LOL. I'm gonna back off of my "he's illiterate" theory and advance a new one: He's a child, probably about 13 years old. Because it's not long after that, you see, that the charm of giggling at bathroom noises begins to fade.
i did not know that english was the only spoken language in the world.
It's the one in which you're attempting to communicate. At least I assume that's the case. Your scratchings bear only the slightest resemblance to written English.
confused about very existentialist reasons of human race
Oooh! Oooh! Are you that Time Cube guy? I've so wanted to meet you.
Okay, so you dissed on Adobe's spec and then you made some ya-ya about how you wish stuff that's copyright-protected weren't, and finally you asserted that something which is entirely open really isn't because, I don't know, you don't like it or something.
Do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation, or are you just an Adobe-bashing troll?
I'm pretty sure the troll label came from two things: Your "true artists" blather, which is utter nonsense any way you slice it, and your functional illiteracy.
I've done a little cinema work, back in the day. Those users barely scratch the surface of what Photoshop provides. The clone brush is really all they use. They could be, and in fact often are, happy with much less capable tools.
PDF is not open (unless you just mean the spec is freely avaiable).
That is, of course, what "open" means.
Adobe stresses that it retains copyright of the data structures it describes (and probably patents as well).
Well, of course. Why wouldn't they? They created it. Of course they maintain property rights over it. That's a "duh."
Moreover, if you don't implement "encryption" controls as described by Adobe, then you don't have permission to implement the PDF spec.
Why did you use quotation marks? Anyway, the specification is freely available. There's no reason why anybody who's sufficiently motivated can't implement it. If you don't like the specification, or parts of the specification, don't implement it. Implement some other document format instead. But don't be surprised when nobody gives a damn about your non-standard implementation.
Yes, it does. Unless you want to twist the semiotics of the conversation to the point where black is white and freedom is slavery.
The philosophy behind open source is, "Let everyone see behind the curtain." It's not "pull down your pants and bend over." Stop trying to twist it into some radical political perversion of itself.
"Here's the source" is not the whole concept of open source because the latter also includes ideas about what the recipient is allowed to do with the source...
Um. No. That's exactly what I was objecting to. Don't generalize. There's a vanishingly small faction out there who want creators to waive their property rights. Everybody else just sees the value of publishing source code and leaves politics out of it.
If your server is already doing what you want it too, why upgrade it?
Because, by definition, Linux isn't doing what you want it to do. Remember the discussion from a week or so ago about how setting up directory services on Linux is all but impossible?
If Linux is capable of doing everything you want to do, then you must not want to do much. In which case, rock on. But don't act all bewildered when the rest of the world moves on to a platform that does what we need.
Sigh. It sounds like you've never actually used Photoshop.
The difference between Photoshop and Gimp is more than high-resolution color support. It's the tool set. Does Gimp offer layer comps? Does it offer actions? How are its antialiasing facilities? Can you create image slices? How can you automate it? Where's the third-party filter support? Can Gimp run DFT, for instance? For many users, if it can't, that's an absolute show-stopper, end of discussion. Does Gimp have pixel aspect ratio correction? How are its compositing tools? Does it have adjustment layers? How about layer effects? How are its matting tools?
These aren't bells and whistles. These are key features that I use every single day, and I'm not even pushing the program very hard.
It's not about file-format support. Hell, it's not even about color management. It's about the tools. Until the tools are there, no, Gimp will never even be on the same planet as Photoshop.
I don't understand. Why would a patent conflict with the whole concept of open source? The whole concept of open source is, "Here's our source." It has nothing to do with patents.
Now, if you're one of those "let's abolish all IP" freaks, I can see where you might be possessed by an irrational, frothing hatred of patents and all other forms of IP protection. But do everybody a favor and don't project your own neuroses onto "the whole concept of open source," okay?
Actually, Photoshop on IRIX was spectacular. It worked exactly like Photoshop on the Mac, and was very, very stable. And far from being ugly, it looked precisely like the Mac version. As opposed to every other Motif program, all of which were physically painful to behold.
Maybe the Sun version was different.
The only problem was it was more expensive and ran slower than the Mac version, and it only ran on computers that cost tens of thousands of dollars. It just didn't make any sense from a commercial standpoint.
PDF is an entirely open format. There's zero need for Adobe to release any of their Acrobat code.
Furthermore, if they did release it, it wouldn't help anybody. Acrobat does some important things, but it does them very badly. For PDF rendering alone, you can do much better. Compare Acrobat to Apple's entirely home-grown PDF rendering code, for instance.
I think it's safe to say that there are precisely zero objective advantages of Linux. If you take personal quirks out of the equation, Linux scores a goose egg.
