Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Sadly.. (Score 1) 352

Except that's the way professional CAD packages do it, for example.

You keep mentioning CAD software, but there is no similarity between CAD formats and typical raster formats. JPG, PNG, TIF, and GIF are industry standards that GIMP should be able to open and save. CAD formats have vectors and a lot of other information that is particular to each software's implementation since there aren't open, widely-used vector file formats.

There are AutoCAD-compatible clones that open and close that proprietary format without question. LibreOffice also opens and closes non-native formats without complaint if you turn off a checkbox preference. If you stretch the analogy enough, we can take this illustration to even further ridiculous extremes. But the fact remains, GIMP is raster software that can be used to edit lots of standard format raster files that shouldn't require exports for files opened.

If you honestly believe Export is the correct terminology and UX, then you should also be advocating GIMP's "Open" menu change to "Import." That would correctly match what you are claiming on the save side. Open would then be reserved for XCF files but everything else should have to be imported. GIMP should treat the whole business like RAW and refuse to ever save any changes over the originally opened file unless it is an XCF.

At least that would be consistent. Insane, but at least consistent.

The current GIMP behavior appears to be structured to sell the software's (developer's) capabilities over users that are too stupid to think for themselves. Unfortunately, everybody sees this except for the developers.

Comment Re:No, for very good reasons. (Score 1) 568

Engineers are responsible for the stuff they build.

Right on target here. Ancient laws held architects/engineers to the standard of an eye-for-an-eye or death for designs that failed to the result of equivalent injury or death. I'd like to see a similar system (another post this thread) that licenses software engineers and architects.

Most of the public do not realize that local authorities hold architects primarily responsible for criminal and civil damages instead of themselves. I'm not allowed to break the law, but in cases where it is vague or interpretive, my seal stands as the primary guaranty of safety over the authority having jurisdiction. "It's your seal!" they tell me.

Licensure is the public connection to responsibility.

Comment Re:It is more for the bureacrat and less for safet (Score 1) 568

Not sure what you mean. Architects don't design engineered systems and engineers don't practice architecture. Doing so is outside of either's scope of licensure and expertise. The occasional architect or engineer attempting to practice the other's will pay fines and can loose their license. I can't tell you how many projects I've cleaned up on behalf of Owners that were started by unqualified and unlicensed "designers and engineers."

Design is the comprehensive practice of conceptualization, strategy, and coordination. A myriad number of complexities get sorted by architects that may or may not involve math, as you say. Component and material systems and connections, building functional accommodations, adjacency efficiency, occupancy loads, exiting, fire resistance, accessibility, material finishes, acoustic performance, health department demands, lifecycle costs, envelope design, energy performance strategies... just this week for me.

Specifically to the article topic, it's the same for software. There are both design/architecture and engineering components. Design tools focus less on math because they are more strategic. The error is saying one is more important than the other.

Comment Licensed Engineer (Score 1) 568

I think your industry would do well to create a vetting system that established core competencies for professional software engineers. Anyone so established via education, training, and testing would be distinguished from the large mass of us who hack evenings and weekends and who really shouldn't be entrusted with protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.

Licensure is authority established via the government, usually each individual state. There can be reciprocity between them, but the it certainly isn't a job or social title. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, and architects are all professional in the powers vested by the state.

Lest ye protest, that's the way it has been for ages with building engineers who design plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and civil realms in our physical environment. Why should the software components get an exception? Why wouldn't those of you who are actually competent want to establish a base level of expertise that helps sort this for the rest of us a bit?

My own industry of architecture is the same. You can't call yourself an architect unless you meet the requirements of the licensing board, about 10 years education, training, and seven tests (recently changed from nine). Of course, you software guys have been trying to abscond with the term for decades, even as a verb, but it is a self-proclaimed title and means nothing because there isn't any vetting. I'd be fine sharing it if it actually implied both the comprehensive design nature of what architecture means and professional licensure, but it will always produce an eye roll from those few of us who have been through the decade of sleepless nights and rigorous vetting to be a real one.

Comment Re:Contact the Linux Foundation (Score 1) 266

"How to ask a question the smart way" is 23 pages long and starts with the presumption that the questioner do most of the work in solving the question prior to asking.

As long as we spend more effort on Slashdot explaining to a disabled, non-developer that he is wrong than it would take to fix the bug, it is will NOT be the year of Linux.

Comment Architects use "additional services" for creep (Score 1) 221

In our architectural practice, we use the term "additional services" to quantify scope creep, basically anything beyond the scope defined in our proposal/contract.

This reinforces the need for making that initial statement of expectations clear AND the implications for any deviation thereafter.

Comment Why bother, XFCE is all you need (Score 5, Interesting) 56

After struggling to use Gnome 3 since Fedora officially released it, I recently tried XFCE again and was blown away with how fast and suitable it is. The defaults are good and there are tons of options to customize it back to the similar paradigm Gnome 2 was. I couldn't believe how much faster my machine felt after switching. Even moving Firefox tabs was better!

I gave G3 PLENTY of time and never could feel comfortable with it even after slowly adding extension after extension to get something workable. The visual component of a desktop is important, and the G3 simply hides too much that is necessary to use it. It's like having a car with no dashboard. The so-called "easy"methods to reveal open windows and find applications are hard to discover, require too much input and memory, and are too slow.

After this weekend's pleasurable re-discovery of the improved XFCE, I'm never going back. Gnome doesn't matter any more to me.

Comment Re:Diamonds, like paper (Score 2) 243

Gold is not any more intrinsically valuable than diamonds (or fiat currency!)

Not true. Gold is a fabulous conductor and does not corrode. That makes it extremely valuable in electrical components, particularly connectors. If we could assemble all electronics with gold plated connectors the world would have a lot less shorts, fires, computer failures, etc.

Two intrinsically interesting characteristics of diamonds are hardness and thermal conductivity.

Can't say the same for fiat currency.

Comment nvidia same as adobe flash (Score 1) 581

Nvidia has the same problem Adobe has with Flash: Closed source equals instability.

Between Fedora 14 and 17, I have never experienced so much system instability in Linux, and I've been a user since RH 5.1. My X is now guaranteed to lock in 5 minutes either by watching a Flash video or doing a yum install kmod-nvidia.

The year of the desktop, yeah, right.

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.