What I just don't get about hybrids, and even the whole foreign oil thing... is that one of the main reasons the fuel chosen away back when was the fuel chosen was because gas was so friggen' dirt cheap. Why bother putting ANY more development into gas burning vehicles, hybrid or otherwise? Why not find the cheap fuel today, whatever it is, use government to replace the domestic petroleum infrastructure, and use that? There MUST be some kind of fuel that a combustion engine can use, or can be developed to use, that is, right now, cheap as dirt, and with less of an environmental impact as burning fossil fuels.
Did I miss something? Linux and the future of Linux is always following Microsoft, always cleverly duplicating, for free, in *nixy-land, the expensive proprietary Microsoft stuff... twas always thus and always thus will be. So... when did Microsoft annouce they'll have support for ZFS?? (They won't, btw... we can expect Microsoft to flood the market with a crappier, broken, overpriced knock-off of ZFS)
One of the major complaints against any distribution of any OS is whether or not the installer takes a rocket surgeon to use. Having a VMware image is a nice touch, but you see one desktop, you've seen them all (these days... though I think blackbox and derivitaves are at least a little interesting). When I'm evaluating an OS, I install it about 3 or 4 times to see how the land lays. If its wiggy, or has some critically nonsensical choices, I take notice. If it works almost no matter what, that's a major coup. If it doesn't work almost no matter what, well... that's nearly the status quo. If I was worried about breaking my computer, I'd certainly use a virtual machine, but I still want to see the install process.
Isn't it enough that we have to validate Windows... but now we have to validate Ubuntu through Microsoft too?? What's next? FreeBSD? OS X? Those Microsoft validating bastards have to be stopped!!
Why not wait for the satellite to fail, and then begin work on replacing it with the latest available technology? And who designes a satellite with a 6 year life span? We can do better than that.
Perhaps if developers would stop using IE as the standard, things would get better. Hey! That's part of what Apple's trying to do by porting to Winblows! Standby my man... won't be long now before Microsoft stops doing OS.
Good point. Also, Apple likes to annoy Microsoft. Safari on Windows surely is annoying someone at Microsoft. We won't see Safari on Linux because there is no one to annoy.
I agree. This will help [i]Microsoft[/i] determine, should they come across a pirated copy that it is a pirated copy... but it doesn't in any way prevent piracy. I think they made it up. I think these images were easter eggs from the group that made the holograms, that M$ corporate found out when we did, and their PR group came up with this cover story. We know Microsoft... if what they're telling us is true, they would have told us when Vista was released. And besides... the bad pirates, the ones that are making money off of others hard work, only pirate, and resell things that people people are buying. So... why on earth would anyone pirate Vista?
First of all... its a beta (so you better believe it has deficiencies!).
Second of all, they didn't do it to give Windows users a taste of OS X, but to widen the developer base for iPhone web apps, and because Google pays Apple every time someone uses the Safari Google thingy.
You named a single application, vlc. I agree, its good software. But that's not the norm. Name 10 apps that are nice, besides firefox and vlc, and I'll shut up. But even if you could, it doesn't negate the fact that MOST Windows apps don't behave. And I refuse to believe that most Windows developers are bad... and we know its not Microsoft... so there's one group left to blame... the users. Its you. Its your fault. You've allowed this to happen by putting up with the crap. And Apple just gave you more of the same, and you wine about it. Too late, take your medicine.
You are shitting me. Are you living in a cave? 90%+ of all Windows apps have this ethic of trying to sell you more stuff than just the app you want to use. Complaints about iTunes on Windows are legitimate, but those complaints are even more poignant about apps like Real Player (what a friggen mess) and AIM Triton, some pretty popular apps. Firefox and VLC are 2 apps that are 'nice' windows apps. If developers would follow with the ethic that those developers follow, not necessarily minimalist, but certainly not all that annoying. I have a feeling you've just learned to mentally filter out all the extra crap that most apps, even big ones like Acrobat reader, do when you install them. They think "well, you installed this, so obviously you want icon shortcuts everywhere, and you must want this thing to launch when you log in." You're right in that this isn't the fault of Microsoft, but some really annoying developers habits that have become sort of standard, but you're wrong to assume that Apple is a bastard for doing the same thing that 90%+ of Windows developers do. That's what Windows user's expect now. Apple did nothing that most developers don't do. And is it Apple Corperate that made these decisions? Or the Windows developers that work for Apple? And how did they come to this sort of decision? They learned to develop in the Windows environment. Granted, "everyone else is doing it," is no excuse... but why single out Apple? Blame [the Windows developer] society.
which had the audacity to attach itself to every media file on the system
true... but when in Rome... Most PC apps I know are pretty damn annoying and do shit you never intended. Looks like Apple was just doing what every other Win developer is doing for Windows apps.