I think many Slashdotters are still using Linux on the server side and mostly using OS X on the desktop.
See, that's the part I don't understand. Mac OS X Server makes Linux look like chopped liver in every single respect. Why would you ever want to take a giant step backward?
Hmm. That might be a valid interpretation, but it's not one I would subscribe to. I believe the first instance of what we normally think of as the tragic hero began with Shakespeare. He was the first one (if I remember my literature classes, now fifteen years in the past) to introduce sympathetic hero characters with a fatal flaw that led to their eventual downfall. The hero of the Scottish play, for example, was undone by his ambition.
Anything since about 1630 can reasonably be called "contemporary.";-)
I don't use Linux. [I know, what am I doing on Slashdot?:) ]
Just based on my observations, it seems like the vast majority of Slashdot readers are ex-Linux users.
Every time I hear that somebody's still using Linux -- which isn't often-- I kind of boggle. I just assumed everybody started using Mac OS X two years ago and never looked back.
So you don't want to fuck the guy who played the guitar, but you're okay fucking the guy who wrote the song, or the guy who recorded it, or the guy who mixed it, or the guy who pressed the master, or the guy who manufactured all the blank CDs, or the guy who drove the truck to deliver the CDs to the store?
This model has been tried countless times in the past. You know all those guys you see standing on subway platforms with the open guitar/violin/cello case sitting next to them with two bucks in change in it? They're subscribing to just the model you're advocating here.
It doesn't work.
Can we please stop begging artists to live in penury so we can enjoy their labors for free, please?
There is no such thing as a one-person corporation any more than there is such a thing as a hundred-person corporation.
You're just gonna have to imagine me making the little screw-loose gesture by my head and going "cuckoo... cuckoo." Because it's just not something you can adequately convey with words.
Understand these misleading stats: Linux server sales revenues grew 36% over the previous year. But the grand total is still only 9% of the total server market.
Slashdot Mirror
go create some fartwork with your fancy poposhop
LOL. I'm gonna back off of my "he's illiterate" theory and advance a new one: He's a child, probably about 13 years old. Because it's not long after that, you see, that the charm of giggling at bathroom noises begins to fade.
So yeah. Maybe 12, maybe 13. Certainly no older.
i did not know that english was the only spoken language in the world.
It's the one in which you're attempting to communicate. At least I assume that's the case. Your scratchings bear only the slightest resemblance to written English.
confused about very existentialist reasons of human race
Oooh! Oooh! Are you that Time Cube guy? I've so wanted to meet you.
Okay, so you dissed on Adobe's spec and then you made some ya-ya about how you wish stuff that's copyright-protected weren't, and finally you asserted that something which is entirely open really isn't because, I don't know, you don't like it or something.
Do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation, or are you just an Adobe-bashing troll?
I'm pretty sure the troll label came from two things: Your "true artists" blather, which is utter nonsense any way you slice it, and your functional illiteracy.
Troll? No. But you're definitely an idiot.
I've done a little cinema work, back in the day. Those users barely scratch the surface of what Photoshop provides. The clone brush is really all they use. They could be, and in fact often are, happy with much less capable tools.
PDF is not open (unless you just mean the spec is freely avaiable).
That is, of course, what "open" means.
Adobe stresses that it retains copyright of the data structures it describes (and probably patents as well).
Well, of course. Why wouldn't they? They created it. Of course they maintain property rights over it. That's a "duh."
Moreover, if you don't implement "encryption" controls as described by Adobe, then you don't have permission to implement the PDF spec.
Why did you use quotation marks? Anyway, the specification is freely available. There's no reason why anybody who's sufficiently motivated can't implement it. If you don't like the specification, or parts of the specification, don't implement it. Implement some other document format instead. But don't be surprised when nobody gives a damn about your non-standard implementation.
Publishing code does not "open" make
Yes, it does. Unless you want to twist the semiotics of the conversation to the point where black is white and freedom is slavery.
The philosophy behind open source is, "Let everyone see behind the curtain." It's not "pull down your pants and bend over." Stop trying to twist it into some radical political perversion of itself.
Adobe is for commercial artists who are slaves of corporate money
Yet another one for the idiot pile. Sigh. It's getting to the point where you can't swing a dead cat on Slashdot without hitting a moron.
"Here's the source" is not the whole concept of open source because the latter also includes ideas about what the recipient is allowed to do with the source...
Um. No. That's exactly what I was objecting to. Don't generalize. There's a vanishingly small faction out there who want creators to waive their property rights. Everybody else just sees the value of publishing source code and leaves politics out of it.
If your server is already doing what you want it too, why upgrade it?
