and I'd rather use OSX than Linux twice a day. In fact, I'd rather have a root canal once a week with no sedatives rather than giving up OSX for Linux.
You are aware that OSX is Unix right? The best Unix for the desktop created by anyone any time in history. Apple are the ones who created the dawn of the "Linux on the Desktop". It just wasn't Linux since Linux/X/Gnome/KDE/(Whateverthefuck you can think og that doesn't work) GUI developers are a bunch of retarded morons.
You are obviously correct that we can not know whether what we experience is real, and given a few "if", it is trivial to prove that we are in fact nothing more than a computer simulation. However. Given that we are what we are and that we experience what we experience, the reasonable thing to do is to assume we do indeed live in a reality that can be perceived and that two individual perceiving the same reality will have a similar, but clearly not identical, experience. The reason this is reasonable is that otherwise we could just sit down and blow our brains out to see what happens.
Now, given the base assumption, namely that reality is perceivable to a high degree, and that observers will generally agree on the basics of what is observed, religion is still nonsense. This even holds true in most cases where a religious person with a scientific bent and an atheist prior to starting a debate agree on the ground rules for the debate's framework. In other words, to more or less reasonable people, one religious and one atheist, will in fact end up agreeing that religion is irrational in a reasoned debate. The debate will mostly end with the religious person going "yes, but then there is my belief" and that kills any rational argument and ends the debate.
been years since I looked, but it always seemed to me that C# combined the worst weaknesses of C++ and Java into an unholy amalgamation
Clearly years ago. I have developed in Java since 1998, and C# is, and has been since about 3.5, what Java once dreamed of being. Today C# and the.Net framework, is heads and shoulders above what Java aspires to be but can't due to the thing named "designed by committee".
The nice thing about open source is that you are free to modify it to suit your needs and redistribute it if you want
Yeah, 'cause every carpenter should make his own hammer. Typical comment from someone who doesn't have to work for a living.
there isn't a reason that Gimp does things differently...pesky copyrights
The lack of support for vital aspects of a photo editing suite has nothing to do with copyrights. Stop making up excuses just because you don't know shit about what photographers need.
You argument boils down to "your free product isn't good enough, I'm going to stick with this expensive product", when you could just as easily implement anything you want
Your argument is so astoundingly retarded I have to ask how old you are. Properly implementing the missing features from Photoshop in Gimp would take at least a man-year for someone getting started with it. So, a man-year is about $150 - $200 000 in lost opportunity cost. Considering the extremely low cost of Photoshop, investing $200 000 on adding the same features to Gimp would be insane. I spend less on Photoshop in a year than I spend on Coffee in a month. Claiming that Photoshop is expensive is dumb ignorance. Claiming that it would be financially sound to invest a couple of hundred thousand dollars in Gimp development just to get the same features I already have in Photoshop is fundamentally retarded.
I know you kids, in your parents basements, with your weekly allowance, think that things like time is essentially free. It isn't. I can use Photoshop for somewhere around 800 years for the cost of adding missing features to Gimp. I am not a color-space expert, so adding missing features would require I learn color theory, the innards of the Gimp and a good chunk of maths I haven't touched since I finished college. Long before I started writing a single line of code I'd be in a situation where I could have used Photoshop for free for decades compared to the cost of fixing Gimp on my own.
Every time I hear someone call Gimp an alternative to Photoshop I want to come to their house and forcefully pull all of their teeth. No, Gimp is not a viable alternative to Photoshop. Firstly, the Gimp developers have generally ignored the Photography community for years when people have been asking for proper implementation of things that are important to photographers (such as color spaces). When the things some times gets included, it's don ass-backwards.
For example: rhe Pantone and CMYK support in Gimp simply isn't up to snuff. As such it isn't a serious contender.
I really don't know what people mean when they say that OSX is more user friendly.
