Being an avid Photoshop user, I was tremendously impressed with the Gimp version that came with Slackware 96 when I first started using Linux (I forgot the version release). I have since convinced friends of mine (Other Photoshop users) to take a look at that version of Gimp, and they were impressed as well. (Not only by the features, but the price tag as well.)
This new release looks great. While the older releases were excellent, they were thirsty for the features that have now been implemented. (Such as the improved "New Image" window, Brush Adjustments, etc.) I've switched to using Gimp for my image needs, because the feature set of the Gimp matches, if not defeats Photoshop. The interface tweaks in the new release of Gimp help out a lot (it took a bit of searching to find the menus in the older one). And it doesn't cost $600 to have the privelege of using it.:)
Peter, Spencer, Thanks for this wonderful software.
I've wanted one of these dogs since I first read about it. The technology in these things is incredible, but the price is a little steep for me (not that it's not worth it. If I had the money, you can be sure I'd have one.)
Sit. Fetch. Compile my new kernel. Good Boy! (throws a doggie treat)
I remember (way back when), I used to do Graphics for a Commodore BBS. I used a terminal program to make.SEQ files. God, that brings back some serious memories. The good thing about that terminal program, is it kept a buffer of all your keystrokes, so you could stuff a cute little ASCII animation into a SEQ file. Great Stuff. I miss my Commodore 64, and the days where 2400 Baud kicked ass. *sob*
Then came the time when my brother and I started our OWN Commodore BBS. Ah, the nostalgia. DMBBS Baybee!
Does anyone have any details as to what this exploit does? i.e.: What does it affect/what systems does it tunnel through/what can be done to a system that is not patched? Is it a type of DoS, or is it a remote root access exploit? Any details would be appriciated. Thanks!
I actually picked up a copy of Linux Journal, and I encourage others to do the same. It's a nice magazine. As for the Larry Wall interview, it was pretty interesting. He really goes into depth when answering the directed questions (something you rarely find in interviews, most of which are rushed.)
I liked the point where he was looking for a name for his language. To actually fumble through the dictionary at every 4 letter word. THAT'S dedication.:P
"We're not just talking about dinosaurs here, but also snail darters and cheetahs and a bazillion beetles in Brazil---not to mention Visual Basic."
This is absolutely crazy. If you read the article carefully enough, you can pick out SEVERAL controlling issues:
....give vendors the right to repossess software by disabling it remotely
What gives them that right? If you lend a laptop computer to a friend, and he didn't return it when you asked him to, does that mean you can break into his house and take it?
....prevent the transfer of licenses from one party to another without vendor permission
"Hello, Mr. Gates. I'm selling my computer to someone, And I'd like your permission to give him my copy of Windows as well." Now, Microsoft can just as easily say "No, afraid not. BUT, he's perfectly entitled to buy his OWN copy!"
....allow vendors to disclaim warrantees
"...but your warranty says that I can return it if it doesn't work as it says it would." "Too bad. We've disclaimed that warranty."
I've noticed on the chart that Microsoft was in full favor of this bill. (suprise!) Some other stupid items follow:
McCabe added that vendors are not permitted to exercise self-help if the vendors are aware of third parties that could suffer serious losses because of it.
So, if a company is confronted with this, they can simply say: "But we had no idea!"
Software vendors argue that they are within their rights to limit the use of their products.
Absolutely, but if you want to limit it, you limit it in the actual design of the software. You don't crumble a company's infrastructure just because of a licensing agreement.
"[the bill] says manufacturers are not liable for the poor quality of their products,"
Gee...looks like Microsoft is off the hook. Answer this: If the maker of the software isn't responsible if it sucks, who is?
"If I have to guarantee that my software will perform the way you think it's going to perform, that's going to be costly for me," Winpro's Harris says.
