GIMP - Linux

This is a discussion on GIMP - Linux ; On 2008-08-11, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick > > wrote > on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:50:24 -0500 > : >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:04:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 148

Thread: GIMP

  1. Re: GIMP

    On 2008-08-11, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:50:24 -0500
    >:
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:04:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:45:10 -0400
    >>> :
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >>>>> slrng9p1m2.5cf.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/8/08 10:47 AM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Even Rick agrees with that. See Snit's posts for verbatim quotes
    >>>>>>> from Rick backing up the point that a fragmented UI really is not
    >>>>>>> good from the user's perspective.


    [deletia]

    >>>> Limit your examples to hose from just one windowing environment, then
    >>>> whine abut inconsistency.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> What's wrong with using examples from one Linux-loaded computer box? The
    >>> casual user won't know KDE from GNOME from Windows without someone
    >>> explaining it, after all...?

    >>
    >> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.

    >
    > And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?


    I think this issue is highly overblown for the casual user.

    I also suspect that the Macs are the only systems that would
    NOT fail miserably at this sort of scrutiny.

    > Google coughed up Hartford Financial Services as its first link --
    > not exactly relevant to Linux, or even computers.
    >
    > Fortunately, it also coughed up
    > http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/
    > and
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_interface_guidelines
    >
    > the second of which links to
    > http://usability.kde.org/hig/
    > as well as the first link.
    >
    >>
    >> ... and if the user can't tell the differences as you say, then the
    >> visual inconsistencies shown shouldn't be noticed, either.
    >>

    >
    > That may be true, actually -- which makes it an NRE versus visibility
    > problem.
    >



    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  2. Re: GIMP

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:18:35 -0500
    :
    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:52:39 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:10:00 -0700
    >> :
    >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in
    >>> post on96n5-eng.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 10:33 AM:
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.
    >>>>
    >>>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?
    >>>
    >>> Actually, looking at a program how does one know, for certain, if it
    >>> was designed for any given windowing environment? And why should the
    >>> general user be required to try to figure this even before the get the
    >>> software?

    >>
    >> An interesting question, illustrative of the difference between a
    >> general Windows system, and a general Linux system.
    >>
    >> Windows:
    >>
    >> - for the most part, programs include required libraries

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> as part of the install kit.

    >
    > No more DLLs?


    Then again, I've not kept track; with my luck, Vista changed
    the world slightly. (More likely, Vista screwed it up.)

    >
    >>
    >> - most programs are binary compatible with x86 hardware. The
    >> 64-bit variants might give one a headache.
    >>
    >> - installable via double-click.
    >>
    >> - use the Win32/OS in most cases, though some do try to get
    >> cute with custom gadgetry; the most obvious thereof might be Quicktime
    >> 4.
    >>
    >> Linux:
    >>
    >> - programs do *not* include required libraries; either
    >> the distro handles the dependency issues, which allows the system
    >> installer to install a program and (generally) transparently handle
    >> same via a distro-supplied tool, or the system installer is expected
    >> to install some other libraries on an as-needed basis, if the system
    >> installer is doing it all himself.
    >>
    >> - depending on distro, one either specifies the right binary
    >> form (allowing for optimization), or takes the source code and builds
    >> it himself, either through a tool such as emerge (actually, 'ebuild
    >> compile'), or manual invocation of ./configure && make && make install

    >
    > If I am doing the ./configure routine, I usually use check install, which
    > builds an rpm. That way you can rpm -e, or use the package manager.


    Gentoo doesn't do rpms, though I've not looked at alien.

    >
    >> .
    >>
    >> A rough analogy: a bicycle ready to jump on and ride, versus one whose
    >> major pieces need to be assembled (wheels, frame, brakes, chain,
    >> etc.), versus some blocks of metal and a few liquid-filled or
    >> pellet-filled casks (for the rubber and plastic bits; the pellets are
    >> small pieces of colored plastic).

    >
    > I hope you are not comparing the bicycle assembly with Linux systems. ./
    > configure is extremely easy to do.


    If one has the CPU power and memory available. For me, not a
    big issue; Gentoo's emerge does quite a bit, and ./configure
    is subinvoked thereby. I can also throw in distcc in a pinch,
    though the results for me have been variable.

    Gentoo's emerge is very nice, for those who like source-built systems.

    >
    >> Of course the last will require
    >> additional tooling -- and Linux's gcc is far easier to acquire than
    >> wire-drawing, mill-rolling, forging, welding, cutting, and molding
    >> kits that one might require to build that bicycle from the (somewhat)
    >> raw ingredients.[*]
    >>
    >> - installable via said distro-supplied tool: rpm, deb,
    >> emerge, yum, etc., unless the system installer wishes otherwise, in
    >> which case he can build it himself, usually through ./configure &&
    >> make && make install .
    >>
    >> - use one of the provided GUI solution libraries/environments.
    >>
    >>> It
    >>> is not as though most distros have a "compatible" repository and an
    >>> "other" repository.... or even *come* with only "compatible" software.

    >>
    >> The distros are primarily concerned with "compatible with KDE" or
    >> "compatible with Gnome"; they're not all that concerned about visual
    >> consistency, and for me at least it's not worth the bother, though it
    >> does make for a mildly interesting intercommunications problem.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Rick keeps looking at the trees and missing the forest - people do not
    >>> work just with specific software titles they work with a *system*, in
    >>> Linux terms a *distro*.

    >>
    >> Actually, they work with a computer unit with a distro and possible
    >> extra software installed thereon. This is the most logical scope from a
    >> neophyte's view, though one can discuss either a generic unit with only
    >> distro-maintained software thereon, or a generic unit with a generic
    >> distro installed thereon. Such genericism, of course, can complicate
    >> discussions -- PCLinuxOS in particular has demonstrable problems with
    >> its stuff but are they PCLinuxOS's problem, the user's problem, or a
    >> problem with the specific application?

    >
    > Generally, I think, with the specific application. You generally have the
    > same problems if you use the same apps on different distros.


    That's what puzzles me. Who botched the requesters? But
    the user will see them, regardless.

