Live data from Hacker News

GIMP 3.0 is on the way

lwn.net

201–204 of 204 posts

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#201
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response. Certainly a website is allowed to process files you upload to it and the javascript are allowed to XMLHttpRequest in that sandbox. This is outside the control of the user. While had it been an app running locally, I could restrict network access or other resources. Of course the web developer can chose to…

> I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response In technical discussions, this is what I call "The Move". It comes from a desire to position the person making The Move as more knowledgeable and experienced and therefore correct and the other person as relatively new, inexperienced, lacking in wisdom, and naive. It's extremely sophomoric and perversely…

>> I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response

> In technical discussions, this is what I call "The Move". It comes from a desire to position the person making The Move as more knowledgeable and experienced and therefore correct and the other person as relatively new, inexperienced, lacking in wisdom, and naive. It's extremely sophomoric and perversely favored by those who lack the attributes they're trying to project. Don't do it.

Nonsense. Judging from your previous post it is apparent you are speaking outside of your expertise. Smearing labels all over rather than factually responding only makes it more so.

You claimed sandboxed browser apps was "more secure" than a traditional app.

Nobody suggested otherwise. In fact, we weren't discussing brower sandbox security model up to that point, but the differences between a online-only closed source web app and a traditional FOSS app.

> I know how browsers and web apps work.

So do the lot of us here, yet you don't seem to share a common understanding of the domain.

You do have a skewed understanding of the web app and seem to fail to understand why people would want a traditional app they could inspect and lock down as they please.

This suggest to me you are junior and/or suffering from a bit of Dunning Kruger because you might be skilled in other areas (in this case skilled in web dev and unskilled in traditional app dev), hence my previous comment about your skill level.

You responded to a lengthy post I made, and yet you fail to address any of the points raised.

> The central observation I made

.. was questioned by me and others and you just ignore what was said.

> And the thing is, you and everyone else in your camp already knows the truths I've written out here.

Get off your high horse.

You haven't shared shared any truths, you haven't addressed the issues we raised and you have a rather rude tone saying things like:

> You have made one of the most baffling logical errors that commonly crop up when people criticize browser-based apps.

And then continuing to fabricate intent.

(My point still stands).

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#202
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response In technical discussions, this is what I call "The Move". It comes from a desire to position the person making The Move as more knowledgeable and experienced and therefore correct and the other person as relatively new, inexperienced, lacking in wisdom, and naive. It's extremely sophomoric and perversely…

>> I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response > In technical discussions, this is what I call "The Move". It comes from a desire to position the person making The Move as more knowledgeable and experienced and therefore correct and the other person as relatively new, inexperienced, lacking in wisdom, and naive. It's extremely sophomoric and perverse…

K.

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#203
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mini-nitpick for everyone that might be confused: it's "schwarz" (without t), Schwartz is a name of a lot of people.

Valid point, but I will also amend your nitpick: Schwarz is also a name of a lot of people :) Both refer to hair colour, I think. "Schwartz" was a valid spelling for the colour many centuries ago (see, e.g., item 15 in [1]), which makes sense since both spellings are pronounced the same way. Surnames don't follow spelling changes, so that's the only situation in which both variants coexist now. In maths, you have the…

It's a pity there's no schwarz-schwartz like there is Lorenz-lorentz

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#204
post #42

I started using GIMP around 2003 as a small child, and I remember being hyped for 3.0 and non-destructive editing even back then. I'm in my thirties now. Slow and steady wins the race. Congrats to the GIMP team, can't imagine the catharsis they will experience when 3.0 officially drops.

not sure if i would call taking 20 years for a release "steady"

That's as steady as she gets, baby.
Post reply on HN