Actually, that's correct. Expecting Microsoft Excel to walk your dog isn't reasonable. BUT, expecting Microsoft Windows not to crash every hour, is. The idea is that Software manufacturers have to guarantee that the software will perform the way THEY claim it will perform. But if it doesn't,"...manufacturers are not liable for the poor quality of their products."
Seems to me, that software vendors want to take more responsibility when it comes to them getting their money, but when it comes to their software not performing at it's expected level, they don't want ANY responsibility. It's a 2 way street, folks. They're just trying to put up One-Way signs.
Ignore the "Just checked the Polls about a minute ago, and it was sitting pretty at 75% dominating the rest of them." in the second message. heh, Damn cut/Paste...
Basically, what IPX is saying is that you cannot develop a 3D Panorama system and give it away, because IPX did it first, and is making money off of it. This pretty much reveals what companies are after. To hell with innovation, and the desire to create better products, and SCREW the consumer....We have to make our MONEY! What's that? Someone's making a superior product, and giving it away for FREE? We can't allow that......
More corporate bullshit. Gotta get the cash. Nothing else matters.
Imagine the look on the repair center Tech's face when he gets a box with oil spots on it. Just tape a note to it that says "It just stopped working, don't know why."
Given the problem of creating enough energy, it could be solved. When matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate one another creating massive amounts of energy. Given, there is still no practical way of storing antimatter (I know about the magnetic tube, but it's not practical yet.) but that could be a way to solve the energy problem. (What happens when we run out of usable matter?)
You are correct. About a year ago, Mosthated WAS a DoS kid. But in that year, he as become tremendously more respectful, and that's why he became an Op. And I'll go even so far as to say he made a few friends too.
I'll be the first to say that most of the members of gH were probably sloppy, and some did some things to deserve what they got. However, being someone who talks to mosthated on a regular basis (he's a fellow op in #HackPhreak), I know that he probably didn't do anything major. Although I don't personally know the details of what the members are being charged with, I think the news agencies like ZD Net and Antionline are making more of this than it really is. I think it's to prey on the public's fear of the "media image" of hackers. It seems that Antionline, and websites like it enjoy blowing a story out of proportion, and making it bigger than it really is. (Notice ZD quoted Antionline.) But hey, that's journalism, right? I don't think so.
Heh, let them quote me. You can't argue that Linux is not a direct threat to NT, because that's exactly what it is. And if MS used that in court, they WOULDN'T be lying (Which goes against their normal business practices, so they'll probably disregard it.)
And if I'm not mistaken, I do believe Linux beat out NT in market share, no?
I, for one, am happy to see IBM back Linux the way they have been. When a major corporation pushes something with full force, other companies are sure to take notice, and maybe follow suit.
For now, Linux poses only a marginal threat to Windows NT as the No. 1 software platform for the servers that run computer networks.
I would venture a guess that Linux poses a bit more than a MARGINAL threat. Maybe something along the lines of.....oh, I don't know.....DIRECT COMPETITION?
``It takes more than just an operating system to run a computing environment effectively,''
That's absolutely correct. With more and more companies (Like IBM) backing Linux, the valuable applications will be/are being developed, giving Linux more of an edge in the market.
``In the Linux space, the No. 1 prerequisite is database software, and IBM has the No. 1 position in the database market,''
So guess what? Hot Dog IBM meets Hot Rod Linux, and cranks out a Bad-Ass product that dominates the market, and convinces more people to try the alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
This new release looks great. While the older releases were excellent, they were thirsty for the features that have now been implemented. (Such as the improved "New Image" window, Brush Adjustments, etc.) I've switched to using Gimp for my image needs, because the feature set of the Gimp matches, if not defeats Photoshop. The interface tweaks in the new release of Gimp help out a lot (it took a bit of searching to find the menus in the older one). And it doesn't cost $600 to have the privelege of using it.