    >
    >>
    >> I suspect it depends on who modified what.
    >>
    >>> That is the "forest" in question. If there is a forest with its tree
    >>> population consisting mostly of elm and oak but also with some pine and
    >>> apple and birch scattered about it is not correct to say that since the
    >>> oaks are relatively consistent with one another then there is not a
    >>> situation with multiple species of trees! Nor is it reasonable to say
    >>> that all a tree-harvester has to to do make a homogenous forest is to
    >>> cut down *all* trees but the oaks and then plant new ones. That,
    >>> pretty much, is Rick's "solution" to the problem of the fractured UI on
    >>> desktop Linux (though program installation might take bit less time
    >>> than planting an oal forest!)
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Analogies are suspect but that one's not bad, though one can counter
    >> with the fact that all of the trees can result in wood. However, anyone
    >> with any knowledge can differentiate pine, birch, oak, mahogany. These
    >> woods have different characteristics when it comes to building among
    >> other things, tables, benches, chairs, and shelves.
    >>
    >> For example, pine is very soft and lightcolored; mahogany is a hardwood
    >> and generally dark in color.
    >>
    >> A modern distro isn't all that different; it provides the "soil" (APIs)
    >> from which "trees" (applications) can grow. Some soils are better than
    >> others for some trees; some APIs work better than others for
    >> applications.
    >>
    >> To its credit, Linux does the multilayer problem well enough, though the
    >> results can be visually annoying; a Gnome system can have KDE installed
    >> and KDE apps running thereon, and vice versa.

    >
    > Hmmm .. like mine. I've been using KDE, but mostly gkt apps :-)
    >
    > At the moment, I am back with WindowMaker.


    For all of this argument, it's quite clear that both
    KDE and Gnome interoperate well, with the ICCCM window
    management spec (I'd have to find it but it's floating
    around somewhere) and X providing a suitable foundation
    for the apps.

    If one wants extremes, for example, one can easily run
    OpenOffice and Firefox under twm. The results are visually
    slightly ridiculous looking, but things work about as one
    might expect.

    (There are some even stranger window managers out there;
    "evilwm" is one of the more unusual ones, for example.
    Compared to that, metacity and WindowMaker are relatively
    tame. ;-) )

    >
    >>
    >>[*] and even then, one has the issue that metals are
    >> extracted from ores, and plastics are synthesized.
    >>
    >> I've also seen a film where the welding is done via welding torches
    >> (presumably one of butane or acetylene), which has issues regarding
    >> carbon footprint -- though those issues are relatively minor when
    >> compared to the 5,000 gallons of gas a car being driven 15,000 miles
    >> and getting 30 mpg will consume over a 10 year period. Of course
    >> there's also the "pasta factor", since the bicyclist has to pump his
    >> legs to travel, imparting energy to the chain/wheel system -- but I
    >> digress.

    >
    > If you use a single environment, and apps from that environment, then
    > visual inconsistencies are either going to be bugs (and what software
    > doesn't have bugs) or a failure to follow the HIG.
    >


    *IF*. :-) And that's assuming the user can differentiate
    between the two when selecting packages to install in
    his favorite GUIfied package list manager (for Gentoo,
    that might be Porthole, though I don't use it much; other
    distros will vary).

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: GIMP

    "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    7th6n5-4hn.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 12:52 PM:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:10:00 -0700
    > :
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    >> on96n5-eng.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 10:33 AM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.
    >>>
    >>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?

    >>
    >> Actually, looking at a program how does one know, for certain, if it was
    >> designed for any given windowing environment? And why should the general
    >> user be required to try to figure this even before the get the software?

    >
    > An interesting question, illustrative of the difference
    > between a general Windows system, and a general Linux
    > system.
    >

    ....
    > - use one of the provided GUI solution libraries/environments.


    The question is which one and how does one know which one?
    >
    >> It
    >> is not as though most distros have a "compatible" repository and an "other"
    >> repository.... or even *come* with only "compatible" software.

    >
    > The distros are primarily concerned with "compatible
    > with KDE" or "compatible with Gnome"; they're not all
    > that concerned about visual consistency, and for me at
    > least it's not worth the bother, though it does make for
    > a mildly interesting intercommunications problem.


    I think you are using "compatible" in a slightly different way than I am - a
    less strict way meaning merely to be able to run. I mean to fit in with the
    user experience.

    >> Rick keeps looking at the trees and missing the forest - people do not work
    >> just with specific software titles they work with a *system*, in Linux terms
    >> a *distro*.

    >
    > Actually, they work with a computer unit with a distro and
    > possible extra software installed thereon.


    Sure, just as when you work with Windows or OS X it is what comes with the
    box plus software you install. A new user might not install any software -
    but they might, or they might have someone else do so for them (often they
    do have someone install a few programs sometimes even including a virus
    checker).

    > This is the most logical scope from a neophyte's view, though one can discuss
    > either a generic unit with only distro-maintained software thereon, or a
    > generic unit with a generic distro installed thereon. Such genericism, of
    > course, can complicate discussions -- PCLinuxOS in particular has demonstrable
    > problems with its stuff but are they PCLinuxOS's problem, the user's problem,
    > or a problem with the specific application?


    From the user perspective they are PCLOS problems... especially if we are
    talking software that came with the distro.

    > I suspect it depends on who modified what.
    >
    >> That is the "forest" in question. If there is a forest with
    >> its tree population consisting mostly of elm and oak but also with some
    >> pine and apple and birch scattered about it is not correct to say that since
    >> the oaks are relatively consistent with one another then there is not a
    >> situation with multiple species of trees! Nor is it reasonable to say that
    >> all a tree-harvester has to to do make a homogenous forest is to cut down
    >> *all* trees but the oaks and then plant new ones. That, pretty much, is
    >> Rick's "solution" to the problem of the fractured UI on desktop Linux
    >> (though program installation might take bit less time than planting an oal
    >> forest!)
    >>

    >
    > Analogies are suspect but that one's not bad, though
    > one can counter with the fact that all of the trees can
    > result in wood.


    But the wood would be of different types. Some wood would have knots and
    some wood would not have knots for example.

    > However, anyone with any knowledge can
    > differentiate pine, birch, oak, mahogany. These woods
    > have different characteristics when it comes to building
    > among other things, tables, benches, chairs, and shelves.


    And living in different niches in a healthy forest (though I have no idea if
    they would all be found together). This is one place the analogy breaks
    down - for a healthy forest you do not want all the trees to be consistent.
    I suppose this is a farmed forest for the sake of the analogy where
    consistency is a benefit.

    > For example, pine is very soft and lightcolored;
    > mahogany is a hardwood and generally dark in color.
    >
    > A modern distro isn't all that different; it provides the
    > "soil" (APIs) from which "trees" (applications) can grow.
    > Some soils are better than others for some trees; some APIs
    > work better than others for applications.
    >
    > To its credit, Linux does the multilayer problem well enough,
    > though the results can be visually annoying; a Gnome system
    > can have KDE installed and KDE apps running thereon, and vice
    > versa.


