Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Acceptable Ads (Score 1) 523

Hobbyists spent their own money or mooched their university maintaining (home)pages that got a *lot* less traffic than now, and the content was rather crappy.

And this isn't about corporate greed - suppose you start a webcomic, or writing jokes. People like it, and you want more free time to dedicate to it rather than work 9 to 5 or designing commercial posters (a very typical case). Not everyone is willing to fork over for a t-shirt or a book (I don't buy books often). Some can't/won't fork over on Patreon. So you put up a few well-behaved ads and catch a constant drip.

Comment Re: Acceptable Ads (Score 1) 523

Look at F2P games. They have a lot of free users and a small number that actually pay lots of money. Games compete for the user's time and disposable income with each other and bring new content all the time while still making a profit and actually growing.
Websites for some reason can't? Maybe it's because they hardly offer any interesting/new content?

If they don't offer compelling content, they don't get enough hits and the fixed costs drive them out of business. But what about sites that do get traffic but a lot of them doesn't deliver revenue? Those play a numbers game, much like free-to-play games, and the numbers may or may not add up.

And lets not start on those crap "news" these days. I'm not interested in a novella length article about the damaging effects some stupid diet or some political game in some far forgotten town nobody finds on purpose without Google.

If they offer REAL content, people will: donate, click on ads/disable adblocker, or buy a subscription. Until then, they're the parasites bloating the search engines pointlessly.

Oh, but I was replying to someone arguing that there are no acceptable ads. As in “I want my Web free of ads - you figure out how to run it”.

Comment Re: Ads are not acceptable. (Score 1) 523

And if they don't like it they can detect that, and they can fade into obscurity when people stop going there. It's a viable model for some sites though, if they have what people want and are willing to pay for.

What about sites that get a lot of occasional visitors? Blogs are typical here - thousands bump into the best of them once a month or so through a Google search, but they'd be hard pressed to log into PayPal to pay a fraction of a cent to see the content, let alone buy a subscription. Just imagine that every show on your TV / radio was pay-per-view and imagine how you'd like that.

Most sites don't actually have any content which is that compelling, so they can quit their whining. 95% of the sites on the web could go away tomorrow and it would be a better place.

What does this have to do with visitors who actually visit the site seeing ads? You may not like the content, someone else does and they cause an expense.

Comment Re: Acceptable Ads (Score 1) 523

The sites with ads seldom have a company behind it. Consider non-corporate sites that you bump into once every month at best, but get lots of visits from a lot people because they're damn useful? Blogs with tech tips (e.g. Use the index, Luke) are typical of this pattern, and their visitors would be hard-pressed to buy a subscription.

Comment Re:Sadly.. (Score 1) 352

Overwrite is akin to Save but only appears when you've loaded a non-GIMP format. Export is always available and is akin to Save As.... They don't switch around - the only variation is that Overwrite is greyed out for being redundant with Save if you didn't start with a non-XCF file.

It could be simplified, but it's easy to see that Overwrite foo.png won't preserve everything you're looking at (e.g. layers and objects) like Save does; it's more like re-exporting to the raster format it came from.

Then again, there are much bigger faults in GIMP than menu item naming.

Comment Re:Sadly.. (Score 1) 352

Compare it with Blender, with a healthy and energetic user and developer base, a continuous flow of real and useful new features, and a rapidly growing and actively using user base.

Feel free to correct me, but GIMP doesn't have the kind of sponsors that Blender has. But the help you get in the forums involves a lot of "works for me" defensiveness and that drives users away.

The day GIMP started trying to force people to save in its own proprietary format (to the great unhappiness of a large portion of its user base) rather than the format the file was OPENED in pretty much marks its death.

Native, not proprietary (the spec is out there and you're free to write readers/writers for it). Do you know of any other open format that preserves the structure of a GIMP doc?

As for writing back to the original format, I just opened a random PNG to double-check. Sure enough, under the File menu, Save (Control-S) and Save As... are for saving to XCF (so you don't lose any GIMP features you've built on top of it). Then you have Overwrite foo.png which does exactly what you want and Export As... which lets you pick a new name. Just remember that, just like with Libre|OpenOffice, opening another format is actually an import operation.

That's not where my gripes lie. For example, using the Text tool is akin to waltzing on a messy car repair shop and the font picker is an unhelpful eyesore. Installing plugins is anything but foolproof. My memory fails me right now but I'm sure you guys can pick up from here.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...