Peter, Spencer, Thanks for this wonderful software.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Sit. Fetch. Compile my new kernel. Good Boy! (throws a doggie treat)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Then came the time when my brother and I started our OWN Commodore BBS. Ah, the nostalgia. DMBBS Baybee!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I liked the point where he was looking for a name for his language. To actually fumble through the dictionary at every 4 letter word. THAT'S dedication.
"We're not just talking about dinosaurs here, but also snail darters and cheetahs and a bazillion beetles in Brazil---not to mention Visual Basic."
HEH.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
P.S.: My jaw isn't coming back up for a while.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
What gives them that right? If you lend a laptop computer to a friend, and he didn't return it when you asked him to, does that mean you can break into his house and take it?
"Hello, Mr. Gates. I'm selling my computer to someone, And I'd like your permission to give him my copy of Windows as well." Now, Microsoft can just as easily say "No, afraid not. BUT, he's perfectly entitled to buy his OWN copy!"
"...but your warranty says that I can return it if it doesn't work as it says it would."
"Too bad. We've disclaimed that warranty."
I've noticed on the chart that Microsoft was in full favor of this bill. (suprise!) Some other stupid items follow:
McCabe added that vendors are not permitted to exercise self-help if the vendors are aware of third parties that could suffer serious losses because of it.
So, if a company is confronted with this, they can simply say: "But we had no idea!"
Software vendors argue that they are within their rights to limit the use of their products.
Absolutely, but if you want to limit it, you limit it in the actual design of the software. You don't crumble a company's infrastructure just because of a licensing agreement.
"[the bill] says manufacturers are not liable for the poor quality of their products,"
Gee...looks like Microsoft is off the hook. Answer this: If the maker of the software isn't responsible if it sucks, who is?
"If I have to guarantee that my software will perform the way you think it's going to perform, that's going to be costly for me," Winpro's Harris says.
Actually, that's correct. Expecting Microsoft Excel to walk your dog isn't reasonable. BUT, expecting Microsoft Windows not to crash every hour, is. The idea is that Software manufacturers have to guarantee that the software will perform the way THEY claim it will perform. But if it doesn't,"...manufacturers are not liable for the poor quality of their products."
Seems to me, that software vendors want to take more responsibility when it comes to them getting their money, but when it comes to their software not performing at it's expected level, they don't want ANY responsibility. It's a 2 way street, folks. They're just trying to put up One-Way signs.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Just checked the Polls about a minute ago, and it was sitting pretty at 75% dominating the rest of them.
More Mac Games:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(51%)
Console Games:
||||
(0%)
DVD Games:
|||
(0%)
Linux Games:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(46%)
Stay focused on PC
Games:
||
(1%)
--- As of May 30, 1999 12:13pm
Anyone else think something is SERIOUSLY wrong here?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
More corporate bullshit. Gotta get the cash. Nothing else matters.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
More Mac Games:
|||||
(7%)
Console Games:
||||
(0%)
DVD Games:
|||
(5%)
Linux Games:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(75%)
Stay focused on PC
Games:
|||||
(11%)
--- As of May 30, 1999 11:07am
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Just tape a note to it that says "It just stopped working, don't know why."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Notice he's carrying both an infant, as well as a laptop. Slick!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
And if I'm not mistaken, I do believe Linux beat out NT in market share, no?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
For now, Linux poses only a marginal threat to Windows NT as the No. 1 software platform for the servers that run computer networks.
I would venture a guess that Linux poses a bit more than a MARGINAL threat. Maybe something along the lines of.....oh, I don't know.....DIRECT COMPETITION?
``It takes more than just an operating system to run a computing environment effectively,''
That's absolutely correct. With more and more companies (Like IBM) backing Linux, the valuable applications will be/are being developed, giving Linux more of an edge in the market.
``In the Linux space, the No. 1 prerequisite is database software, and IBM has the No. 1 position in the database market,''
So guess what? Hot Dog IBM meets Hot Rod Linux, and cranks out a Bad-Ass product that dominates the market, and convinces more people to try the alternative.
Sounds good to me.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?