    And I suspect many people would use Rush's "The Trees" solution.
    >
    >[*] and even then, one has the issue that metals are
    > extracted from ores, and plastics are synthesized.
    >
    > I've also seen a film where the welding is done
    > via welding torches (presumably one of butane
    > or acetylene), which has issues regarding carbon
    > footprint -- though those issues are relatively minor
    > when compared to the 5,000 gallons of gas a car being
    > driven 15,000 miles and getting 30 mpg will consume
    > over a 10 year period. Of course there's also the
    > "pasta factor", since the bicyclist has to pump his
    > legs to travel, imparting energy to the chain/wheel
    > system -- but I digress.




    --
    "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
    - Anatole France




  4. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    R4ydnZHW_LVpDz3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 12:28 PM:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:15:12 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> R4ydnZbW_LXXEz3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 12:08 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:36:23 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> R4ydnZfW_LVnGT3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 11:29 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different environments with 2
    >>>>>>> different HIGs.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No , don't think the casual user would know without some research.
    >>>>
    >>>> So how, in your view, could a casual user get a system that offers a
    >>>> consistent user experience?

    >
    > Find one with apps form only one environment installed? Ask around? Do
    > some reading?


    And maybe someone can find such a distro... though nobody in COLA can find
    one. I suppose that is possible. Unlikely, mind you... but possible.

    >>> I highly doubt a "casual user" is going to do an install, and if he/she
    >>> does, he/she should do a little research.

    >>
    >> You do not think a casual user can install, say, Ubuntu?

    >
    > That may depend on the definition of casual user.


    Agreed.

    > Default installations
    > of Linux based systems are extremely easy these days, but they are still
    > Linux based systems. They have to be learned, just as the user's previous
    > system had to be learned.


    And most users have no desire to install a "weird" OS. Just not worth it to
    them unless they see some strong gain for doing so.

    >> Or maybe you
    >> think they could but just would not. Which... and why not?

    >
    > Many just would not. There's not a whole lot that can go terribly wrong
    > these days IF you have done a data back up before installation.
    >
    >>
    >> And what are they supposed to find with their research -

    >
    > Some differences between Gnome and KDE?
    > What partitions are, and why you should have some?


    So before they can learn Linux they should be pretty good with it.

    > There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool?


    Your terminology shows disdain for non-techies. I think that is a common
    weakness with Linux users.

    >> how do you know
    >> if a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?

    >
    >
    > Help menu -> about.


    Calculator. Nope... does not say if it is designed for KDE or Gnome.
    Firefox. Nope.
    Snapshot... does not even have a Help menu!
    Open Office WP. Nope.

    I wish you have been correct.

    > Read the desctiptions in Synaptic (or whatever repository manager you
    > use).


    Even there it generally does not say.

    A user might figure out that all those "funny" K names are associated with
    one look... or sorta associated with it anyway.

    --
    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
    conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.


  5. Re: GIMP

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit

    wrote
    on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:28:38 -0700
    :
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    > 7th6n5-4hn.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 12:52 PM:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:10:00 -0700
    >> :
    >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    >>> on96n5-eng.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 10:33 AM:
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.
    >>>>
    >>>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?
    >>>
    >>> Actually, looking at a program how does one know, for certain, if it was
    >>> designed for any given windowing environment? And why should the general
    >>> user be required to try to figure this even before the get the software?

    >>
    >> An interesting question, illustrative of the difference
    >> between a general Windows system, and a general Linux
    >> system.
    >>

    > ...
    >> - use one of the provided GUI solution libraries/environments.

    >
    > The question is which one and how does one know which one?


    The distro is generally responsible for setting up the
    dependencies. In lieu thereof, one can probably read
    the instructions; some applications (such as Webkit)
    can support either one or both. Done properly, ./configure
    will complain and exit with a failure code if it can't find
    what it needs.

    >>
    >>> It
    >>> is not as though most distros have a "compatible" repository and an "other"
    >>> repository.... or even *come* with only "compatible" software.

    >>
    >> The distros are primarily concerned with "compatible
    >> with KDE" or "compatible with Gnome"; they're not all
    >> that concerned about visual consistency, and for me at
    >> least it's not worth the bother, though it does make for
    >> a mildly interesting intercommunications problem.

    >
    > I think you are using "compatible" in a slightly different
    > way than I am - a less strict way meaning merely to be able
    > to run. I mean to fit in with the user experience.


    Correct. The distros are not concerned with user
    experience. This may be a problem but there's no elegant
    method by which to enforce the concept at this time,
    and I've no clue as to how much NRE would be required to
    repair it.

    Best I can do is somehow alter the old-style X11 resource
    definitions so that one cannot pick up user-defined defs
    (for example, en_US.utf-8/xterm-color, or some such)
    to arbitrarily colorize-stylize one's GUI. But that doesn't
    work for KDE or Gnome, who don't even look at XrmDatabase.

    Once done properly, a IT person at a corporate level can
    lock down the GUI styling.

    >
    >>> Rick keeps looking at the trees and missing the forest - people do not work
    >>> just with specific software titles they work with a *system*, in Linux terms
    >>> a *distro*.

    >>
    >> Actually, they work with a computer unit with a distro and
    >> possible extra software installed thereon.

    >
    > Sure, just as when you work with Windows or OS X it is what comes with the
    > box plus software you install. A new user might not install any software -
    > but they might, or they might have someone else do so for them (often they
    > do have someone install a few programs sometimes even including a virus
    > checker).


    Fine as far as it goes. Any software, however, is part
    of the system; if that software introduces a visual
    inconsistency, or evokes one (e.g., installing kxmleditor
    et al on a Gnome system), the system becomes visually
    inconsistent.

    >
    >> This is the most logical scope from a neophyte's view, though one can discuss
    >> either a generic unit with only distro-maintained software thereon, or a
    >> generic unit with a generic distro installed thereon. Such genericism, of
    >> course, can complicate discussions -- PCLinuxOS in particular has demonstrable
    >> problems with its stuff but are they PCLinuxOS's problem, the user's problem,
    >> or a problem with the specific application?

    >
    > From the user perspective they are PCLOS problems... especially if we are
    > talking software that came with the distro.


    The software came with the distro, yes. However, most
    distros may simply punt the problem upstream, especially
    if it's an upstream problem to begin with.

