anyone who doesn't use Veritas Netbackup for backups and restores deserves exactly what they get...which usually means crappy restores. the hard part is the restore portion, not the backup. the last thing i want to deploy is something that hasn't been tested in real-world situations, something that hasn't been honed to near perfection. if it's good enough for big oil corps, it's definitely good enough for any environment i can think of. anything else is just a joke and would definitely make me lose sleep at night.
I know for certain that Jobs is probably kicking himself in the butt over this one all the time.
so you really know nothing at all then? did anyone on slashdot take high school english?
Re:"GIMP is also not meant to be like Photoshop"
on
Paint.NET: The Anti-GIMP?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
i would love to ask BigSven, what in particular they don't see worth lifting from photoshop.
why is this taboo? are they admiting they'll never be able to do half of what adobe does?
I suppose a better question would be how complete is complete? Aside from anything they couldn't possibly accomplish without licensing tech from a third party (PANTONE, a ton of filters) I see very little in Photoshop that shouldn't be a de facto standard option in any photo/image editing program, which is what GIMP paints itself as.
maybe they're only shooting for mediocrity, but GIMP has a LONG way to go before i would say that it's really useful for much of anything more than removing red-eye.
the parent wasn't about the film industry...it was about DP
and i surely do know what I'm talking about...why is Adobe selling more copies of PS than ever before???
it's a FAR superior tool, that's why
Ahem
graphic design and digital photography are NOT the same as video editing or even rendering CG frames. there is almost no reliance on color management for CG or editing work. GD, DP, DTP all depend heavily on color management and Linux is still very very weak in this department. And
if you had bothered to read my original post, I fully admitted some CG houses use Linux, but they're still using highly specialized, in house tools on top to do their work...not something a bunch of kids wrote in their free time(which is what my opinion of GIMP is after using it for a few hours). They may be running Linux as the OS, but the software they use is far superior to the average piece of open source community software.
So lets review.
Linux may be able to handle CG renders, where the work is repetative and not reliant on accurate color management for print output, but there is still much work to be done before anyone who depends on accurate color matching between screen and print switches to Linux.
Photoshop still owns...and will always own.
sorry, you bite, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Notice i said "graphic design", which is an entirely different animal. Video editing doesn't rely heavily on color management at all, which is in my opinion the weakest link in the Linux graphic output pipeline. When you're editing, all you're really doing is making a fancy linked list.
And one "blockbuster" is hardly enough to claim "victory" for Linux, look at how many blockbusters(and non-blockbusters) are still edited on other platforms. Why are they still edited this way? Because the tools available through closed source solutions are still WAY better(not to mention faster) than anything Linux based.
I'm sorry, but i have to laugh at anyone who dare connect the words "linux" and "professional" in the realms of digital photography, graphic design, DTP, video editing and frankly even CG animation (2d or 3d)
Sure, there are production companies that use Linux based render farms for doing CG work, but they aren't using tools written by the general Linux community to do their work, they're using software they've put a HUGE amount of time and money into. In fact they may as well have gone with closed source solutions given the effort it took to get to where they are w/their Linux tools.
The only redeeming factor Linux has going for it is that it's free and fairly easily clustered which is rather ideal for CG render farms where each machine is actually performing rather repetative tasks.
I don't know of a single graphic design firm that uses Linux for anything of importance in the production pipeline. There is ZERO incentive for Linux support among the hardware manufacturers and software developers that provide tools to "professionals"...because they're all using OSX or Win2K/XP.
closed source will always, ALWAYS win in this arena.
you want proof...compare GIMP with almost any version of Photoshop and I think you'll immediately see where I get off saying such things.
Slashdot Mirror
anyone who doesn't use Veritas Netbackup for backups and restores deserves exactly what they get...which usually means crappy restores. the hard part is the restore portion, not the backup. the last thing i want to deploy is something that hasn't been tested in real-world situations, something that hasn't been honed to near perfection. if it's good enough for big oil corps, it's definitely good enough for any environment i can think of. anything else is just a joke and would definitely make me lose sleep at night.
I know for certain that Jobs is probably kicking himself in the butt over this one all the time.
so you really know nothing at all then? did anyone on slashdot take high school english?
The fact that I can't carry a few spare AAA batteries http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore?productLearnMore=M9759G/A WRONG
AND it will work as a plain ole' USB thumb device, you just haven't bothered to research this.
you should not keep going...
yeah ACC is just gross...f*ck him, even if he is the inventor of the communications satellite
but what about the stable of underaged boys Artie is so fond of? are they ok?
beautiful, just beautiful.
I suppose a better question would be how complete is complete?
Aside from anything they couldn't possibly accomplish without licensing tech from a third party (PANTONE, a ton of filters) I see very little in Photoshop that shouldn't be a de facto standard option in any photo/image editing program, which is what GIMP paints itself as. maybe they're only shooting for mediocrity, but GIMP has a LONG way to go before i would say that it's really useful for much of anything more than removing red-eye.
actually, for print(meaning paper, cmyk) the software is still part of the problem
the parent wasn't about the film industry...it was about DP and i surely do know what I'm talking about...why is Adobe selling more copies of PS than ever before??? it's a FAR superior tool, that's why
Ahem graphic design and digital photography are NOT the same as video editing or even rendering CG frames. there is almost no reliance on color management for CG or editing work. GD, DP, DTP all depend heavily on color management and Linux is still very very weak in this department. And if you had bothered to read my original post, I fully admitted some CG houses use Linux, but they're still using highly specialized, in house tools on top to do their work...not something a bunch of kids wrote in their free time(which is what my opinion of GIMP is after using it for a few hours). They may be running Linux as the OS, but the software they use is far superior to the average piece of open source community software. So lets review. Linux may be able to handle CG renders, where the work is repetative and not reliant on accurate color management for print output, but there is still much work to be done before anyone who depends on accurate color matching between screen and print switches to Linux. Photoshop still owns...and will always own. sorry, you bite, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Notice i said "graphic design", which is an entirely different animal. Video editing doesn't rely heavily on color management at all, which is in my opinion the weakest link in the Linux graphic output pipeline. When you're editing, all you're really doing is making a fancy linked list. And one "blockbuster" is hardly enough to claim "victory" for Linux, look at how many blockbusters(and non-blockbusters) are still edited on other platforms. Why are they still edited this way? Because the tools available through closed source solutions are still WAY better(not to mention faster) than anything Linux based.
I'm sorry, but i have to laugh at anyone who dare connect the words "linux" and "professional" in the realms of digital photography, graphic design, DTP, video editing and frankly even CG animation (2d or 3d) Sure, there are production companies that use Linux based render farms for doing CG work, but they aren't using tools written by the general Linux community to do their work, they're using software they've put a HUGE amount of time and money into. In fact they may as well have gone with closed source solutions given the effort it took to get to where they are w/their Linux tools. The only redeeming factor Linux has going for it is that it's free and fairly easily clustered which is rather ideal for CG render farms where each machine is actually performing rather repetative tasks. I don't know of a single graphic design firm that uses Linux for anything of importance in the production pipeline. There is ZERO incentive for Linux support among the hardware manufacturers and software developers that provide tools to "professionals"...because they're all using OSX or Win2K/XP. closed source will always, ALWAYS win in this arena. you want proof...compare GIMP with almost any version of Photoshop and I think you'll immediately see where I get off saying such things.