You should consider that a limitation of you ability to understand. Seriously.
this is much much less efficient and therefore less user friendly
And this is where your misunderstanding comes from. Here's a clue. User friendly: Allows me to easily digest the XAVC 4K footage from my camera, do basic color correction, cut away the junk, create a presentable end result. That's user friendly. Having multiple options for window managers, being exceedingly configurable to the point of me being able to make it fit my life perfectly when developing Java software - user-unfriendly for 99.999992% of the worlds population.
If you find more UI elements too distracting to do your work then it is pills you need, not a streamlined OS
I don't sit around masturbating to my own UI configuration every day. I do work that pays. For me to accomplish this I need to run applications that work. I design and develop software, which includes GUI components that are special made so I need a good vector graphics tool to assist in this. Also, I take pictures and make movies in my spare time, and I also use some of those skills when I develop GUI elements for my applications. In order to do that I need applications. A user friendly OS has those applications. Linux does not, and probably never will.
I don't think it's inherently superior but it is more user friendly.
I make my living creating stuff using computers as a tool. I don't need to spend time making the tool work. Therefore the tool being more user friendly means that inherently is superior. Now, if writing code was all I did, the difference between Linux and OSX would be much smaller, but that isn't the case. I edit 4K video from my Panasonic camera for example, which is not something I can do on Linux. I import my photos into Lightroom and adjust them in Capture One, some times I edit in Photosop. This simple cannot be done on a Linux box.
For the record, I have used Linux since 1993. I also used Minix back then on my home-grown BBS (you wouldn't know, you are too young). I had a short brush with Macs when I went to business school, but didn't own an OSX machine until I got a Macbook Pro a couple of years back. My personal web stuff is all on Linux on AWS. I am not an Apple fan boi by any stretch of the imagination.
So, what makes OSX infinitely more usable than Linux? Two things, usability and apps. There are no usable apps for regular stuff for Linux. Seriously. Show me an alternative to Photoshop, for example.
The sad reality is not that OSX folks have a superiority complex, they quite possibly do, the sad thing is that when you point out that OSX beats Linux on everything, Linux users are sooo insecure they have to lash out. Get over your self, get rid of Linux (on your desktop) and be happier.
Yeah. No. Sorry. You are wrong. The OS-X tools are in fact oh so much better than anyone else's. Now, if you use your computer exclusively for vi and make, you'd not really notice, but do you? You don't have a camera? You never need Photoshop or similar? Oh, and if you come out and claim that Gimp is an alternative to Photoshop I am going to track you down and pull out some of your teeth!
or, OSX is the most useful implementation of Unix anywhere and at any time in history, from a users point of view.
As a developer I was raised on SunOS (before it became Solaris). Unix is in my genes. However, both as a developer and outside of work, I use computers for other things than 'vi' and 'make', or 'emacs' and 'ant' or whatever silly thing you could think of. I use it for my images, for editing 4K video from my camera etc. Since Linux on the Desktop is never going to happen, and actual usable applications for non-development on Linux is never going to happen, using an alternative Unix platform seems reasonable. OSX is what Linux could have been if Thorvalds had ever cared about user interfaces. He doesn't and never will, thereby relegating Linux to the dark basement.
Until OSX came along the best way to develop was using Windows on the workstation and having an automated build system on Linux somewhere. Why Windows? Because Windows beats Linux every single day for desktop usability. It's leaps and bounds ahead of what Linux dreams of in its most orgasm-inducing dreams. Don't believe me? Try some cross-platform stuff. Eclipse for example. I would rather use Eclipse on Windows while having a root canal rather than suffering actual editing on Linux
You'd have to be a real masochist today to chose a Linux desktop over an OSX desktop for a Unix development experience.
So far, one person working on this has been diagnosed with Leukemia thought to be from exposure to radiation during this crisis. Given the size of the group, the years that have passed and the makeup of the group, this is really low. In fact, in a group this size, over a decade, the expected number of leukemia cases is five. So, if we go by the typical statistical logic of the people infected with radiation-hysteria, being exposed to the type of radiation released during the Fukushima incident reduces your risk of leukemia by 80%.