    >
    >> I suspect it depends on who modified what.
    >>
    >>> That is the "forest" in question. If there is a forest with
    >>> its tree population consisting mostly of elm and oak but also with some
    >>> pine and apple and birch scattered about it is not correct to say that since
    >>> the oaks are relatively consistent with one another then there is not a
    >>> situation with multiple species of trees! Nor is it reasonable to say that
    >>> all a tree-harvester has to to do make a homogenous forest is to cut down
    >>> *all* trees but the oaks and then plant new ones. That, pretty much, is
    >>> Rick's "solution" to the problem of the fractured UI on desktop Linux
    >>> (though program installation might take bit less time than planting an oal
    >>> forest!)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Analogies are suspect but that one's not bad, though
    >> one can counter with the fact that all of the trees can
    >> result in wood.

    >
    > But the wood would be of different types. Some wood would have knots and
    > some wood would not have knots for example.


    Knotholes are an issue I hadn't considered, but that's orthogonal
    to wood type.

    >
    >> However, anyone with any knowledge can
    >> differentiate pine, birch, oak, mahogany. These woods
    >> have different characteristics when it comes to building
    >> among other things, tables, benches, chairs, and shelves.

    >
    > And living in different niches in a healthy forest (though I have no idea if
    > they would all be found together). This is one place the analogy breaks
    > down - for a healthy forest you do not want all the trees to be consistent.
    > I suppose this is a farmed forest for the sake of the analogy where
    > consistency is a benefit.
    >
    >> For example, pine is very soft and lightcolored;
    >> mahogany is a hardwood and generally dark in color.
    >>
    >> A modern distro isn't all that different; it provides the
    >> "soil" (APIs) from which "trees" (applications) can grow.
    >> Some soils are better than others for some trees; some APIs
    >> work better than others for applications.
    >>
    >> To its credit, Linux does the multilayer problem well enough,
    >> though the results can be visually annoying; a Gnome system
    >> can have KDE installed and KDE apps running thereon, and vice
    >> versa.

    >
    > And I suspect many people would use Rush's "The Trees" solution.


    Not familiar with that solution, but if you're referring
    to Rush Limbaugh, he'd probably want them all cut down
    for housing. ;-)

    >>
    >>[*] and even then, one has the issue that metals are
    >> extracted from ores, and plastics are synthesized.
    >>
    >> I've also seen a film where the welding is done
    >> via welding torches (presumably one of butane
    >> or acetylene), which has issues regarding carbon
    >> footprint -- though those issues are relatively minor
    >> when compared to the 5,000 gallons of gas a car being
    >> driven 15,000 miles and getting 30 mpg will consume
    >> over a 10 year period. Of course there's also the
    >> "pasta factor", since the bicyclist has to pump his
    >> legs to travel, imparting energy to the chain/wheel
    >> system -- but I digress.

    >



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
    elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  6. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:16:21 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:18:35 -0500
    > :
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:52:39 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:10:00 -0700
    >>> :
    >>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in
    >>>> post on96n5-eng.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 8/11/08 10:33 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>> ...
    >>>>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different with 2 different HIGs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some research?
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually, looking at a program how does one know, for certain, if it
    >>>> was designed for any given windowing environment? And why should the
    >>>> general user be required to try to figure this even before the get
    >>>> the software?
    >>>
    >>> An interesting question, illustrative of the difference between a
    >>> general Windows system, and a general Linux system.
    >>>
    >>> Windows:
    >>>
    >>> - for the most part, programs include required libraries

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>> as part of the install kit.

    >>
    >> No more DLLs?

    >
    > Then again, I've not kept track; with my luck, Vista changed the world
    > slightly. (More likely, Vista screwed it up.)


    When removing apps I often get an error asking if it is OK to delete a
    DLL that the installer thinks nothing else is using, but it asks
    permission, just to be sure :-)

    It is my impression that DLLs are still widely used, but some (many?
    most?) apps also install some of there own.

    >
    >
    >>
    >>> - most programs are binary compatible with x86 hardware. The
    >>> 64-bit variants might give one a headache.
    >>>
    >>> - installable via double-click.
    >>>
    >>> - use the Win32/OS in most cases, though some do try to get
    >>> cute with custom gadgetry; the most obvious thereof might be
    >>> Quicktime 4.
    >>>
    >>> Linux:
    >>>
    >>> - programs do *not* include required libraries; either
    >>> the distro handles the dependency issues, which allows the system
    >>> installer to install a program and (generally) transparently handle
    >>> same via a distro-supplied tool, or the system installer is expected
    >>> to install some other libraries on an as-needed basis, if the system
    >>> installer is doing it all himself.
    >>>
    >>> - depending on distro, one either specifies the right binary
    >>> form (allowing for optimization), or takes the source code and
    >>> builds it himself, either through a tool such as emerge (actually,
    >>> 'ebuild compile'), or manual invocation of ./configure && make &&
    >>> make install

    >>
    >> If I am doing the ./configure routine, I usually use check install,
    >> which builds an rpm. That way you can rpm -e, or use the package
    >> manager.

    >
    > Gentoo doesn't do rpms, though I've not looked at alien.


    Ah, yes.. Gentoo users. Quite the club :-)

    I use pre-compiled distros, and up to now all rpm based. I learned a
    while ago that not all developers ad make uninstall, so I was very happy
    when I discovered check install.

    I don't have a problem with ./configure, make, checkinstall, but many
    PCLOS are very vocal about not expecting official support when installing
    apps from someplace besides the official repository. Some get downtight
    testy in the forums :-)

    >
    >
    >>> .
    >>>
    >>> A rough analogy: a bicycle ready to jump on and ride, versus one
    >>> whose major pieces need to be assembled (wheels, frame, brakes,
    >>> chain, etc.), versus some blocks of metal and a few liquid-filled or
    >>> pellet-filled casks (for the rubber and plastic bits; the pellets
    >>> are small pieces of colored plastic).

    >>
    >> I hope you are not comparing the bicycle assembly with Linux systems.
    >> ./ configure is extremely easy to do.

    >
    > If one has the CPU power and memory available. For me, not a big issue;
    > Gentoo's emerge does quite a bit, and ./configure is subinvoked thereby.
    > I can also throw in distcc in a pinch, though the results for me have
    > been variable.
    >
    > Gentoo's emerge is very nice, for those who like source-built systems.