Because, by definition, Linux isn't doing what you want it to do. Remember the discussion from a week or so ago about how setting up directory services on Linux is all but impossible?
If Linux is capable of doing everything you want to do, then you must not want to do much. In which case, rock on. But don't act all bewildered when the rest of the world moves on to a platform that does what we need.
Sigh. It sounds like you've never actually used Photoshop.
The difference between Photoshop and Gimp is more than high-resolution color support. It's the tool set. Does Gimp offer layer comps? Does it offer actions? How are its antialiasing facilities? Can you create image slices? How can you automate it? Where's the third-party filter support? Can Gimp run DFT, for instance? For many users, if it can't, that's an absolute show-stopper, end of discussion. Does Gimp have pixel aspect ratio correction? How are its compositing tools? Does it have adjustment layers? How about layer effects? How are its matting tools?
These aren't bells and whistles. These are key features that I use every single day, and I'm not even pushing the program very hard.
It's not about file-format support. Hell, it's not even about color management. It's about the tools. Until the tools are there, no, Gimp will never even be on the same planet as Photoshop.
I don't understand. Why would a patent conflict with the whole concept of open source? The whole concept of open source is, "Here's our source." It has nothing to do with patents.
Now, if you're one of those "let's abolish all IP" freaks, I can see where you might be possessed by an irrational, frothing hatred of patents and all other forms of IP protection. But do everybody a favor and don't project your own neuroses onto "the whole concept of open source," okay?
Actually, Photoshop on IRIX was spectacular. It worked exactly like Photoshop on the Mac, and was very, very stable. And far from being ugly, it looked precisely like the Mac version. As opposed to every other Motif program, all of which were physically painful to behold.
Maybe the Sun version was different.
The only problem was it was more expensive and ran slower than the Mac version, and it only ran on computers that cost tens of thousands of dollars. It just didn't make any sense from a commercial standpoint.
PDF is an entirely open format. There's zero need for Adobe to release any of their Acrobat code.
Furthermore, if they did release it, it wouldn't help anybody. Acrobat does some important things, but it does them very badly. For PDF rendering alone, you can do much better. Compare Acrobat to Apple's entirely home-grown PDF rendering code, for instance.
they're still using some ugly, closed-source GUI library
A Linux user accuses somebody else's program of being ugly? That's rich.
Linux still has its advantages over OS X.
I think it's safe to say that there are precisely zero objective advantages of Linux. If you take personal quirks out of the equation, Linux scores a goose egg.
I think many Slashdotters are still using Linux on the server side and mostly using OS X on the desktop.
See, that's the part I don't understand. Mac OS X Server makes Linux look like chopped liver in every single respect. Why would you ever want to take a giant step backward?
Hmm. That might be a valid interpretation, but it's not one I would subscribe to. I believe the first instance of what we normally think of as the tragic hero began with Shakespeare. He was the first one (if I remember my literature classes, now fifteen years in the past) to introduce sympathetic hero characters with a fatal flaw that led to their eventual downfall. The hero of the Scottish play, for example, was undone by his ambition.
;-)
Anything since about 1630 can reasonably be called "contemporary."
I don't use Linux. [I know, what am I doing on Slashdot? :) ]
Just based on my observations, it seems like the vast majority of Slashdot readers are ex-Linux users.
Every time I hear that somebody's still using Linux -- which isn't often-- I kind of boggle. I just assumed everybody started using Mac OS X two years ago and never looked back.
I didn't realize "productivity" was street slang for "erection."
So you don't want to fuck the guy who played the guitar, but you're okay fucking the guy who wrote the song, or the guy who recorded it, or the guy who mixed it, or the guy who pressed the master, or the guy who manufactured all the blank CDs, or the guy who drove the truck to deliver the CDs to the store?
Who don't you want to fuck in this?
This model has been tried countless times in the past. You know all those guys you see standing on subway platforms with the open guitar/violin/cello case sitting next to them with two bucks in change in it? They're subscribing to just the model you're advocating here.
It doesn't work.
Can we please stop begging artists to live in penury so we can enjoy their labors for free, please?
There is no such thing as a one-person corporation any more than there is such a thing as a hundred-person corporation.
... cuckoo." Because it's just not something you can adequately convey with words.
You're just gonna have to imagine me making the little screw-loose gesture by my head and going "cuckoo
Remember, kids: Any post that doesn't strictly conform to Slashdot(TM) standards of acceptability must be moderated as a "troll" immediately.
Linux is the future. And it always will be.
Understand these misleading stats: Linux server sales revenues grew 36% over the previous year. But the grand total is still only 9% of the total server market.
It's $40, and we're translating "integrated" as "it plugs in."