So, lay it out for me, how is Microsoft going to firstly "extend" a product they own, not based on any standards that can be extended, and then extinguish it? Include some details please.
In the late 1990s our company released some serious Java software for a very significant US market. We were very successful with it, and Sun used our logo as one of the success stories when taking out some double-page ads in papers like the New York Times. I have always been a huge fan of Java, but these days, when I do something for the JVM, it tends to be Scala. I much prefer Scala to Java.
About six years ago I was asked to take on some C#/.NET stuff, and it was surprising to me how easy it was coming from Java. C# was clearly a "copy" of Java. This was.NET 3.5. After a while I realized that the MS tooling plus the C# language and the.NET environment made me more productive in C# than I had been on Java. Tooling in particular was very good, but also some of the language features of C# were simply more mature and more well thought-out than in Java land. C# does, for example, auto-boxing properly while Java autoboxing is a cluster fuck (compiler-stage autoboxing an Boolean object to a bool, for example is an idea that must have come out of the excrement of a brain dead developer, for example).
Then C# developed. Took on functional aspects, got Linq, moved on. Java on the other hand. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. For years and years. Death by committee. Today a decent developer is probably twice as productive in C#/.NET as it is possible to be in Java, and things do not seem to be improving much. If your shop uses Windows PCs, Active Directory etc, you'd be practically insane to use Java/JVM over C#/.NET.
Now, if the Xamarin move pans out, if you are a Windows shop who need specialized mobile apps, you'd be insane not to use C# or (important, I would typically use this) Cordova.
Slashdot Mirror
and I'd rather use OSX than Linux twice a day. In fact, I'd rather have a root canal once a week with no sedatives rather than giving up OSX for Linux.
Ignorant much? Mine works fine. Buttons and all. Just gotta know where they are.
But what does it matter when it's driver is OS X?
You are aware that OSX is Unix right? The best Unix for the desktop created by anyone any time in history. Apple are the ones who created the dawn of the "Linux on the Desktop". It just wasn't Linux since Linux/X/Gnome/KDE/(Whateverthefuck you can think og that doesn't work) GUI developers are a bunch of retarded morons.
You are obviously correct that we can not know whether what we experience is real, and given a few "if", it is trivial to prove that we are in fact nothing more than a computer simulation. However. Given that we are what we are and that we experience what we experience, the reasonable thing to do is to assume we do indeed live in a reality that can be perceived and that two individual perceiving the same reality will have a similar, but clearly not identical, experience. The reason this is reasonable is that otherwise we could just sit down and blow our brains out to see what happens.
Now, given the base assumption, namely that reality is perceivable to a high degree, and that observers will generally agree on the basics of what is observed, religion is still nonsense. This even holds true in most cases where a religious person with a scientific bent and an atheist prior to starting a debate agree on the ground rules for the debate's framework. In other words, to more or less reasonable people, one religious and one atheist, will in fact end up agreeing that religion is irrational in a reasoned debate. The debate will mostly end with the religious person going "yes, but then there is my belief" and that kills any rational argument and ends the debate.
includes cross-platform UI components. Does Xamarin?
Yes.
been years since I looked, but it always seemed to me that C# combined the worst weaknesses of C++ and Java into an unholy amalgamation
Clearly years ago. I have developed in Java since 1998, and C# is, and has been since about 3.5, what Java once dreamed of being. Today C# and the .Net framework, is heads and shoulders above what Java aspires to be but can't due to the thing named "designed by committee".
If you don't know you are a psych student or a sociology major, so what the fuck are you doing in /.?
Now, can I really target all those platforms from a single code base
Yes.
Moron
The nice thing about open source is that you are free to modify it to suit your needs and redistribute it if you want
Yeah, 'cause every carpenter should make his own hammer. Typical comment from someone who doesn't have to work for a living.
there isn't a reason that Gimp does things differently...pesky copyrights
The lack of support for vital aspects of a photo editing suite has nothing to do with copyrights. Stop making up excuses just because you don't know shit about what photographers need.
