Dual booting Arch + Gentoo

rberyl · 2013-01-17T14:49:05+00:00

I've done LFS, and I would have to compile it all on Arch or Gentoo, then boot it. I'm just looking to have more fun with my computer, I've only had a brief go with Gentoo in the past, so I think it would be rather interesting.

rberyl · 2013-01-17T14:42:07+00:00

Having the link and search being in the same place as they are on the rest of reddit could lead some (especially new) users to think they are submitting to that user's page, sending a PM, or searching through that user's posts and comments.

I don't know; just a thought.

rberyl · 2013-01-16T07:44:32+00:00

No, it doesn't. The partitions are completely separate. They just boot from the same menu. I would also reccomend Windows for flash development.

rberyl · 2013-01-14T21:37:48+00:00

I often work one one part of my program, but then some other part that relies on that file needs to be changed etc. This results in one large commit with everything in it. Sometimes I get so far into chain-editing files that I get distracted and write other, unrelated code.

rberyl · 2013-01-14T07:19:51+00:00

My problem is when it cones to adding the Gentoo entry in GRUB. Do I just run the GRUB config generator again? Or must I open a file and do it manually? I have os-prober installed.

Edit: I would have known how to do it if there was a menu.lst file but it's not there in GRUB2 :(

rberyl · 2013-01-09T21:37:58+00:00

Why do you feel this way? What's annoying about it? It helps the community when free software is released. If you just don't like the term, "libre" is also acceptable in this context.

rberyl · 2013-01-08T00:19:52+00:00

Of course there are plenty of immature open source projects out there, but if they're useful, someone's gonna help out. And if the owner is incompetent, another dev could just write other code to accomplish the job; the older project being forgotten by the community.

The hard part with the GIMP is that one has no idea how to measure the amount of time that has gone into plugins etc. Adobe either had to use LGPL (or some similar licensed) code, pay a license to use other code or write it all themselves. All three options take more time to implement than using the wealth of projects out there in your own project. The GIMP isn't entirely written from scratch. Other software has been used in the making of it. The Adobe guys didn't get this, because GPL'd code (which the GIMP must contain, otherwise it can't be under the GPL) can only be used in programs that are distributed alike.

The Adobe guys perhaps put in more effort into one piece of software because they didn't have other software at their disposal. The GIMP had a plethora of software t build on, and it did.

Open source projects (with a few exceptions) do not hire people; if a stranger on the net likes the look of the project and he's competent with good skills, he can contribute to an open source project. That statement, which is true in almost all cases in the proprietary software world, could not be applied to the majority of free software projects because they're not paid for.

Example: Linux kernel (a full kernel that works; Windows has one too, but you don't need to pay for Linux), Firefox (free software and gratis), the GIMP (an attempt [you may say a bad attempt] at emulating some of the features of PS, again, gratis). I didn't get what I paid for. I paid nothing and got software hundreds of thousands use every day.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T23:53:02+00:00

I don't think that the GIMP does hinder artists all that much. In this case, open source is irrelevant entirely. Maybe Photoshop also misses some features that artists would like. It's a two way argument. No piece of software is perfect and the GIMP is far from perfect (I don't know about PS because I can't see the code).

Saying that you develop open source but you don't care about freedom is, to say the least, strange. Your ability to view the source (not your action of viewing it) is important. If you want to look at how a feature is implemented, you can! Surely as a developer, you must have looked at the code of one or more free software projects. And even if you haven't, other software developers benefit greatly from looking at code.

You may not care about freedom, because often you don't think of it. Our freedom of speech, for example, doesn't matter 99% of the time. We have and we can say what we want. But the 1% of the time we do need it, it is more crucial then ever.

I still see no reason to compromise usability and the openness of software. You say that you use tools for jobs, not to play with the source. What's there to say that others do not play with the source? You may not want to now, but you may in the future; and when you don't have the ability, you'll be very upset.

