Dude, this is Slashdot. Before you start foaming at the mouth, why don't you do some verification to see if the story itself is true? (Since half the stories here are pure crap, you have to check before getting upset.)
So here's what actually happened. For people running MSUS (only network administrators), Windows Desktop Search now appears as a "Windows" update instead of as a separate product. It's marked as "Optional" (or the equivalent), not required, and before it's deployed to any computers it requires the network administrator to sign off on it.
Where, exactly, is the story here? That Microsoft re-categorized Desktop Search as a Windows component instead of a separate program? Whoop-de-shit.
Why in the world would I spend close to US$500 for something that is rarely used and would be overkill to boot?
You wouldn't. You'd use Paintshop Pro, or Photoshop Elements, or Corel whats-its-name or any of a dozen other graphics programs designed specifically for that use. If Photoshop is overkill for you, buy something with fewer features than Photoshop, and for a hell of a lot less than $500. You're putting forward a kind of goofy argument, as if Photoshop is the only image editing program ever made.
I'd rather use my free image program with more tools in its toolkit than I would ever need for that task.
You mean Paint.NET? Yeah, it's a lot better than GIMP, isn't it.
That doesn't help if the competing tools (both open source, like Paint.NET/CinePaint and commercial like Paintshop Pro or Photoshop) are also improving at the same, or greater, rate.
That's the problem that OpenOffice has had in the past. Maybe now that there's more focus on it, they can help resolve it, but OpenOffice is still working on stuff that Microsoft Office decided was good enough so that they can move to developing new tools like Sharepoint.
Re:Software freedom is better.
on
GIMP 2.4 Released
·
· Score: 0, Troll
If you're a professional, than the $600 price tag probably won't phase you . That's probably what you'd bill your clients for a days work. $600 is nothing. However, for the hobbyist and basic home user, GIMP probably does just about everything then need it to do, and is increasing in functionality all the time. It also comes with a price tag of $0. So while I think it's important for GIMP to strive to be as good as Photoshop, being not quite as good, but very good and free still makes it a very good tool.
The problem is that Photoshop Elements is under $100, and it's still better than GIMP for image editing. Or Paintshop Pro, for that matter. And doesn't Corel have something at that price point? Oh, and if you set the price point to $0, and own Windows, then Paint.NET is *still* better than GIMP at the same price.
The part where he asked me (defensively!) what I think is wrong with the UI was 10 words:
What exactly is wrong with the UI in the Gimp?
The part where he discussed how great the Gimp's UI is was 90 words:
I have always preferred the UI of the Gimp to Photoshop. I think the biggest complaint of users of Paintshop and Photoshop is that the Gimp does not use MDI. Yet, for many, this is an advantage as it works better with multiple monitors and allows for greater multitasking. (Linux and MacOS users tend not to maximize apps). Plus, if you really want MDI, just use a virtual desktop. Even Vista has them, and they offload the "window grouping" from the application to the OS, like it should be done.
Somehow I don't think he actually cares what I think about it. I think he just used the question as a launching pad for providing his own opinion. It's a pretty common tactic, for instance, I could have started this whole post with the line "what are you, blind!?" then I'd be using it too.;)
If you actually had the money to invest you wouldnt waste it on the makeup company when you could invest in the bottling company.
A makeup bottling company? Wow, I guess social networking isn't the only industry you know nothing about.
Microsoft should be buying up the adserver or just the inventory instead of a paltry investment into the company equity which is basically worthless.
Yes, but Microsoft hires very smart people to make decisions like this. Smart people who have more knowledge of the industry than you do.
And none of this changes the point that your first post was moronic. You are God of the Internet, and because you don't use social networking, it's therefore worthless? Bow before Jack9, God of the Internet!!
I've said this before. No reason to wear makeup. I've never owned any makeup, and I never will. I've never even looked at any makeup (unless someone I'm looking at just happens to be wearing it.) Investing in Cover Girl is ridiculous.
Different hardware. One specific example I remember was going from a 400 mhz beige-box with Windows XP installed to a Dell Precision 340. For the purpose of moving files, since the network card on the 400 mhz was busted.