You argument boils down to "your free product isn't good enough, I'm going to stick with this expensive product", when you could just as easily implement anything you want
Your argument is so astoundingly retarded I have to ask how old you are. Properly implementing the missing features from Photoshop in Gimp would take at least a man-year for someone getting started with it. So, a man-year is about $150 - $200 000 in lost opportunity cost. Considering the extremely low cost of Photoshop, investing $200 000 on adding the same features to Gimp would be insane. I spend less on Photoshop in a year than I spend on Coffee in a month. Claiming that Photoshop is expensive is dumb ignorance. Claiming that it would be financially sound to invest a couple of hundred thousand dollars in Gimp development just to get the same features I already have in Photoshop is fundamentally retarded.
I know you kids, in your parents basements, with your weekly allowance, think that things like time is essentially free. It isn't. I can use Photoshop for somewhere around 800 years for the cost of adding missing features to Gimp. I am not a color-space expert, so adding missing features would require I learn color theory, the innards of the Gimp and a good chunk of maths I haven't touched since I finished college. Long before I started writing a single line of code I'd be in a situation where I could have used Photoshop for free for decades compared to the cost of fixing Gimp on my own.
Such as Gimp
Every time I hear someone call Gimp an alternative to Photoshop I want to come to their house and forcefully pull all of their teeth. No, Gimp is not a viable alternative to Photoshop. Firstly, the Gimp developers have generally ignored the Photography community for years when people have been asking for proper implementation of things that are important to photographers (such as color spaces). When the things some times gets included, it's don ass-backwards.
For example: rhe Pantone and CMYK support in Gimp simply isn't up to snuff. As such it isn't a serious contender.
I really don't know what people mean when they say that OSX is more user friendly.
You should consider that a limitation of you ability to understand. Seriously.
this is much much less efficient and therefore less user friendly
And this is where your misunderstanding comes from. Here's a clue. User friendly: Allows me to easily digest the XAVC 4K footage from my camera, do basic color correction, cut away the junk, create a presentable end result. That's user friendly. Having multiple options for window managers, being exceedingly configurable to the point of me being able to make it fit my life perfectly when developing Java software - user-unfriendly for 99.999992% of the worlds population.
If you find more UI elements too distracting to do your work then it is pills you need, not a streamlined OS
I don't sit around masturbating to my own UI configuration every day. I do work that pays. For me to accomplish this I need to run applications that work. I design and develop software, which includes GUI components that are special made so I need a good vector graphics tool to assist in this. Also, I take pictures and make movies in my spare time, and I also use some of those skills when I develop GUI elements for my applications. In order to do that I need applications. A user friendly OS has those applications. Linux does not, and probably never will.
How do you get by without applications?
I don't think it's inherently superior but it is more user friendly.
I make my living creating stuff using computers as a tool. I don't need to spend time making the tool work. Therefore the tool being more user friendly means that inherently is superior. Now, if writing code was all I did, the difference between Linux and OSX would be much smaller, but that isn't the case. I edit 4K video from my Panasonic camera for example, which is not something I can do on Linux. I import my photos into Lightroom and adjust them in Capture One, some times I edit in Photosop. This simple cannot be done on a Linux box.
For the record, I have used Linux since 1993. I also used Minix back then on my home-grown BBS (you wouldn't know, you are too young). I had a short brush with Macs when I went to business school, but didn't own an OSX machine until I got a Macbook Pro a couple of years back. My personal web stuff is all on Linux on AWS. I am not an Apple fan boi by any stretch of the imagination.
So, what makes OSX infinitely more usable than Linux? Two things, usability and apps. There are no usable apps for regular stuff for Linux. Seriously. Show me an alternative to Photoshop, for example.
The sad reality is not that OSX folks have a superiority complex, they quite possibly do, the sad thing is that when you point out that OSX beats Linux on everything, Linux users are sooo insecure they have to lash out. Get over your self, get rid of Linux (on your desktop) and be happier.