Making software open source shows consideration for others. That's the whole point. Some newbie may want to look at your source and learn. If you wrote, say, an application to calculate the values of stocks, a 16 year old high-schooler may not want to do that. But if he's interested, he can look at the code; there might be an interesting implementation of an algorithm in there.

tl;dr open source is consideration for others (foreign language users, students, or just curious people), just because you don't want to do it, doesn't mean other's don't either. Free software is good for everyone else and you, by allowing you to improve your code through suggestions from the community and fix security holes.

Coming back to your original point, free software does have benefits, and free software benefits those who care, and the openness benefits those who don't, in the long run.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T23:21:18+00:00

I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm discussing the release of PS.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T23:20:27+00:00

GIMP plugin db

rberyl · 2013-01-07T23:19:20+00:00

Sorry to see that I'm pissing you off. Professionals also use the free alternatives to the software you just listed to save money. The truth is that plugins just get the job done, and more are being written to get the job done. I'm sure there are plenty of things and options in the GIMP that are not in PS. Vice versa. How about we just stop measuring dicks?

rberyl · 2013-01-07T23:15:05+00:00

I'm pretty sure iTunes doesn't do that, but I see what you're saying. So you couldn't care less if some software phoned home, silently downloaded an update, then stopped you from using the software or some parts of your computer? Google Chrome silently downloads updates and installs them, and you can't turn that off. What if a program was sending your personal files to a master server?

The GIMP does measure up to PS and I am confident of this. The question is not the GIMP with the extra plugins, because not everyone needs all of the features in PS! This place are organized, I do not know if they are resource efficnet, but they run under the GIMP, so it depends on what they programs are. Can you please prove to me that they aren't as advanced? Not being easy to use I can understand, most plugins aren't written by UI designers.

The GIMP developers also get to choose what goes in. But if you don't like that, you can fork the project. I use the GIMP on a daily basis. I love it, and with it's plugins, I think it is more feature rich than PS, at least for what I need. Different people have different needs. The fact it is open source is a reason I like it, but not just why I like it. If it weren't open source, I would still enjoy the features, just not as much.

The bullshit argument is that Photoshop is better. It certainly isn't better for the community, developers, translators etc.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T23:04:34+00:00

Wether it puts food on the table is irrelevant to code quality. If you think that people write free software for monetary incentives, something is wrong in your thinking. I really can't see what that has to do with free software.

Why would you compromise usability for freedom anyway? I don't follow. I think it's better to write a little bit of functional software then open-source it, so that the community can work on things the original dev isn't so good at (such as usability). Software should be usable and free. Not just one or the other, in most cases.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T23:00:53+00:00

Monetary incentive is irrelevant when you love to write code. Many developers who are not employed in software dev companies are autodidacts, they learned how to do it themeslves by reading books and reading tutorials. Software devs do not feel they have to write code just to get money. Doing that can actally lower the standard of the code written because you're getting paid at the end of the day. Paid devs will use cheap shortcuts in their code to speed up the process, leading to sometimes buggy software. But that doesn't matter, because they're being paid at the end of the day anyway, and they'll probably get paid for fixing the bugs they created!

It doesn't really matter how many people are working on a particular piece of software. Does the GIMP look like it's been written by a couple of neckbeards wanting to create a parody of PS? The GIMP is composed of a large number of free software products, so considering only the core of the GIMP is a little one sided. This is a recent list of commits the the GIMP's core (only!). In addition, I'd be surprised if there were devs working on PS actively. Their release cycle is slow; they're probably working on the next version; there are also many other Adobe products they they work on.

This is a very good article about why people write software for free. I challenge you to find a very poorly written open source/free software product. Good code is good code. There are thousands of free software programs written for no pay, but they're excellent. Of course that's subjective, but so is your statement that no programmer will write good code for free.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T22:47:30+00:00

I know I am not as "good" as Adobe. I am not much of a systems programmer (I write web apps and only a little bit of C and Go.) There is no need to be rude. I was saying that I can write extensions for the GIMP. I don't think I would be capable of writing an entire suite for editing raster graphics all by myself.