(And yes, XP does run acceptably on a 400 mhz computer as long as you have enough RAM. 256 would be a challenge, but if you can shove 512 in it, it'll run fine.)
At worst windows wouldn't boot at all. At best it would boot into safe mode, and you would have to either have another machine, or hope networking support would be working enough to hunt around and download all the various drivers you'd need for your new hardware.
The thing that linux is doing that is impossible for windows, is to just swap the hard disc out of one machine to another without having to consider finding and installing new drivers. barring the one minor hiccup that you're decrying, it just works.
It "just works" on Windows 2000/XP as well. Seriously. I'm not making this up, I've done it several times.
My practical experience tells me that Windows XP handles this situation just fine. I've swapped hard drives with 2000/XP installs between computers several times, and I've never encountered a situation where 2000/XP would refuse to boot, or go into any kind of reduced functionality mode, because of a lack of motherboard/PCI drivers. And that was from motherboards of completely different brands, never had a problem.
The activation thing is kind of a pain, but if you haven't activated it in awhile you can just do it quickly over the internet. If you have, you have to call, but Microsoft will never refuse an activation request over the phone, it just takes a few minutes. Admittedly a hassle, but not a show-stopper.
Outlook bridges the divide by having both. You can create color-coded categories, and create folders. If you like categories, you can make search folders to group like categories. Personally, I like that best because you can use whichever system you like better, or integrate them (for instance, by saying "show me emails categorized as 'build' in the folder 'completed'.)
you're totally missing the point. in windows that wouldn't have even been an option. he performed a feat with linux that would be totally impossible with windows.
Sure it would be possible, and probably easier. At worst, Windows would boot in Safe Mode (VGA) until you manually installed a new driver, which frankly is just as easy as editing some obscure "conf" file I've never heard of. It doesn't take me any longer to download ATI's driver than it does for me to find some FAQ on how to edit the "conf" file.
At best (and most likely), Windows would automatically detect the new video card and install a placeholder driver, at least a VESA driver, but more likely a somewhat-recent version of ATI's driver.
and also the latest version of ubuntu wouldnt even have required dropping to the CLI to sort this out. It now gives you a GUI to correct your graphics settings should the desktop fail to initialise.
Apple doesn't let programs write in the Applications (its equivalent to Program Files) either.
The only difference between the two is that OS X (and previous versions of Mac OS) were very very intolerant of applications that did the wrong thing, whereas Microsoft OSes generally bend over backwards to make applications keep working, even if those applications do the wrong thing. Vista is Microsoft saying, "hey, we're sick of bending over backwards, it's causing security problems for our users, fix your damned app."
The reason your software (games or whatever) have permission to write to C:\Program Files? Because that is what the filesystem allows. Is it wrong? Hell, yes. This is part of my problem with windows in general and why i use osx/linux at home.
So in what was is adding this same feature to Windows a bad thing?
In any case, this still has nothing to do with the question I asked. You're still just parroting back what "everyone" says about Vista.
Does your program write to Program Files? If so, why?
My biggest beef with Vista (well, mostly MSFT) is that it seems ZERO problems were addressed--ONLY symptoms.
Really? It addressed the problem you just talked about above.
Just as an example, many applications that support plugins store the plugins under their own directories in Program Files so that they are accessible to all users, not just the user installing the plugin. It may or may not be the 100% approved Microsoft Certified Correct Way Of Doing Things, but the fact remains that many, many Windows apps do this or other similar operations and all such apps are broken by Vista and require patches to fix.
Yeah, but that's my exact point. If they're writing inside Program Files, they're broken according to the maker of the environment the application is written in. If Microsoft says "don't do this, don't do this", then you can't really complain when you do it anyway-- then it breaks.
I'm not saying the software we're talking about is some flakey mess which crashes constantly, but if you don't follow the rules of the environment you're in, then you should expect things to break.
In any case, installing plug-ins to the Program Files folder is a bad idea, because it doesn't let one user install a plug-in without also installing it for all users. What if I want to use a certain UI plug-in in World of Warcraft and my friend doesn't want it loaded at all? We're SOL, because Blizzard doesn't follow Microsoft's rules, and therefore has no way of adding a plug-in for just one user account.
Why, exactly? I run as Admin all the time. It's my computer, I want to do whatever I want to it, whenever I want to, and I don't want any privilege issues getting in my way. There are definitely scenarios (e.g. corporate users, systems with multiple users, etc.) where people should not run as admins, but why shouldn't I run as admin on my own home PC if I want to?
Well I'm sure you're good at maintaining your computer, but if you weren't, running as a normal user instantly breaks every piece of malware out there.
Vista moved the location of user profiles. If "Documents and Settings" was hardcoded in an application and now doesn't exist that screws the pooch.
1) I would argue this software was already broken, and the reason it worked was because Microsoft was covering-up their bugs with compatibility hacks (which have gone away.)
2) How did this software work in other languages where "Documents and Settings" would be translated into something entirely different? How did it work in an environment where "Documents and Settings" is on a network drive, not on the local drive?
(That said, you're right: Cisco VPN Client is a giant ball of shit. It doesn't work with anything, it doesn't work with USB network devices, it doesn't work with ICS, it seemingly doesn't even work on any computer with more than one network. Christ, what does their QA environment look like? One vanilla Dell by its lonesome on a table?)
Slashdot Mirror
I bought the Xbox version specifically to avoid Steam. Glad I did.
In other words, they have violated the common carrier clause and thus are not protected from prosecution!
:)
ISPs aren't common carriers in the first place. There a pretty big hole in your plan.
NetworkSolutions has now changed their name! They're now known as http://205.178.187.13/ ! Watch for our new ad campaign during the Super Bowl.
I have neither Office 2007 nor Windows Live Photo gallery installed but Desktop Search was got installed anyway.
;)
You should look into Office 2007, it comes with a grammar checker.
Dude, this is Slashdot. Before you start foaming at the mouth, why don't you do some verification to see if the story itself is true? (Since half the stories here are pure crap, you have to check before getting upset.)
So here's what actually happened. For people running MSUS (only network administrators), Windows Desktop Search now appears as a "Windows" update instead of as a separate product. It's marked as "Optional" (or the equivalent), not required, and before it's deployed to any computers it requires the network administrator to sign off on it.
Where, exactly, is the story here? That Microsoft re-categorized Desktop Search as a Windows component instead of a separate program? Whoop-de-shit.
Why in the world would I spend close to US$500 for something that is rarely used and would be overkill to boot?
You wouldn't. You'd use Paintshop Pro, or Photoshop Elements, or Corel whats-its-name or any of a dozen other graphics programs designed specifically for that use. If Photoshop is overkill for you, buy something with fewer features than Photoshop, and for a hell of a lot less than $500. You're putting forward a kind of goofy argument, as if Photoshop is the only image editing program ever made.
I'd rather use my free image program with more tools in its toolkit than I would ever need for that task.
You mean Paint.NET? Yeah, it's a lot better than GIMP, isn't it.
That doesn't help if the competing tools (both open source, like Paint.NET/CinePaint and commercial like Paintshop Pro or Photoshop) are also improving at the same, or greater, rate.
That's the problem that OpenOffice has had in the past. Maybe now that there's more focus on it, they can help resolve it, but OpenOffice is still working on stuff that Microsoft Office decided was good enough so that they can move to developing new tools like Sharepoint.
If you're a professional, than the $600 price tag probably won't phase you . That's probably what you'd bill your clients for a days work. $600 is nothing. However, for the hobbyist and basic home user, GIMP probably does just about everything then need it to do, and is increasing in functionality all the time. It also comes with a price tag of $0. So while I think it's important for GIMP to strive to be as good as Photoshop, being not quite as good, but very good and free still makes it a very good tool.
The problem is that Photoshop Elements is under $100, and it's still better than GIMP for image editing. Or Paintshop Pro, for that matter. And doesn't Corel have something at that price point? Oh, and if you set the price point to $0, and own Windows, then Paint.NET is *still* better than GIMP at the same price.
The part where he asked me (defensively!) what I think is wrong with the UI was 10 words:
;)
What exactly is wrong with the UI in the Gimp?
The part where he discussed how great the Gimp's UI is was 90 words:
I have always preferred the UI of the Gimp to Photoshop. I think the biggest complaint of users of Paintshop and Photoshop is that the Gimp does not use MDI. Yet, for many, this is an advantage as it works better with multiple monitors and allows for greater multitasking. (Linux and MacOS users tend not to maximize apps). Plus, if you really want MDI, just use a virtual desktop. Even Vista has them, and they offload the "window grouping" from the application to the OS, like it should be done.
Somehow I don't think he actually cares what I think about it. I think he just used the question as a launching pad for providing his own opinion. It's a pretty common tactic, for instance, I could have started this whole post with the line "what are you, blind!?" then I'd be using it too.
If you actually had the money to invest you wouldnt waste it on the makeup company when you could invest in the bottling company.
A makeup bottling company? Wow, I guess social networking isn't the only industry you know nothing about.
Microsoft should be buying up the adserver or just the inventory instead of a paltry investment into the company equity which is basically worthless.
Yes, but Microsoft hires very smart people to make decisions like this. Smart people who have more knowledge of the industry than you do.
And none of this changes the point that your first post was moronic. You are God of the Internet, and because you don't use social networking, it's therefore worthless? Bow before Jack9, God of the Internet!!
Welcome to the real world.
Thanks!
Dude, your username is "GiMP". Would you seriously ever admit any shortcoming to a product so beloved you named your user account after it? Seriously.
In order to actually move pixels, I have to move my right hand from the mouse, press Ctrl+Shift+L, then move my right hand back to the mouse.
;)
Is there an easier way to nudge the pixels in a selection in the final release?
Keep your left hand on the keyboard and hit ctrl-shift-L with it?
But then there is this other group of people who will complain that GIMP is just being a PhotoShop wannabe and not innovating.
Yeah, but it's already not innovating. It's just not innovating with a crappy UI, as opposed to not innovating with a good UI.
BTW, a good UI doesn't (necessarily) mean Photoshop. Paint.NET for Windows has a pretty damned good UI, and it's not much like Photoshop at all.
I've said this before. No reason to wear makeup. I've never owned any makeup, and I never will. I've never even looked at any makeup (unless someone I'm looking at just happens to be wearing it.) Investing in Cover Girl is ridiculous.
But in 2007 London? Modern times are harder.
Phew! I'm glad I'm in Seattle.
Critical thinking is plainly not taught anymore.
Case in point! I mean, a forum post offering an opinion with absolutely zero rationale or evidence is moderated by the community to +5 Insightful.
Different hardware. One specific example I remember was going from a 400 mhz beige-box with Windows XP installed to a Dell Precision 340. For the purpose of moving files, since the network card on the 400 mhz was busted.
(And yes, XP does run acceptably on a 400 mhz computer as long as you have enough RAM. 256 would be a challenge, but if you can shove 512 in it, it'll run fine.)
At worst windows wouldn't boot at all. At best it would boot into safe mode, and you would have to either have another machine, or hope networking support would be working enough to hunt around and download all the various drivers you'd need for your new hardware.
The thing that linux is doing that is impossible for windows, is to just swap the hard disc out of one machine to another without having to consider finding and installing new drivers. barring the one minor hiccup that you're decrying, it just works.
It "just works" on Windows 2000/XP as well. Seriously. I'm not making this up, I've done it several times.
My practical experience tells me that Windows XP handles this situation just fine. I've swapped hard drives with 2000/XP installs between computers several times, and I've never encountered a situation where 2000/XP would refuse to boot, or go into any kind of reduced functionality mode, because of a lack of motherboard/PCI drivers. And that was from motherboards of completely different brands, never had a problem.
The activation thing is kind of a pain, but if you haven't activated it in awhile you can just do it quickly over the internet. If you have, you have to call, but Microsoft will never refuse an activation request over the phone, it just takes a few minutes. Admittedly a hassle, but not a show-stopper.
Outlook bridges the divide by having both. You can create color-coded categories, and create folders. If you like categories, you can make search folders to group like categories. Personally, I like that best because you can use whichever system you like better, or integrate them (for instance, by saying "show me emails categorized as 'build' in the folder 'completed'.)
you're totally missing the point. in windows that wouldn't have even been an option. he performed a feat with linux that would be totally impossible with windows.
Sure it would be possible, and probably easier. At worst, Windows would boot in Safe Mode (VGA) until you manually installed a new driver, which frankly is just as easy as editing some obscure "conf" file I've never heard of. It doesn't take me any longer to download ATI's driver than it does for me to find some FAQ on how to edit the "conf" file.
At best (and most likely), Windows would automatically detect the new video card and install a placeholder driver, at least a VESA driver, but more likely a somewhat-recent version of ATI's driver.
and also the latest version of ubuntu wouldnt even have required dropping to the CLI to sort this out. It now gives you a GUI to correct your graphics settings should the desktop fail to initialise.
That's great, but what took so long?
Apple doesn't let programs write in the Applications (its equivalent to Program Files) either.
The only difference between the two is that OS X (and previous versions of Mac OS) were very very intolerant of applications that did the wrong thing, whereas Microsoft OSes generally bend over backwards to make applications keep working, even if those applications do the wrong thing. Vista is Microsoft saying, "hey, we're sick of bending over backwards, it's causing security problems for our users, fix your damned app."
The reason your software (games or whatever) have permission to write to C:\Program Files? Because that is what the filesystem allows. Is it wrong? Hell, yes. This is part of my problem with windows in general and why i use osx/linux at home.
So in what was is adding this same feature to Windows a bad thing?
In any case, this still has nothing to do with the question I asked. You're still just parroting back what "everyone" says about Vista.
Does your program write to Program Files? If so, why?
My biggest beef with Vista (well, mostly MSFT) is that it seems ZERO problems were addressed--ONLY symptoms.
Really? It addressed the problem you just talked about above.
Just as an example, many applications that support plugins store the plugins under their own directories in Program Files so that they are accessible to all users, not just the user installing the plugin. It may or may not be the 100% approved Microsoft Certified Correct Way Of Doing Things, but the fact remains that many, many Windows apps do this or other similar operations and all such apps are broken by Vista and require patches to fix.
Yeah, but that's my exact point. If they're writing inside Program Files, they're broken according to the maker of the environment the application is written in. If Microsoft says "don't do this, don't do this", then you can't really complain when you do it anyway-- then it breaks.
I'm not saying the software we're talking about is some flakey mess which crashes constantly, but if you don't follow the rules of the environment you're in, then you should expect things to break.
In any case, installing plug-ins to the Program Files folder is a bad idea, because it doesn't let one user install a plug-in without also installing it for all users. What if I want to use a certain UI plug-in in World of Warcraft and my friend doesn't want it loaded at all? We're SOL, because Blizzard doesn't follow Microsoft's rules, and therefore has no way of adding a plug-in for just one user account.
Why, exactly? I run as Admin all the time. It's my computer, I want to do whatever I want to it, whenever I want to, and I don't want any privilege issues getting in my way. There are definitely scenarios (e.g. corporate users, systems with multiple users, etc.) where people should not run as admins, but why shouldn't I run as admin on my own home PC if I want to?
Well I'm sure you're good at maintaining your computer, but if you weren't, running as a normal user instantly breaks every piece of malware out there.
Vista moved the location of user profiles. If "Documents and Settings" was hardcoded in an application and now doesn't exist that screws the pooch.
1) I would argue this software was already broken, and the reason it worked was because Microsoft was covering-up their bugs with compatibility hacks (which have gone away.)
2) How did this software work in other languages where "Documents and Settings" would be translated into something entirely different? How did it work in an environment where "Documents and Settings" is on a network drive, not on the local drive?
(That said, you're right: Cisco VPN Client is a giant ball of shit. It doesn't work with anything, it doesn't work with USB network devices, it doesn't work with ICS, it seemingly doesn't even work on any computer with more than one network. Christ, what does their QA environment look like? One vanilla Dell by its lonesome on a table?)