This "wonderful" piece of software runs several services in the background, some of which are normally not even needed/used, yet each sonsistantly sucks up several percent of a modern 2+Ghz CPU, and dozens of MB of memory
again... when in Rome. Are you using ANY windows apps at all???
Added to the lackluster performance in comparison to other music players, like Winamp, this is not a desireable app.
OMFG - Winamp is the scourge of the music players. I won't let my users near it. Its a diseased, ultra-insecure, time bomb. I wouldn't be surprised if Symantec just went and isolated it because it basically invites every little nasty out there to live right at home on your PC.
not provide us with software that slows down and gums up our Windows machines
What software on Windows doesn't "gum up" the machine? Windows is so helplessly, hopelessly messed up... dude... its not Apple... its your OS. It can't be fixed. But I'm right there along with you... I have no idea why Apple would even bother with an OS and users that become more irrelevant with each passing minute. Hate Apple if you wish. But if you have any clue, you'll at least drop Windows for Ubuntu or another Linux desktop. (Wow... talk about living in the dark.)
But I have to ask... wtf does Sony care if Vista does this or that??? Why are we hearing about it from Sony? As a computer manufacturer that wants to sell, along with their hw, OEM Vista? I just don't get it.
I second a thank you... and just letting you know that since the Digg debacle with that stupid number, diggers have been showing up here more and more with their insidious blog spam masqurading as news... I don't understand it, but it needs to be stopped. Since that day, Slashdot's IQ has plummeted.
More importantly to power companies, there's no way to regulate how much electricity you're using... thus... no way to charge for use, thus, no way for energy companies to fleece everyone.
Blame Edison. After he did the phonograph, that guy turned into a total asshole.
No doubt that I would agree with the parent 100%. GIMP may be acceptable for casual doodler or cropping photos, but it ultimately a complete waste of time for any professional
I think GIMP is much more powerful than the credit you give it. It isn't a simple graphics program, and it has, by and large, followed along with the abilities of Photoshop. I'd say the current GIMP can probably do everything that Photoshop 8 did, just in a way that a graphic designer wouldn't be accustomed to because they've only ever used Photoshop. Have you seen GIMPshop on OS X? It does everything Photoshop did a couple versions ago. And... it was available native the day Macs went Intel. Where was Adobe?!
I think an issue worth noting is that graphic designers are a high level kind of user. But users nonetheless. They have cut their teeth on pro apps, and which ever one they learned first is 'the best,' probably because no one likes to learn new things, and no one likes change. The PageMaker vs Quark battle is still going on, but with the new versions, now InDesign vs Quark. And overwhelmingly, most graphic designers will say 'Quark sucks' because they learned InDesign first, and sat with Quark for 30 minutes and realized they'll have to learn something new, and gave up at that epiphany.
That is exactly how I see a comparison of GIMP to Photoshop by graphic designers. They know Photoshop, they don't know GIMP, therefore, GIMP is (enter random irrational criticisms here), and Photoshop is very shiny.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that its true:
GIMP can do anything Photoshop can do.
Anything GIMP can do, Photoshop can do better.
Adobe used to deserve the praise its been receiving in posts under this article. But from the tone that I'm seeing, way too much credit is being given here.... Adobe is a slow moving monstrosity now, fleecing its customers with every 'advancement' in their software (CS1->CS2 wtf was that??). Then for how long did they drag out the CS3 release (which promised a full rewrite and native support on Intel Macs)? Too long. And they failed, and lied about it. They never even cleared the carbon code out from the previous versions. Sure, there is new code, no doubt... but old code too. Bad habits they picked up from Aldus ("leave it in there... its not hurting anyone!). And, apparently, they've assimilated some habits of most Windows developers and Symantec... which is namely to make a mess of installing their own software, leaving crap EVERYWHERE! You just TRY to uninstall... you may as well wipe the OS and start over. I've been saying for 2 years, I'll say it again: Adobe is the new Microsoft.
I beg the Open Source community for some real alternatives!