    Never tried it. I'm still on a 1.5gHz machine and only 768 meg of RAM.
    Christmas is coming :-)

    >
    >
    >>> Of course the last will require
    >>> additional tooling -- and Linux's gcc is far easier to acquire than
    >>> wire-drawing, mill-rolling, forging, welding, cutting, and molding
    >>> kits that one might require to build that bicycle from the
    >>> (somewhat) raw ingredients.[*]
    >>>
    >>> - installable via said distro-supplied tool: rpm, deb,
    >>> emerge, yum, etc., unless the system installer wishes otherwise, in
    >>> which case he can build it himself, usually through ./configure &&
    >>> make && make install .
    >>>
    >>> - use one of the provided GUI solution libraries/environments.
    >>>
    >>>> It
    >>>> is not as though most distros have a "compatible" repository and an
    >>>> "other" repository.... or even *come* with only "compatible"
    >>>> software.
    >>>
    >>> The distros are primarily concerned with "compatible with KDE" or
    >>> "compatible with Gnome"; they're not all that concerned about visual
    >>> consistency, and for me at least it's not worth the bother, though it
    >>> does make for a mildly interesting intercommunications problem.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Rick keeps looking at the trees and missing the forest - people do
    >>>> not work just with specific software titles they work with a
    >>>> *system*, in Linux terms a *distro*.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, they work with a computer unit with a distro and possible
    >>> extra software installed thereon. This is the most logical scope from
    >>> a neophyte's view, though one can discuss either a generic unit with
    >>> only distro-maintained software thereon, or a generic unit with a
    >>> generic distro installed thereon. Such genericism, of course, can
    >>> complicate discussions -- PCLinuxOS in particular has demonstrable
    >>> problems with its stuff but are they PCLinuxOS's problem, the user's
    >>> problem, or a problem with the specific application?

    >>
    >> Generally, I think, with the specific application. You generally have
    >> the same problems if you use the same apps on different distros.

    >
    > That's what puzzles me. Who botched the requesters? But the user will
    > see them, regardless.


    The problems I am talking about are the visual problems from mixing apps
    from different environments. They are generally acting the way they are
    supposed to and the inconsistencies have nothing to do with PCLOS pre se.

    If text is cut off in dialogs, or dialogs don't expand properly, that
    probably happens regardless of distro, and is an environment problem.

    >
    >
    >>
    >>> I suspect it depends on who modified what.
    >>>
    >>>> That is the "forest" in question. If there is a forest with its tree
    >>>> population consisting mostly of elm and oak but also with some pine
    >>>> and apple and birch scattered about it is not correct to say that
    >>>> since the oaks are relatively consistent with one another then there
    >>>> is not a situation with multiple species of trees! Nor is it
    >>>> reasonable to say that all a tree-harvester has to to do make a
    >>>> homogenous forest is to cut down *all* trees but the oaks and then
    >>>> plant new ones. That, pretty much, is Rick's "solution" to the
    >>>> problem of the fractured UI on desktop Linux (though program
    >>>> installation might take bit less time than planting an oal forest!)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Analogies are suspect but that one's not bad, though one can counter
    >>> with the fact that all of the trees can result in wood. However,
    >>> anyone with any knowledge can differentiate pine, birch, oak,
    >>> mahogany. These woods have different characteristics when it comes to
    >>> building among other things, tables, benches, chairs, and shelves.
    >>>
    >>> For example, pine is very soft and lightcolored; mahogany is a
    >>> hardwood and generally dark in color.
    >>>
    >>> A modern distro isn't all that different; it provides the "soil"
    >>> (APIs) from which "trees" (applications) can grow. Some soils are
    >>> better than others for some trees; some APIs work better than others
    >>> for applications.
    >>>
    >>> To its credit, Linux does the multilayer problem well enough, though
    >>> the results can be visually annoying; a Gnome system can have KDE
    >>> installed and KDE apps running thereon, and vice versa.

    >>
    >> Hmmm .. like mine. I've been using KDE, but mostly gkt apps :-)
    >>
    >> At the moment, I am back with WindowMaker.

    >
    > For all of this argument, it's quite clear that both KDE and Gnome
    > interoperate well, with the ICCCM window management spec (I'd have to
    > find it but it's floating around somewhere) and X providing a suitable
    > foundation for the apps.
    >
    > If one wants extremes, for example, one can easily run OpenOffice and
    > Firefox under twm. The results are visually slightly ridiculous
    > looking, but things work about as one might expect.


    The most "primitve" wm I've used it fvwm2.

    >
    > (There are some even stranger window managers out there; "evilwm" is one
    > of the more unusual ones, for example. Compared to that, metacity and
    > WindowMaker are relatively tame. ;-) )


    I --really-- hate Metacity. No app menu on the desktop. You can't assign
    differnt things to mouse keys. Only one wallpaper available no matter how
    many desktop/workspaces there are. Wallpapoz can fix the last, but the
    lack of configurability kills Metacity for me.

    >
    >
    >>
    >>>[*] and even then, one has the issue that metals are
    >>> extracted from ores, and plastics are synthesized.
    >>>
    >>> I've also seen a film where the welding is done via welding
    >>> torches (presumably one of butane or acetylene), which has issues
    >>> regarding carbon footprint -- though those issues are relatively
    >>> minor when compared to the 5,000 gallons of gas a car being driven
    >>> 15,000 miles and getting 30 mpg will consume over a 10 year
    >>> period. Of course there's also the "pasta factor", since the
    >>> bicyclist has to pump his legs to travel, imparting energy to the
    >>> chain/wheel system -- but I digress.

    >>
    >> If you use a single environment, and apps from that environment, then
    >> visual inconsistencies are either going to be bugs (and what software
    >> doesn't have bugs) or a failure to follow the HIG.
    >>
    >>

    > *IF*. :-) And that's assuming the user can differentiate between the
    > two when selecting packages to install in his favorite GUIfied package
    > list manager (for Gentoo, that might be Porthole, though I don't use it
    > much; other distros will vary).


    Synaptic is becoming a big favorite these days.

    For me, KDE has the configurability over Gnome, but I like the look of
    gtk better.I use the gtk-qt engine, so everything uses the same theme/
    colors. I have a different pic on all 4 desktops. So, I go back and forth
    between WindowMaker (less and less) and KDE. I am close to getting my PDA
    and Email contacts merged. When that happens, Kmail may bite the dust for
    me. It is one of the last KDE apps I use regularly.

    Ah, well... Plasma and Oxygen may change things :-)

    --
    Rick

  7. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:37:40 -0700, Snit wrote:


    >>> how do you know
    >>> if a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?

    >>
    >>
    >> Help menu -> about.

    >
    > Calculator. Nope... does not say if it is designed for KDE or Gnome.
    > Firefox. Nope.
    > Snapshot... does not even have a Help menu! Open Office WP. Nope.
    >


    If Help has an "About KDE" entry then it is made for KDE. If not it
    probably is not.

