/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.6385 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>6390 >>6432
File: d5b24148edb411ebfc170e1c71eca7f34107098cc7685e24a194230c417ae6a7.png (dl) (366.19 KiB)
The whole fucking GIMP project got forked just because someone didn't like the name.
This has to be the dumbest reason to fork.
https://www.minicreo.com/news/glimpse-image-editor.html

Nanonymous No.6387 [D] >>6425
what a bunch of fucking gimps
well if they remake the UI something good may come out of it, but probably they are gonna make it worts that how it already is.

Nanonymous No.6388 [D]
I bet LGBTQ was behind this.

PIMP would be based tbh.

Nanonymous No.6390 [D]
>>6385
That's a gay reason to fork something. With two SJWs on it, might never see commit #1.

Nanonymous No.6396 [D][U][F]
File: 297137f178435f02c236af9149f9969a72c5a9b55a1a7a2ce8808707be60cbc2.jpg (dl) (23.28 KiB)
>white people

Nanonymous No.6399 [D][U][F] >>6401
File: 640a8d9a094bd8ff9b090119cfcc3471041121807c650c7b0b3e7e2a0158707d.jpg (dl) (5.30 KiB)
Why would anybody use their "fork"?

Nanonymous No.6400 [D][U][F] >>6402
File: dc7e0a3cef095dedffc0beadf8bf41a45af4b534ded4fa6d023051c54fdd7de4.png (dl) (301.03 KiB)
> The whole fucking GIMP project got forked just because someone didn't like the name.
But it's nice and meaningful.

Nanonymous No.6401 [D] >>6402 >>6412
>>6399
They are planning on revamping the user interface.

Nanonymous No.6402 [D] >>6403
>>6400
Based.
>>6401
Oh, stopped reading after "gimp is offensive in some cultures".
>MiniCreo is a professional, innovative, and trusted iPhone Transfer, iPhone Data Recovery Software developer. We promise to give you the best software products and customer services to ensure the safety of your data.
They can only suprise.

Nanonymous No.6403 [D] >>6405
>>6402
What the fuck OP? Why can't you just post https://glimpse-editor.org/? You made me believe that it's minicreo who's doing it.

Nanonymous No.6405 [D]
>>6403
a) Retard
b) On their page, they try to rp like they are gonna do something with it (even though the biggest link on the site is the Code of Conduct one), the article says 'it's about the name' quite straightforwardly

Nanonymous No.6406 [D]
>This is the confusion of amerimutts who cant understand the freedom of forking things

Nanonymous No.6410 [D]
>With Glimpse 1.0, the Glimpse team has plans to forge their own identity. They plan to work on a "front-end UI rewrite". They are currently discussing which language they should use for the rewrite.
ruby!^Wjavascript!^Wrust!^Wgo!^W^Wnim!^Wcrystal!

Nanonymous No.6411 [D][U][F] >>6412
File: 8779df41d5f158e862126bda253a6383bce1ee02b61255e0daf1e3d7285aea61.png (dl) (75.32 KiB)
Yeah. It will be exactly the same but it will have an embedded web browser and every time you draw a line it will pause the program and show a transition effect.

They literally think there is something wrong with pic related (which is already bloated gnome bullshit).

Nanonymous No.6412 [D]
>>6411 meant to quote >>6401

Nanonymous No.6419 [D] >>6422 >>6447
We need a free software alternative to Adobe products. And, no, GIMP is not a alternative. It lacks many features Photoshop has.
The only reason I still have Windows installed is because of Adobe products (even though I only use Windows for this purpose, everything else goes in openbsd). Specifically Photoshop and Premiere, which doesn't have alternatives (yes, I've tried every single one of them, kdenlive, blender, krita, flowblade, etc.).

If this "Glimpse" solves the issues of GIMP, I'm all for it and give zero fucks about the name changing.

Nanonymous No.6421 [D] >>6423
Everyone is FREE to fork a FREE program. You do it each time you clone the repository.

Oh, wait, you can't do even that.

Nanonymous No.6422 [D] >>6426 >>6431
>>6419
You are trained in Photoshop, working in Photoshop, and tied to Adobe ecosystem (which it guides the way it wants to). You benefit from Adobe, Adobe benefits from you. There is no point in making another image editor specifically to battle for Photoshop professionals with Photoshop, that's not going to work.

It's as if Java programmer would want Python to become more Java-like, or Python programmer would expect a pythonised Java in its next release.

Nanonymous No.6423 [D]
>>6421
Cloning a repository is not a fork. In my opinion for a project to fork another it must claim that a different branch of the repository is now the main branch.

Nanonymous No.6424 [D]
You have a full, independent repository on your local system. It is not controlled by the source system in any way. You make some changes in your fork, then push/propose them to the “official” code base.

And branches are just pointers to commits (supposedly, we are talking about git), they don't do anything by simply existing.

Nanonymous No.6425 [D] >>6427
>>6387
Nah. It's going to be like the tranny hostile takeover of FreeBSD.
They'll just sit on it and do nothing, because they don't even know what the project is and don't have the skillset to contribute.