Yeah. No. Sorry. You are wrong. The OS-X tools are in fact oh so much better than anyone else's. Now, if you use your computer exclusively for vi and make, you'd not really notice, but do you? You don't have a camera? You never need Photoshop or similar? Oh, and if you come out and claim that Gimp is an alternative to Photoshop I am going to track you down and pull out some of your teeth!
or, OSX is the most useful implementation of Unix anywhere and at any time in history, from a users point of view.
As a developer I was raised on SunOS (before it became Solaris). Unix is in my genes. However, both as a developer and outside of work, I use computers for other things than 'vi' and 'make', or 'emacs' and 'ant' or whatever silly thing you could think of. I use it for my images, for editing 4K video from my camera etc. Since Linux on the Desktop is never going to happen, and actual usable applications for non-development on Linux is never going to happen, using an alternative Unix platform seems reasonable. OSX is what Linux could have been if Thorvalds had ever cared about user interfaces. He doesn't and never will, thereby relegating Linux to the dark basement.
Until OSX came along the best way to develop was using Windows on the workstation and having an automated build system on Linux somewhere. Why Windows? Because Windows beats Linux every single day for desktop usability. It's leaps and bounds ahead of what Linux dreams of in its most orgasm-inducing dreams. Don't believe me? Try some cross-platform stuff. Eclipse for example. I would rather use Eclipse on Windows while having a root canal rather than suffering actual editing on Linux
You'd have to be a real masochist today to chose a Linux desktop over an OSX desktop for a Unix development experience.
You cant turdify Eclipse. Its already turdified.
So far, one person working on this has been diagnosed with Leukemia thought to be from exposure to radiation during this crisis. Given the size of the group, the years that have passed and the makeup of the group, this is really low. In fact, in a group this size, over a decade, the expected number of leukemia cases is five. So, if we go by the typical statistical logic of the people infected with radiation-hysteria, being exposed to the type of radiation released during the Fukushima incident reduces your risk of leukemia by 80%.
But now, the pattern is emerging
So, lay it out for me, how is Microsoft going to firstly "extend" a product they own, not based on any standards that can be extended, and then extinguish it? Include some details please.
Time for your tin-foil hat. Don't fret the straitjacket, it's for your own good, and the man in white, with the syringe, he's trying to help you.
You really are a moron, and considering you are posting anonymously, you know it.
In the late 1990s our company released some serious Java software for a very significant US market. We were very successful with it, and Sun used our logo as one of the success stories when taking out some double-page ads in papers like the New York Times. I have always been a huge fan of Java, but these days, when I do something for the JVM, it tends to be Scala. I much prefer Scala to Java.
About six years ago I was asked to take on some C#/.NET stuff, and it was surprising to me how easy it was coming from Java. C# was clearly a "copy" of Java. This was .NET 3.5. After a while I realized that the MS tooling plus the C# language and the .NET environment made me more productive in C# than I had been on Java. Tooling in particular was very good, but also some of the language features of C# were simply more mature and more well thought-out than in Java land. C# does, for example, auto-boxing properly while Java autoboxing is a cluster fuck (compiler-stage autoboxing an Boolean object to a bool, for example is an idea that must have come out of the excrement of a brain dead developer, for example).
Then C# developed. Took on functional aspects, got Linq, moved on. Java on the other hand. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. For years and years. Death by committee. Today a decent developer is probably twice as productive in C#/.NET as it is possible to be in Java, and things do not seem to be improving much. If your shop uses Windows PCs, Active Directory etc, you'd be practically insane to use Java/JVM over C#/.NET.
Now, if the Xamarin move pans out, if you are a Windows shop who need specialized mobile apps, you'd be insane not to use C# or (important, I would typically use this) Cordova.
The 1990s called and asked you return your paranoia.
put some of the basic functionality in Express so I can finally try it out
Why express? Community Edition, which is basically the same as once was Professional, is free.
Moron.