    KDE Calculator (kcalc), and KDE Snapshot (ksnaphot) have an "About KDE"
    entry. Firefox and OpenOffice do not since they are not KDE based.

    Bug


  8. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:37:40 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > R4ydnZHW_LVpDz3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 12:28 PM:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:15:12 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> R4ydnZbW_LXXEz3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 12:08 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:36:23 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>> R4ydnZfW_LVnGT3VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 11:29 AM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Because KDE and Gnome are 2 different environments with 2
    >>>>>>>> different HIGs.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And the casual user is supposed to know this without some
    >>>>>>> research?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No , don't think the casual user would know without some research.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So how, in your view, could a casual user get a system that offers a
    >>>>> consistent user experience?

    >>
    >> Find one with apps form only one environment installed? Ask around? Do
    >> some reading?

    >
    > And maybe someone can find such a distro... though nobody in COLA can
    > find one. I suppose that is possible. Unlikely, mind you... but
    > possible.


    Dunno. I don't remember what installed by default with Ubuntu. I removed
    every KDE app I installed and could find, so my Ubuntu is, AFAICT, Gnome/
    gtk.

    >
    >>>> I highly doubt a "casual user" is going to do an install, and if
    >>>> he/she does, he/she should do a little research.
    >>>
    >>> You do not think a casual user can install, say, Ubuntu?

    >>
    >> That may depend on the definition of casual user.

    >
    > Agreed.
    >
    >> Default installations
    >> of Linux based systems are extremely easy these days, but they are
    >> still Linux based systems. They have to be learned, just as the user's
    >> previous system had to be learned.

    >
    > And most users have no desire to install a "weird" OS. Just not worth
    > it to them unless they see some strong gain for doing so.


    So, most users have no desire to install a "weird" OS? Gee .. ya think
    that kind of reasoning might be a large factor inhibiting adoption of
    Linux systems?

    >
    >>> Or maybe you
    >>> think they could but just would not. Which... and why not?

    >>
    >> Many just would not. There's not a whole lot that can go terribly wrong
    >> these days IF you have done a data back up before installation.
    >>
    >>
    >>> And what are they supposed to find with their research -

    >>
    >> Some differences between Gnome and KDE? What partitions are, and why
    >> you should have some?

    >
    > So before they can learn Linux they should be pretty good with it.


    So, you don't think someone that is going to do a manual install would
    derive any benefits from know about disk partitioning?

    >
    >> There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool?

    >
    > Your terminology shows disdain for non-techies. I think that is a
    > common weakness with Linux users.


    That's because you are a bleeding heart whiner.

    There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool, and that
    is regardless of platform and OSS.

    >
    >>> how do you know
    >>> if a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?

    >>
    >>
    >> Help menu -> about.

    >
    > Calculator. Nope... does not say if it is designed for KDE or Gnome.


    If it doesn't say KDE, ya think it might not be KDE? kacl most certainly
    does indicate is a KDE app.

    > Firefox. Nope.


    Firefox is a gtk app.

    > Snapshot... does not even have a Help menu! Open Office WP. Nope.


    Are they KDE apps?

    >
    > I wish you have been correct.


    Maybe you should look around more...

    >
    >> Read the desctiptions in Synaptic (or whatever repository manager you
    >> use).

    >
    > Even there it generally does not say.


    Do you even know where Synaptic is, and where the descriptions are? I
    doubt it. And before you try to twist my words, no I wasn't asking you
    where they are, I know.

    >
    > A user might figure out that all those "funny" K names are associated
    > with one look... or sorta associated with it anyway.


    There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool.

    --
    Rick

  9. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    9fOdnfvGw918Sz3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 5:18 PM:

    ....
    >> And maybe someone can find such a distro... though nobody in COLA can
    >> find one. I suppose that is possible. Unlikely, mind you... but
    >> possible.

    >
    > Dunno. I don't remember what installed by default with Ubuntu. I removed
    > every KDE app I installed and could find, so my Ubuntu is, AFAICT, Gnome/
    > gtk.


    I posted default shots of Ubuntu and you claimed it was a mixed environment
    - I never double checked your claims. I do know that there are
    inconsistencies in Ubuntu - though not as many as there are with, say,
    PCLOS.

    ....
    >>> Default installations
    >>> of Linux based systems are extremely easy these days, but they are
    >>> still Linux based systems. They have to be learned, just as the user's
    >>> previous system had to be learned.

    >>
    >> And most users have no desire to install a "weird" OS. Just not worth
    >> it to them unless they see some strong gain for doing so.

    >
    > So, most users have no desire to install a "weird" OS? Gee .. ya think
    > that kind of reasoning might be a large factor inhibiting adoption of
    > Linux systems?


    *Absolutely*. Unless there is a strong benefit... and for now being free is
    not enough of a benefit given that the computer already has Windows... and
    there is nothing compelling about Linux that the average user can see.

    ....
    >>> Some differences between Gnome and KDE? What partitions are, and why
    >>> you should have some?

    >>
    >> So before they can learn Linux they should be pretty good with it.

    >
    > So, you don't think someone that is going to do a manual install would
    > derive any benefits from know about disk partitioning?


    What makes you think that?

    >>> There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool?

    >>
    >> Your terminology shows disdain for non-techies. I think that is a
    >> common weakness with Linux users.

    >
    > That's because you are a bleeding heart whiner.


    Nope - but I understand that not everyone is a techie like the folks who
    post here. And I do not hold that against them.

    > There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool, and that
    > is regardless of platform and OSS.


    Again, read your own words. You show disdain for people who do not share
    your techie nature. That is a sign of immaturity on your part.

    >
    >>
    >>>> how do you know
    >>>> if a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Help menu -> about.


    ....
    >> I wish you have been correct.

    >
    > Maybe you should look around more...


    Sure - neither of us know so if I want to know I will need to look
    elsewhere... either at the programs themselves or to other sources. Sure.

    ....
    >> A user might figure out that all those "funny" K names are associated
    >> with one look... or sorta associated with it anyway.

    >
    > There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool.


    I do not respect your disdain for most people...

    --
    Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
    appeal to both sides.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  10. Re: GIMP

    "bugbuster" stated in post
    pan.2008.08.12.00.05.02.739015@nowhere.org on 8/11/08 5:05 PM:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:37:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>> how do you know
    >>>> if a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Help menu -> about.