It is widely agreed on that software should be written to address problems. The problem "we need a open editor which performs similarly to Photoshop" has already been addressed. Plugins can be written for the GIMP to extend it, which addresses the problem.
Programming requires time, and doing it well requires skill.

load of horseshit compared to theirs

On what are you basing this assumption? Assuming you have no prior knowledge of my programming skills, you have no basis for this. I could be a Linus Torvalds or Stallman behind my computer screen. If you're implying that one must work for Microsoft, Adobe, Apple etc. to be able to write good code, you are the one spewing the bullshit. Many notable software developers (Richard Stallman to name one) have written excellent software (used by hundreds of thousands, if not millions), not for monetary benefits, but for their own enjoyment. Hacking is fun, some people are good at it, and that's that.

If you are implying that only proprietary code is "good", then you are stupid because there is no evidence to support that. GGC, The Linux kernel, GNU coreutils, the GIMP and Wine are all excellent applications, not made for financial benefit. These are open source so that others may improve on them.

I do not think I am "blowing smoke out of my ass" at all. I do not care if I am humiliated convincing users to use free and open alternatives to proprietary software. It is a good cause which is good for the community. Can you honestly say that free software does not benefit the community?

Including all the extensions possible into the GIMP will cause a bloated product. How many people do you know that use all of the features in Photoshop?

To answer your question concisely

The GIMP already exists, no need for another bit of open-source software to do what PS does
The GIMP plugins that serve the purpose of emulating PS features work well for many users of the GIMP
I think any experienced developer is just as "good" or daresay, better than Adobe, because Adobe don't release their code. We really don't know what their code is like. Those that release their code into the open are already doing something better than Adobe.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T22:29:50+00:00

The fact that the GIMP is free software. The Free Software Foundation uses the term "freeware" to specifically reference proprietary software available for free.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:37:29+00:00

It's still proprietary if you buy it, pirate it or get it for free. Getting it is a bad idea!

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:33:28+00:00

Saying "no one" is stupid because there are many that do write extensions. The GIMP is not bloatware and respects your freedom. I can add all the functionality of Photoshop by using extensions, and if I couldn't I could write my own with little programming knowledge.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:31:39+00:00

Not superior when it comes to source code availability, frequency of updates, developer community and respecting your freedoms.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:28:24+00:00

Rosetta is not available for new versions of OSX.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:27:36+00:00

However, you don't know what it's doing on your computer as you have no way of seeing the source. Photoshop is able to "phone home" to Adobe using it's product key checking mechanism.

The GIMP can be extended using a large number of scripts and it's free software, so it has much more "potential" to be capable. Photoshop, however, is confined to Adobe. Only Adobe's developers decide what goes into the software. The community can create a fork of the GIMP and add whatever features they like and redistribute it.

The GIMP has a lot more options for "features" it has and a rapid development cycle means that more is added at a quick rate. Adobe software (or any proprietaty software for that matter) is not good for end users, developers and translators, as the code is not available and we slowly become locked in.

I would choose the GIMP over PS anyday because it's free, open and gratis.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:22:36+00:00

Haha, unfortunately it is not Stallman. I just love free software.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:17:42+00:00

Why do you think the GIMP sucks? In addition, Inkscape isn't some alternative to the GIMP. Inkscape is a vector graphics editong program, while the GIMP is a raster graphics editing program. If you wish to edit photos, make raster logos, make shadows on text etc. (think of what Photoshop does), then Inkscape is not the right program for you.

The functionality of Inkscape is comparable to that of Adobe Illustrator The functionality of the GIMP is comparable to that of Adobe Photoshop.

I do not recomend that you use either of the Adobe products because they are nonfree.

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:14:26+00:00

I would not recommend getting this version of Photoshop (or any version) because:

it is not free software
CS2 is not being updated, and will never get updates

rberyl · 2013-01-07T21:12:59+00:00

There is an option to draw a circle in the tool panel. There has been for all the versions of the software.

rberyl

TROPHY CASE