Nanonymous No.6426 [D]
>>6422
>There is no point in making another image editor
Of course there is. See for example Rawtherapee. I don't use Lightroom for years now. Or what Krita made for drawing artists.
Open source drives improvements much faster than proprietary software. This is way we need a alternative to photoshop (which, btw, has not changed since CS6).
GIMP is not bad, but they need to remake the interface and keybinds to something closer to photoshop. Also, we need advanced masking and "content-aware scale". If they add that I'll switch to it.
Now Premiere is a more complicated stuff. Kdenlive is not even close in terms of features (and I mean actual features, not bloat - such as the "Transform" effect, for smooth animations, and advanced typography editing).

Nanonymous No.6427 [D] >>6447
>>6425
I'm still searching for all those kernel modules written by Randi.

Nanonymous No.6431 [D]
>>6422
https://www.jython.org/

Nanonymous No.6432 [D]
>>6385
HAHASHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit, these faggots are retarded.

Nanonymous No.6436 [D] >>6439 >>6457
OPEN SOURCE is piece of shit
instead of cooperation to make great things, they divide, make 1000 forks, reinvent the wheel 1000 times

it is also possible a lot of actions like this are diversion, by jews

Nanonymous No.6439 [D] >>6440 >>6445
>>6436
Claiming all open source is shit because some projects get forked is overbroad. However, SJW=CIA D&C.

Nanonymous No.6440 [D]
>>6439
>Claiming all open source is shit because some projects get forked is overbroad.
all open source is shit, not only because of useless forks, but for many reasons

do you know a single successful open source project?

Nanonymous No.6445 [D]
>>6439
Don't feed the troll.

Nanonymous No.6446 [D] >>6447 >>6458
Notice the CoC and the trannies behind the fork. Every distro will switch to the fork as soon as it releases anything.

Why? Same reason every other Open Source project adopted the CoC. Even maintainers doing it for fun generally have day jobs. Day jobs with HR Depts. They will get that call and suddenly, of their own free will, decide to adopt a CoC version.

Nanonymous No.6447 [D][U][F]
File: ece6bba861ba121415c3d4af87398d96bf01a56e6c217d8cb8b495a4b3314136.jpg (dl) (56.15 KiB)
>>6419
>If this "Glimpse" solves the issues of GIMP, I'm all for it and give zero fucks about the name changing.
Yeah, "if". Software that's forked for political (as opposed to technological) reasons never actually improves technologically. But, hey, maybe Glimpse will. Three hundredth time's the charm, right?
>>6427
>I'm still searching for all those kernel modules written by Randi.
Randi mostly made tiny patches to reduce compiler warnings during compilation and change typos in documentation. Her largest "contribution" to FreeBSD was to rip out a bunch of installer code, a change that was almost immediately reverted, and was not adopted in the end, because people still depended on that code. IIRC, her FreeBSD commit bit was revoked years ago. I haven't even heard anything about her since the gamergate days. She's probably overdosed on meth and blue hair dye by now.
>>6446
>Day jobs with HR Depts. They will get that call and suddenly, of their own free will, decide to adopt a CoC version.
Ehh, real life is a lot more complicated than you're suggesting, and most HR departments won't have any fucking idea what someone's talking about if they get called about some random employee's hobby software project. To the (small) extent that you're on to something there, however, that's another good argument for developing software anonymously.

Nanonymous No.6457 [D][U][F] >>6462
File: 933646ba38feaec1382edbfa2863f0ac4335865569aac31c07f6073b57334668.jpg (dl) (150.51 KiB)
>>6436
Open source is a jewish psyop. I'm going to assume you mean free software.
Free software is shit because all software is shit. Therefore, we should strive to have the most simple and least software possible, because the simpler our software is and the less of it we have, the easier it is to scrap it all.

Nanonymous No.6458 [D] >>6429
>>6446
>Every distro
Wake me when Pat Volkerding actually gives a fuck.

Nanonymous No.6462 [D]
>>6457
>Free software is shit because all software is shit.
I know many quality proprietary software:
Foobar2000
Microsoft Visual Studio
Microsoft Office (older editions)

but it's hard to find any quality free software
MPC-HC
TrueCrypt - it's open source but is it free software?

Nanonymous No.6476 [D][U][F]
File: 4fb86a0ea96b81c27680a996e24a2577a8c1340c1e641dd40d5b1879aa4fb0c2.png (dl) (166.24 KiB)

Nanonymous No.6490 [D]
> that's another good argument for developing software anonymously.

A lot of devels contribute to Open Source to build up a reputation that they can leverage into a better day job.

And HR Depts might not care a lot about an employee's Open Source side project, but they tend to care deeply about Social Justice. And they network.

Nanonymous No.6529 [D]
>A lot of devels contribute to Open Source to build up a reputation that they can leverage into a better day job.
This kind of software is dickaids. Go figure crypto-capitalism is still cancer.