    >>
    >> Calculator. Nope... does not say if it is designed for KDE or Gnome.
    >> Firefox. Nope.
    >> Snapshot... does not even have a Help menu! Open Office WP. Nope.
    >>

    >
    > If Help has an "About KDE" entry then it is made for KDE. If not it
    > probably is not.
    >
    > KDE Calculator (kcalc), and KDE Snapshot (ksnaphot) have an "About KDE"
    > entry. Firefox and OpenOffice do not since they are not KDE based.


    Thank you. But what about other managers... there is no easy way to know as
    far as I can tell with a quick look. You can tell by widget sets and the
    like, of course...


    --
    Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.


  11. Re: GIMP

    On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    > why would a development group, make an interface,
    > that every graphics user that will use linux, has to
    > re-learn.
    >
    > that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive
    > users away.


    well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.

    Kinda like Gimp myself . .

    Sure, theres a learning curve.



  12. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:05 -0700, cheley_bonstell88 wrote:

    > On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    >> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
    >> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
    >>
    >> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.

    >
    > well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.
    >
    > Kinda like Gimp myself . .
    >
    > Sure, theres a learning curve.


    No, no. no ...
    Didn't you know babies are born with the knowledge of how to use Windows
    and Photoshop?




    --
    Rick

  13. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:29:55 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 9fOdnfvGw918Sz3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 5:18 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>> And maybe someone can find such a distro... though nobody in COLA can
    >>> find one. I suppose that is possible. Unlikely, mind you... but
    >>> possible.

    >>
    >> Dunno. I don't remember what installed by default with Ubuntu. I
    >> removed every KDE app I installed and could find, so my Ubuntu is,
    >> AFAICT, Gnome/ gtk.

    >
    > I posted default shots of Ubuntu and you claimed it was a mixed
    > environment - I never double checked your claims.


    I said some of your "evidence" came from using apps from different
    environments. I know you did that with PCLOS, I don't remember if you did
    it with Ubuntu.

    > I do know that there
    > are inconsistencies in Ubuntu - though not as many as there are with,
    > say, PCLOS.
    >
    > ...
    >>>> Default installations
    >>>> of Linux based systems are extremely easy these days, but they are
    >>>> still Linux based systems. They have to be learned, just as the
    >>>> user's previous system had to be learned.
    >>>
    >>> And most users have no desire to install a "weird" OS. Just not worth
    >>> it to them unless they see some strong gain for doing so.

    >>
    >> So, most users have no desire to install a "weird" OS? Gee .. ya think
    >> that kind of reasoning might be a large factor inhibiting adoption of
    >> Linux systems?

    >
    > *Absolutely*. Unless there is a strong benefit... and for now being
    > free is not enough of a benefit given that the computer already has
    > Windows... and there is nothing compelling about Linux that the average
    > user can see.


    Gee ... and here I thought you thought the only reason people didn't use
    Linux systems was the user experience....

    >
    > ...
    >>>> Some differences between Gnome and KDE? What partitions are, and why
    >>>> you should have some?
    >>>
    >>> So before they can learn Linux they should be pretty good with it.

    >>
    >> So, you don't think someone that is going to do a manual install would
    >> derive any benefits from know about disk partitioning?

    >
    > What makes you think that?


    Your words made me think that:"So before they can learn Linux they should
    be pretty good with it."

    And you didn't answer the question.

    >
    >>>> There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool?
    >>>
    >>> Your terminology shows disdain for non-techies. I think that is a
    >>> common weakness with Linux users.

    >>
    >> That's because you are a bleeding heart whiner.

    >
    > Nope -


    Yup.

    > but I understand that not everyone is a techie like the folks who
    > post here. And I do not hold that against them.


    I don't hold it against them either.

    >
    >> There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool, and
    >> that is regardless of platform and OSS.

    >
    > Again, read your own words. You show disdain for people who do not
    > share your techie nature. That is a sign of immaturity on your part.


    No, I don't show disdain. That is an incorrect inference on your part.
    Again. I think people should learn to use tools properly.

    .... or do you think people shouldn't learn to use their tools properly?


    >>>>> how do you know
    >>>>> if a program is made for KDE, Gnome, or something else?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Help menu -> about.

    >
    > ...
    >>> I wish you have been correct.

    >>
    >> Maybe you should look around more...

    >
    > Sure - neither of us know so if I want to know I will need to look
    > elsewhere... either at the programs themselves or to other sources.
    > Sure.


    Sure.

    >
    > ...
    >>> A user might figure out that all those "funny" K names are associated
    >>> with one look... or sorta associated with it anyway.

    >>
    >> There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool.

    >
    > I do not respect your disdain for most people...


    So, your position is that people shouldn't learn to properly use their
    tools. Sheesh.

    --
    Rick

  14. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:25:54 -0500, Rick wrote:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:05 -0700, cheley_bonstell88 wrote:
    >
    >> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    >>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
    >>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
    >>>
    >>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.

    >>
    >> well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.
    >>
    >> Kinda like Gimp myself . .
    >>
    >> Sure, theres a learning curve.

    >
    > No, no. no ...
    > Didn't you know babies are born with the knowledge of how to use Windows
    > and Photoshop?
    >


    Windows they will learn in pre-school.
    Photoshop, no but like every professional application, should they decide
    to go into a field that uses it (ProTools for example) they will learn it
    in school at some point.

    Gimp?
    Well, I'm sure you can find *some places* that teach/use it, but most are
    using Photoshop.
    Why?
    It's the industry standard.


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

  15. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:35:37 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:25:54 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:05 -0700, cheley_bonstell88 wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    >>>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
    >>>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
    >>>>
    >>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
    >>>
    >>> well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.
    >>>
    >>> Kinda like Gimp myself . .
    >>>
    >>> Sure, theres a learning curve.

    >>
    >> No, no. no ...
    >> Didn't you know babies are born with the knowledge of how to use
    >> Windows and Photoshop?
    >>

    >
    > Windows they will learn in pre-school.


    Windows, unfortunately, and Macs.

    > Photoshop, no but like every
    > professional application, should they decide to go into a field that
    > uses it (ProTools for example) they will learn it in school at some
    > point.


    ... going into the profession.... wasn't mentioned.

    >
    > Gimp?


    Gimp.

    > Well, I'm sure you can find *some places* that teach/use it, but most
    > are using Photoshop.


    For Print.

    > Why?
    > It's the industry standard.


    For print.

    .... and I didn't say anything about professionals or print.

    --
    Rick

  16. Re: GIMP

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:52:30 -0500, Rick wrote:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:35:37 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:25:54 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:05 -0700, cheley_bonstell88 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    >>>>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
    >>>>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
    >>>>
    >>>> well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Kinda like Gimp myself . .
    >>>>
    >>>> Sure, theres a learning curve.
    >>>
    >>> No, no. no ...
    >>> Didn't you know babies are born with the knowledge of how to use
    >>> Windows and Photoshop?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Windows they will learn in pre-school.

