini in every "objective" dimension. So I think it'd be pretty close to comparable, and the rest of the system just fits together so much better than Windows that you might be most amazingly surprised how much more you get done.
Or not, I don't know, some people hate OS X. Maybe you're one of them... but if you're thinking that it'd be good for you I'm thinking the price difference shouldn't be as big a hurdle as you're making out.
No, no, no! I definitely don't *hate* OS X! I haven't even gotten to play with it! But I do love *nix and I do *hate* X Windows, so it seems like it would be fantastic. The more I read and hear about it, the more interested I am to give it a shot. I seriously love the direction Apple seems to be heading, and I love being able to say that. I love having options and alternatives. And Apple is honestly, day by day, becoming a viable option for me.
What I'm really considering is picking up an old(er) Powerbook to play with. I just have so many things to do (work, running my other company, side projects, hobbies) thats its tough for me to find time to replace something that works perfectly well for everything I have to do. But, on the same token, I think I'd be doing myself a serious disservice if I didn't honestly evaluate all my options.
I just wish I had a friend that was really into Apple that could give me a crash course, and let me play around with their setup.
So if they offered a download of the GPL'd portion of the source code, for free, then it would be completely legal?
Honestly, even if they are just slapping an interface on PearPC and selling it, isn't that legal?
I mean, aren't they really just charging for their GUI and packaging PearPC with it?
Isn't that within the restrictions of the GPL?
I wish it sounded more like DCC, which is vastly superior.
Yes, and that $500 headless mac would get me a factor of 1/3 to 1/4 the performance of a similiarly priced PC. (Random numbers pulled out of my ass, without any factual basis by the way, just to enhance my point.)
:-)
Don't get me wrong, its well within my financial means to go buy a $2,000 G5, cash, right now, I just can't justify it. I will not get 4x the work done, or 4x the quality of work. Do you really think that photoshop will perform better on a $500 Mac-mini-whatever than my $500 white box PC?
I could also go buy a Rolex, but its just not worth it to me. My cheap (in comparison) watch keeps the time just as well, but it may not look as "cool"
PowerPC + BSD + a decent GUI for web browsing (read: OS X)?
Shit I'd love to have one. I'm just not willing to cough up the $2k entry price.
No thanks, I'll stick with my sub $500 pc that does everything I need it to.
Woah, talk about looking for something to bitch about.
.. which of course is customizable.
No, unfortunatly, you'll have to settle for the CTRL+SHIFT+S keyboard shortcut
Ouch. Am I the only one who thinks it a bit much when applications software costs more than the OS?
Although I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks that, I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement.
3D modeling packages cost thousands of dollars - would you consider that absurd too, simply because it costs more than the OS?
I don't understand what would make you think that the cost of the OS is a measuring stick for the cost of the applications that run on top of it.
We're talking about $600 for the industry standard image editing software. The best. Hands down, no question, without a doubt, nothing else close - THE BEST. Its targeted at professionals, who will recoup that $600 within the first week.
Remember - this isn't targeted for a home user to touch up pictures they took at their kid's birthday party. (Although it can easily be used for that). It is a *PROFESSIONAL* (as in, for profit) tool.
No, I upgraded to 7 for that specific reason. It loads about 20x as fast as 6.0 did (i'm serious, its really that much faster).
Definitely, absolutely, upgrade to 7.
They may not be synonyms, but they definitely aren't antonyms. A raw image is also an uncompressed image.
Also - I think it may just have been poor editing, but I believe them to mean to seperate types of images, not to infer that a raw image is also an uncompressed image.
Of course, maybe I misread it.
Well there are a lot of what-if's. You are running this on a windows platform. Might consider switching to Apache on Linux.
What webserver by the way? Also - what are the specs on the hardware?
It could be either:
1. Your webserver
2. Your hardware
3. (no offense) poor programming
4. Network problems
5. A combination of some or all of the above
Pickup a set of rechargeable AAA batteries for $6. In a few months, you'll be glad you did.
Honestly, I run out of music before my battery dies (14 hours of music vs. 15 hours of battery life).
I'm *extremely* pleased with this little gadget, and its really the only "gadget" that I own.
You bet your ass I would. At $0.05 per song, I'd never illegally download another song again, guaranteed. Unless it was something that simply wasn't offered for sale (rare/obscure).
Even at $0.10, and possibly at $0.25 per song.
http://www.sandisk.com/retail/dap.asp
I've had a 1GB sandisk player for almost 6 months now, and its got an FM tuner, weighs 1oz, great ear buds, fm tuner, as well as a voice recorder, and I picked it up on newegg.com for a hundred and thirty five bucks. Its fantastic.
Why is this such "big news" ?
Is your position that Apache security updates are typically verified and made available at Apache.org within hours/days (link to study please), and that competent admins continuously monitor Apache.org for updates and make/install to production servers on a monthly+ basis?
Yes. I'm confused: Are you bashing RedHat for not releasing Apache updates on a timely basis, Admins who refuse to compile from source, the authors of this study, M$, some combination of these, or all of the above?
Yes.
Well, not the authors of the study per say. I just think its a pretty useless study, and to say, simply based on this very finite investigation, boldly, that "Windows More Secure Than Linux" is very simple minded.
You mean web server farm, via DS3, on a SONET ring.
./configre; make; make install seem awfully complicated.
But you got the rest right, save for the high school and unemployed part.
And you sure make
I don't think anyone is suggesting these systems simply be fork lifted. We're talking slow and steady migrations here, which have been proven, time and time again, to be very real and possible.
If I were a customer of Microsoft, I'd be organizing class-action suits, writing letters, storming Redmond with torches in hand....
...
While that all sounds well and good, if you ran Microsoft products, you'd be way to busy patching systems and rebooting to do anything. I know I am
Did you read the article?
It was Redhat vs. Windows, as a web server, default installation. It was considered more secure because it took longer for redhat to issue specific patches than microsoft. If they would have simply compiled apache from source, like most competent administrators do, the patch would have been available in hours/days instead of weeks.
Please troll elsewhere.