(and I thank this parant for offering some)
Slashdot Mirror
What I just don't get about hybrids, and even the whole foreign oil thing... is that one of the main reasons the fuel chosen away back when was the fuel chosen was because gas was so friggen' dirt cheap. Why bother putting ANY more development into gas burning vehicles, hybrid or otherwise? Why not find the cheap fuel today, whatever it is, use government to replace the domestic petroleum infrastructure, and use that? There MUST be some kind of fuel that a combustion engine can use, or can be developed to use, that is, right now, cheap as dirt, and with less of an environmental impact as burning fossil fuels.
Did I miss something? Linux and the future of Linux is always following Microsoft, always cleverly duplicating, for free, in *nixy-land, the expensive proprietary Microsoft stuff... twas always thus and always thus will be. So... when did Microsoft annouce they'll have support for ZFS?? (They won't, btw... we can expect Microsoft to flood the market with a crappier, broken, overpriced knock-off of ZFS)
One of the major complaints against any distribution of any OS is whether or not the installer takes a rocket surgeon to use. Having a VMware image is a nice touch, but you see one desktop, you've seen them all (these days... though I think blackbox and derivitaves are at least a little interesting). When I'm evaluating an OS, I install it about 3 or 4 times to see how the land lays. If its wiggy, or has some critically nonsensical choices, I take notice. If it works almost no matter what, that's a major coup. If it doesn't work almost no matter what, well... that's nearly the status quo. If I was worried about breaking my computer, I'd certainly use a virtual machine, but I still want to see the install process.
Isn't it enough that we have to validate Windows... but now we have to validate Ubuntu through Microsoft too?? What's next? FreeBSD? OS X? Those Microsoft validating bastards have to be stopped!!
Why not wait for the satellite to fail, and then begin work on replacing it with the latest available technology? And who designes a satellite with a 6 year life span? We can do better than that.
well... you're using Windows, so if time, money, security & privacy mean nothing to you, by all means, keep doing what you're doing.
Perhaps if developers would stop using IE as the standard, things would get better. Hey! That's part of what Apple's trying to do by porting to Winblows! Standby my man... won't be long now before Microsoft stops doing OS.
yeah... um... what happened to using the weight of a milliliter (cubic centimeter) of pure water at sea level?
Good point. Also, Apple likes to annoy Microsoft. Safari on Windows surely is annoying someone at Microsoft. We won't see Safari on Linux because there is no one to annoy.
I agree. This will help [i]Microsoft[/i] determine, should they come across a pirated copy that it is a pirated copy... but it doesn't in any way prevent piracy. I think they made it up. I think these images were easter eggs from the group that made the holograms, that M$ corporate found out when we did, and their PR group came up with this cover story. We know Microsoft... if what they're telling us is true, they would have told us when Vista was released. And besides... the bad pirates, the ones that are making money off of others hard work, only pirate, and resell things that people people are buying. So... why on earth would anyone pirate Vista?
Most use IE.
What does that tell you?
First of all... its a beta (so you better believe it has deficiencies!). Second of all, they didn't do it to give Windows users a taste of OS X, but to widen the developer base for iPhone web apps, and because Google pays Apple every time someone uses the Safari Google thingy.
You named a single application, vlc. I agree, its good software. But that's not the norm. Name 10 apps that are nice, besides firefox and vlc, and I'll shut up. But even if you could, it doesn't negate the fact that MOST Windows apps don't behave. And I refuse to believe that most Windows developers are bad... and we know its not Microsoft... so there's one group left to blame... the users. Its you. Its your fault. You've allowed this to happen by putting up with the crap. And Apple just gave you more of the same, and you wine about it. Too late, take your medicine.
LANrev wins for the picture on their page... that is genius, and fucking hilarious.
who's a troll?
You are shitting me. Are you living in a cave? 90%+ of all Windows apps have this ethic of trying to sell you more stuff than just the app you want to use. Complaints about iTunes on Windows are legitimate, but those complaints are even more poignant about apps like Real Player (what a friggen mess) and AIM Triton, some pretty popular apps. Firefox and VLC are 2 apps that are 'nice' windows apps. If developers would follow with the ethic that those developers follow, not necessarily minimalist, but certainly not all that annoying. I have a feeling you've just learned to mentally filter out all the extra crap that most apps, even big ones like Acrobat reader, do when you install them. They think "well, you installed this, so obviously you want icon shortcuts everywhere, and you must want this thing to launch when you log in." You're right in that this isn't the fault of Microsoft, but some really annoying developers habits that have become sort of standard, but you're wrong to assume that Apple is a bastard for doing the same thing that 90%+ of Windows developers do. That's what Windows user's expect now. Apple did nothing that most developers don't do. And is it Apple Corperate that made these decisions? Or the Windows developers that work for Apple? And how did they come to this sort of decision? They learned to develop in the Windows environment. Granted, "everyone else is doing it," is no excuse... but why single out Apple? Blame [the Windows developer] society.
Hate the game, not the player.
true... but when in Rome... Most PC apps I know are pretty damn annoying and do shit you never intended. Looks like Apple was just doing what every other Win developer is doing for Windows apps.
again... when in Rome. Are you using ANY windows apps at all???
OMFG - Winamp is the scourge of the music players. I won't let my users near it. Its a diseased, ultra-insecure, time bomb. I wouldn't be surprised if Symantec just went and isolated it because it basically invites every little nasty out there to live right at home on your PC.
What software on Windows doesn't "gum up" the machine? Windows is so helplessly, hopelessly messed up... dude... its not Apple... its your OS. It can't be fixed. But I'm right there along with you... I have no idea why Apple would even bother with an OS and users that become more irrelevant with each passing minute. Hate Apple if you wish. But if you have any clue, you'll at least drop Windows for Ubuntu or another Linux desktop. (Wow... talk about living in the dark.)
for that extra push over the cliff
good one!
But I have to ask... wtf does Sony care if Vista does this or that??? Why are we hearing about it from Sony? As a computer manufacturer that wants to sell, along with their hw, OEM Vista? I just don't get it.
I second a thank you... and just letting you know that since the Digg debacle with that stupid number, diggers have been showing up here more and more with their insidious blog spam masqurading as news... I don't understand it, but it needs to be stopped. Since that day, Slashdot's IQ has plummeted.
This has got to be better than Utah salt mines or Pennsylvania Dutch country... lets put our radioactive rods in there!
More importantly to power companies, there's no way to regulate how much electricity you're using... thus... no way to charge for use, thus, no way for energy companies to fleece everyone. Blame Edison. After he did the phonograph, that guy turned into a total asshole.
I think GIMP is much more powerful than the credit you give it. It isn't a simple graphics program, and it has, by and large, followed along with the abilities of Photoshop. I'd say the current GIMP can probably do everything that Photoshop 8 did, just in a way that a graphic designer wouldn't be accustomed to because they've only ever used Photoshop. Have you seen GIMPshop on OS X? It does everything Photoshop did a couple versions ago. And... it was available native the day Macs went Intel. Where was Adobe?!
I think an issue worth noting is that graphic designers are a high level kind of user. But users nonetheless. They have cut their teeth on pro apps, and which ever one they learned first is 'the best,' probably because no one likes to learn new things, and no one likes change. The PageMaker vs Quark battle is still going on, but with the new versions, now InDesign vs Quark. And overwhelmingly, most graphic designers will say 'Quark sucks' because they learned InDesign first, and sat with Quark for 30 minutes and realized they'll have to learn something new, and gave up at that epiphany.
That is exactly how I see a comparison of GIMP to Photoshop by graphic designers. They know Photoshop, they don't know GIMP, therefore, GIMP is (enter random irrational criticisms here), and Photoshop is very shiny.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that its true:
GIMP can do anything Photoshop can do.
Anything GIMP can do, Photoshop can do better.
Adobe used to deserve the praise its been receiving in posts under this article. But from the tone that I'm seeing, way too much credit is being given here.... Adobe is a slow moving monstrosity now, fleecing its customers with every 'advancement' in their software (CS1->CS2 wtf was that??). Then for how long did they drag out the CS3 release (which promised a full rewrite and native support on Intel Macs)? Too long. And they failed, and lied about it. They never even cleared the carbon code out from the previous versions. Sure, there is new code, no doubt... but old code too. Bad habits they picked up from Aldus ("leave it in there... its not hurting anyone!). And, apparently, they've assimilated some habits of most Windows developers and Symantec... which is namely to make a mess of installing their own software, leaving crap EVERYWHERE! You just TRY to uninstall... you may as well wipe the OS and start over. I've been saying for 2 years, I'll say it again: Adobe is the new Microsoft.
I beg the Open Source community for some real alternatives! (and I thank this parant for offering some)