    >
    > Windows, unfortunately, and Macs.
    >
    >> Photoshop, no but like every
    >> professional application, should they decide to go into a field that
    >> uses it (ProTools for example) they will learn it in school at some
    >> point.

    >
    > .. going into the profession.... wasn't mentioned.
    >
    >>
    >> Gimp?

    >
    > Gimp.
    >
    >> Well, I'm sure you can find *some places* that teach/use it, but most
    >> are using Photoshop.

    >
    > For Print.
    >
    >> Why?
    >> It's the industry standard.

    >
    > For print.
    >
    > ... and I didn't say anything about professionals or print.


    I know.
    You are talking about Gimp....
    Complete amateur stuff.

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

  17. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    9fOdnffGw93JdT3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 6:33 PM:

    ....
    >>> Dunno. I don't remember what installed by default with Ubuntu. I
    >>> removed every KDE app I installed and could find, so my Ubuntu is,
    >>> AFAICT, Gnome/ gtk.

    >>
    >> I posted default shots of Ubuntu and you claimed it was a mixed
    >> environment - I never double checked your claims.

    >
    > I said some of your "evidence" came from using apps from different
    > environments. I know you did that with PCLOS, I don't remember if you did
    > it with Ubuntu.


    I want to remind you, Rick, that I merely documented some of the default
    applications that came with PCLOS and Ubunut. When you attribute the mix I
    documented to me you make the mistake of assuming I am the one who bundled
    PCLOS and Ubuntu. I *assure* you I did no such thing.

    ....
    >> *Absolutely*. Unless there is a strong benefit... and for now being
    >> free is not enough of a benefit given that the computer already has
    >> Windows... and there is nothing compelling about Linux that the average
    >> user can see.

    >
    > Gee ... and here I thought you thought the only reason people didn't use
    > Linux systems was the user experience....


    I do not doubt you have *many* faulty thoughts. Sure.

    ....
    >>>>> There is more to properly using a computer that click and drool?
    >>>>
    >>>> Your terminology shows disdain for non-techies. I think that is a
    >>>> common weakness with Linux users.
    >>>
    >>> That's because you are a bleeding heart whiner.

    >>
    >> Nope -

    >
    > Yup.
    >
    >> but I understand that not everyone is a techie like the folks who
    >> post here. And I do not hold that against them.

    >
    > I don't hold it against them either.


    Your use of the phrase "click and drool" shows your disdain. You can - and
    have likely will again - deny it.

    ....

    >> I do not respect your disdain for most people...

    >
    > So, your position is that people shouldn't learn to properly use their
    > tools. Sheesh.


    Once again you fabricate a position and attribute it to me; and do so with
    no evidence. I have asked you to stop such activities, Rick. If you think
    about it, since you know I am a computer instructor, your idea that one
    should *not* learn to properly use a computer clearly does *not* apply to
    me. Your claim simply cannot be one that even you believe... you are merely
    pushing another of your circuses... after you gave your word you would stop.

    --
    When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
    When God changes your mind, that's faith.
    When facts change your mind, that's science.


  18. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    9fOdnfTGw90_ez3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 6:25 PM:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:05 -0700, cheley_bonstell88 wrote:
    >
    >> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    >>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
    >>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
    >>>
    >>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.

    >>
    >> well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.
    >>
    >> Kinda like Gimp myself . .
    >>
    >> Sure, theres a learning curve.

    >
    > No, no. no ...
    > Didn't you know babies are born with the knowledge of how to use Windows
    > and Photoshop?
    >
    >
    >

    The question is about a comparison between the two. You pretend
    otherwise... which is dishonest of you. If you wish to defend the GIMP UI
    then show why it is as easy as the UI of Photoshop (which is a bit of a
    mess, as even the Adobe team that makes it acknowledged!)


    --
    The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
    limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
    great nations. - David Friedman


  19. Re: GIMP

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    1anp4oxxosl69$.1dz9yevi6s1xr.dlg@40tude.net on 8/11/08 6:35 PM:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:25:54 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:05 -0700, cheley_bonstell88 wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    >>>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
    >>>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
    >>>>
    >>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
    >>>
    >>> well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.
    >>>
    >>> Kinda like Gimp myself . .
    >>>
    >>> Sure, theres a learning curve.

    >>
    >> No, no. no ...
    >> Didn't you know babies are born with the knowledge of how to use Windows
    >> and Photoshop?
    >>

    >
    > Windows they will learn in pre-school.
    > Photoshop, no but like every professional application, should they decide
    > to go into a field that uses it (ProTools for example) they will learn it
    > in school at some point.
    >
    > Gimp?
    > Well, I'm sure you can find *some places* that teach/use it, but most are
    > using Photoshop.
    > Why?
    > It's the industry standard.
    >

    I know in high school *I* taught Photoshop and not Gimp. The college where
    I teach has classes in Photoshop and Photoshop elements... and even
    Picasa... but not GIMP.


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


  20. Re: GIMP

    "Rick" stated in post
    9fOdnfDGw91DcT3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/11/08 6:52 PM:

    > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:35:37 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:25:54 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:52:05 -0700, cheley_bonstell88 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
    >>>>> why would a development group, make an interface, that every graphics
    >>>>> user that will use linux, has to re-learn.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> that is totally nuts, frustrating, and will drive users away.
    >>>>
    >>>> well the idea is that you learn the application and then use it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Kinda like Gimp myself . .
    >>>>
    >>>> Sure, theres a learning curve.
    >>>
    >>> No, no. no ...
    >>> Didn't you know babies are born with the knowledge of how to use
    >>> Windows and Photoshop?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Windows they will learn in pre-school.

    >
    > Windows, unfortunately, and Macs.
    >
    >> Photoshop, no but like every
    >> professional application, should they decide to go into a field that
    >> uses it (ProTools for example) they will learn it in school at some
    >> point.

    >
    > .. going into the profession.... wasn't mentioned.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Gimp?

    >
    > Gimp.
    >
    >> Well, I'm sure you can find *some places* that teach/use it, but most
    >> are using Photoshop.

    >
    > For Print.
    >
    >> Why?
    >> It's the industry standard.

    >
    > For print.
    >
    > ... and I didn't say anything about professionals or print.
    >

    Photoshop is used for a *lot* more than professional print work.


    --
    Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.




+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast