[News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition - Linux ; "Rick" stated in post 3eqdnWFZ_NSElRfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 10:06 AM: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:45:18 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> "Rick" stated in post >> b92dnVAnBom0XBTVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 5:03 AM: >> >>>> Actually he has. Many times. >>> >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

  1. Re: Rick goes out of his way to tie his trolling to another'sname but will not tie it to his own

    "Rick" stated in post
    3eqdnWFZ_NSElRfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 10:06 AM:

    > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:45:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> b92dnVAnBom0XBTVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 5:03 AM:
    >>
    >>>> Actually he has. Many times.
    >>>
    >>> Actually he hasn't. I have pointed out why his attempts are incorrect
    >>> many times.

    >>
    >> You have played semantic games with the word "fractured", which,
    >> frankly, just proves you are running. Here are the quotes again:

    >
    > No, it proves you don't know have a command of English.


    Incorrect.

    >> Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for
    >> users:

    >
    > Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    > statement is a lie.


    As I noted: you play semantic games without arguing against the actual
    points being made. This shows that you have no argument against the points
    being made.

    >> Rick:
    >> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
    >> enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
    >> across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
    >> better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
    >> coming around to your point of view.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    >> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >>
    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such UIs:

    >
    > Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    > statement is a lie.


    I did not say you currently agree... I quoted your past agreement. You
    accuse me of not having a command of the language but you prove you do not.

    >> Rick:
    >> Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE team
    >> doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team doesn't
    >> seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep posting seem to
    >> say it isn't a good idea. Why should he support it?
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured UI and
    >> have been very clear about the effects it has.
    >> Rick:
    >> I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you that.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of
    >> lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux
    >> solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not
    >> meet them as well as other solutions.
    >> Rick:
    >> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
    >>
    >>
    >> Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of
    >> multiple UIs

    >
    > Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    > statement is a lie.


    Again: the question is not your current belief... what you currently believe
    is irrelevant to the fact that in the past you have flip flopped. Your
    claiming you do not agree with your past quotes here shows you flip flop.

    That in itself is not bad - we all learn... or should. Your denial of the
    fact of your changes in view point, however, does not speak well of you.

    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 3 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Which UI would that be?
    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in the
    >> different distros in details, but they all share that trait...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact then point
    >> to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a UI with a fractured
    >> combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or otherwise is not quite
    >> inconsistent.
    >> Rick:
    >> Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not fractured.

    >
    > Read for comprehension, Glasser:
    > "they are not fractured."


    Note how you dishonestly pretend I did not understand you points.

    Also note how you went out of your way to tie your trolling / lying to my
    personal full name and yet will not tie it to your own. This shows your
    lack of morality.

    >> And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    >> "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to describe
    >> the schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.

    >
    > Michael Glxsser. You are a liar. It is as simple as that.


    And yet you cannot point to a single lie of mine.

    Funny that, eh?

    --
    "The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay


  2. Re: Michael Glasser is a liar.

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:04:57 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 3eqdnWFZ_NSElRfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 10:06 AM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:45:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> b92dnVAnBom0XBTVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 5:03 AM:
    >>>
    >>>>> Actually he has. Many times.
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually he hasn't. I have pointed out why his attempts are incorrect
    >>>> many times.
    >>>
    >>> You have played semantic games with the word "fractured", which,
    >>> frankly, just proves you are running. Here are the quotes again:

    >>
    >> No, it proves you don't know have a command of English.

    >
    > Incorrect.


    it proves you don't know have a command of English.

    >
    >>> Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for
    >>> users:

    >>
    >> Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    >> statement is a lie.

    >
    > As I noted: you play semantic games without arguing against the actual
    > points being made. This shows that you have no argument against the
    > points being made.


    Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    statement is a lie.

    >
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It
    >>> does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same
    >>> places across applications. The more uniform or consistent that
    >>> is, the better for the user. I have said this many times before. I
    >>> am not coming around to your point of view.
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    >>> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >>>
    >>> Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such
    >>> UIs:

    >>
    >> Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    >> statement is a lie.

    >
    > I did not say you currently agree... I quoted your past agreement. You
    > accuse me of not having a command of the language but you prove you do
    > not.


    I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    statement is a lie.

    >
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE team
    >>> doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team doesn't
    >>> seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep posting seem
    >>> to say it isn't a good idea. Why should he support it?
    >>>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured UI
    >>> and have been very clear about the effects it has.
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you that.
    >>>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk
    >>> of lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop
    >>> Linux solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally,
    >>> will not meet them as well as other solutions.
    >>> Rick:
    >>> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of
    >>> multiple UIs

    >>
    >> Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    >> statement is a lie.

    >
    > Again: the question is not your current belief... what you currently
    > believe is irrelevant to the fact that in the past you have flip
    > flopped. Your claiming you do not agree with your past quotes here
    > shows you flip flop.


    I have never agreed with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    statement is a lie.

    >
    > That in itself is not bad - we all learn... or should. Your denial of
    > the fact of your changes in view point, however, does not speak well of
    > you.
    >
    >>> Snit:
    >>> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >>> Gnome and others...
    >>> Rick:
    >>> That's at least 3 UIs.
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Which UI would that be?
    >>> Snit:
    >>> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >>> Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in the
    >>> different distros in details, but they all share that trait...
    >>> Rick:
    >>> That's at least 4 UIs.
    >>>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact then
    >>> point to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a UI with a
    >>> fractured combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or otherwise is not
    >>> quite inconsistent.
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.
    >>>
    >>> Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not
    >>> fractured.

    >>
    >> Read for comprehension, Glasser: "they are not fractured."

    >
    > Note how you dishonestly pretend I did not understand you points.


    Read for comprehension, Glasser: "they are not fractured."

    >
    > Also note how you went out of your way to tie your trolling / lying to
    > my personal full name and yet will not tie it to your own. This shows
    > your lack of morality.


    If you don't want your lies tied to your name, either stop lying, or
    change your name.

    >
    >>> And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    >>> "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to
    >>> describe the schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.

    >>
    >> Michael Glxsser. You are a liar. It is as simple as that.


    Your editing of my text will not keep your lies from being tied to you.

    >
    > And yet you cannot point to a single lie of mine.


    I pointed to several of your lies.

    >
    > Funny that, eh?


    Michael, in the context of this thread, I have never agreed with you. I
    know you have some need for me to have agreed with you, but I haven't.

    As far as me tying anything...
    All I have done is point to YOUR LIEs. YOUR lies, Michael. Yours. If you
    don't want your lies tied to your name, either stop lying, or change your
    name.

    And, AGAIN, in the context of this thread, I do not, and have not agreed
    with you.

    --
    Rick

  3. Re: Rick goes out of his way to tie his trolling to another'sname but will not tie it to his own

    "Rick" stated in post
    3eqdnWFZ_NSElRfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 10:06 AM:

    > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:45:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> b92dnVAnBom0XBTVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/25/08 5:03 AM:
    >>
    >>>> Actually he has. Many times.
    >>>
    >>> Actually he hasn't. I have pointed out why his attempts are incorrect
    >>> many times.

    >>
    >> You have played semantic games with the word "fractured", which,
    >> frankly, just proves you are running. Here are the quotes again:

    >
    > No, it proves you don't know have a command of English.


    Incorrect.

    >> Rick: agreeing that the fractured UI of PCLOS is not a good thing for
    >> users:

    >
    > Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    > statement is a lie.


    As I noted: you play semantic games without arguing against the actual
    points being made. This shows that you have no argument against the points
    being made.

    >> Rick:
    >> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
    >> enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
    >> across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
    >> better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
    >> coming around to your point of view.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
    >> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
    >>
    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured nature of PCLOS and other such UIs:

    >
    > Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    > statement is a lie.


    I did not say you currently agree... I quoted your past agreement. You
    accuse me of not having a command of the language but you prove you do not.

    >> Rick:
    >> Why should he argue in favor of UI inconsistency? The KDE team
    >> doesn't seem to think it is a good idea. The Gnome team doesn't
    >> seemto think it is a good idea. The studies you keep posting seem to
    >> say it isn't a good idea. Why should he support it?
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> I have merely pointed out that desktop Linux has a fractured UI and
    >> have been very clear about the effects it has.
    >> Rick:
    >> I disagree with your statement. I have repeatedly told you that.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of
    >> lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux
    >> solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not
    >> meet them as well as other solutions.
    >> Rick:
    >> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
    >>
    >>
    >> Rick agreeing the PCLOS / Desktop Linux UI is a fractured set of
    >> multiple UIs

    >
    > Since I DO NOT agree with you that "the" UI of PCLOS is fractured, your
    > statement is a lie.


    Again: the question is not your current belief... what you currently believe
    is irrelevant to the fact that in the past you have flip flopped. Your
    claiming you do not agree with your past quotes here shows you flip flop.

    That in itself is not bad - we all learn... or should. Your denial of the
    fact of your changes in view point, however, does not speak well of you.

    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 3 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Which UI would that be?
    >> Snit:
    >> The fractured UI present in every desktop distro - a combo of KDE,
    >> Gnome and others... there are differences, of course, in the
    >> different distros in details, but they all share that trait...
    >> Rick:
    >> That's at least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> If you think it is merely an opinion and not a solid fact then point
    >> to the desktop Linux distro that does not have a UI with a fractured
    >> combo of KDE, Gnome, and others... or otherwise is not quite
    >> inconsistent.
    >> Rick:
    >> Your example is not one UI, it is a least 4 UIs.
    >>
    >> Rick trying to defend the fractured desktop Linux UI:
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> Since they [KDE/Gnome] performed as designed they are not fractured.

    >
    > Read for comprehension, Glasser:
    > "they are not fractured."


    Note how you dishonestly pretend I did not understand you points.

    Also note how you went out of your way to tie your trolling / lying to my
    personal full name and yet will not tie it to your own. This shows your
    lack of morality.

    >> And, of course, Rick, you repeatedly whined you did not like the term
    >> "fractured" but you were not able to think of a better term to describe
    >> the schizophrenic nature of the desktop Linux UI.

    >
    > Michael Glxsser. You are a liar. It is as simple as that.


    And yet you cannot point to a single lie of mine.

    Funny that, eh?

    --
    "The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay


  4. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:39:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:


    > You don't have to be an expert to see that the entire UI of Gimp is a
    > clusterfsck.


    The point the LinoLoons always seem to miss.

    The same goes for the typical DAW progams that the Linux world dumps out
    there.

    These Linux boobs don't understand that it is all about the UI.

    Any program can stream digital audio to disk.

    Now put a professional in front of that program and tell him he has to work
    with it 15 hours a day and see what happens.

    The good ones survive and the bad ones are ignored.....



    >
    >>>>
    >>>> ...I'm still curious about this mythical virtual desktops for XP.
    >>>
    >>> Never heard of it? Windows NT has supported virtual desktops since day
    >>> #1.

    >>
    >> You'll have to do better than that.
    >>
    >> "supported" doesn't cut it.

    >
    > "Supported" means that it was supported directly by the OS. In order to use
    > it people didn't need to write any clever code or hacks to get multiple
    > desktops. From the very begining the API for Windows-NT implemented a full
    > set of "desktop" API calls like CreateDesktop, CloseDesktop, EnumDesktops,
    > OpenDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc. It was directly "supported" by the
    > operating system and had documented API calls to implement multiple
    > desktops.
    >
    >
    >
    >> We can be content to know that you know as much about NT virtual
    >> desktops as you do about professional prepress graphics.

    >
    > Evidently I know a hell of a lot more about NT virtual desktops since you've
    > never heard of this "mythical" feature.
    >
    >
    >
    >>> This means that Windows supported virtual desktops before Linus ever
    >>> wrote
    >>> his first line of code for linux. But if you think that it's "mythical"

    >>
    >> You're funny.
    >>
    >> Are you really so much of a RUBE that you don't realize that this
    >> isn't just about "Linux"?

    >
    > I never claimed that it was just about linux. I made this remark to put into
    > context just how long NT had "support" for virtual desktops.
    >
    >
    >> I must have missed those virtual desktops in the version of Windows
    >> concurrent with the version version of Linux (Windows 3.1). HELL,
    >> any number of desktops would have been an improvement in that version
    >> of Windows.

    >
    > There was never any "support" for virtual desktops in Windows 3.1 or any
    > version of Windows in the 16-bit product line. Perhaps somebody came up with
    > some hack and was able to do it but it was never supported by the OS.
    >
    >
    >>> then don't let the reality door hit you in the ass on your way out the
    >>> door.

    >>
    >> My grip on reality and memory is fine thank you.

    >
    > This explains why after 15+ years you still didn't realize that virtual
    > desktops are directly supported by the OS on Windows.
    >
    >
    >> Silly troll.
    >>
    >> We didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

    >
    > Did you fall off the day before?
    >
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:04:27 +0200, OK wrote:

    >On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:18:05 GMT, thufir
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:12:23 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Never heard of it? Windows NT has supported virtual desktops since day
    >>> #1. This means that Windows supported virtual desktops before Linus ever
    >>> wrote his first line of code for linux. But if you think that it's
    >>> "mythical" then don't let the reality door hit you in the ass on your
    >>> way out the door.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>Supported it in what way? Third party software?
    >>

    >
    >Well, if users wanted it, it would be there. Apparently it so happens
    >that nobody cares about virtual desktops, save for a handful of
    >sysadmins, for which solution exists, even in open source form:
    >
    >http://www.codeplex.com/vdm


    One more choice:

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../cc817881.aspx


+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6