I would argue that they were a lot like Walmart (when Walmart was starting out)... clothes, electronics, sporting/seasonal goods... then they ventured out into additional services like family photography, optometry, pharmacy... really, the only difference was the mail order catalog.
I was there, 3000 years ago when Walmart didn't even sell groceries, I still remember mom commenting "It feels weird buying food at Walmart now and not even going to [regional grocery chain]".
And now, decades later everything is full circle. I avoid Walmart and Amazon like the plague and try to only shop at smaller outlets, whether brick-and-mortar or online. It might be slightly more expensive but I assume that's just the tax you pay to avoid a corporate monopoly hellscape.
Their success is a big part of why the experience is so bad as they have to appeal to a common denominator.
At the same time, they also win on the little things that diehard opponents choose to ignore, like search that kind of works. I don't like Office 365 but I'm a paying customer because, after long research, I haven't found a competitor that meets all my requirements.
Languages often simplify as they evolve, dropping "annoying" characters like æ. In fact, it was replaced by "e" (or ae itself) in most cases as the words got imported by other languages.
A personal hypothesis is that additional characters were much simpler in the age of handwriting, most of the history of literacy, compared to the age of print, the current age.
Using handwriting, additional characters are simple and in fact Medieval European scribes used many abbreviations, etc. When you need to set type on a printing press, or even input a character not already on your computer keyboard, the barrier is higher.
I don't disagree with that, but I want to point out that this is one facet of hedonic adaptation. People will always complain about of what they don't have. For instance, most inmates in inhumane prisons would love to have the life you describe if they could enjoy some degree of freedom as a result.
This is where it gets psychologically complex. I’ve often thought that while happiness often comes from having a clear, defined place in a system, freedom is the terrifying opposite—it’s the absence of those boundaries.
My feelings toward 404 are deeply conflicted. It was a cage, yet for a long time, I desperately wanted to go back. As I explore in Part 2, the most tragic part wasn't the strength of the cage, but its fragility. It vanished almost overnight, and when the 'cage' that gave us our identity and social standing disappeared, many of us lost our sense of meaning entirely.
We were free, but we were also 'lost' in a world that no longer had a place for us.
That sounds similar to what some ex-Soviets relate. The system was bad, but by and large had understandable rules that you could use to your advantage, if you had the right standing. Once that system collapsed, they were left to fend for themselves --so even though they had more freedom, they had less certainty in today and tomorrow. Like a 13 year old suddenly becoming an orphan.
Not every implementation of "prisons" in the world is about payback or keeping harmful people out of society, some places focuses on rehabilitation, and more often than not, those prisons are not inhumane at all, because that would defeat the very point of the prison.
Maybe if you consider "Can't walk wherever I want" as inhumane, all of them are, but there is definitely a difference between a prison in Rwanda vs one in Norway, and probably one would feel humane after observing the other.
Yes. A lot of properties in a small town well outside a major city limit can feel pretty rural (and may not be super-expensive). You're probably not walking to a grocery store but you can likely drive to one in 15 minutes or so.
I'm about 50 miles outside of Boston/Cambridge and have easy access to all the shopping I care about and even driving into the city for theater etc. isn't an undue burden. Between myself and a couple other neighbors we're on about 75 acres and adjacent to conservation land.
I don't know exactly. Maybe $400K; haven't had appraised recently. One neighbor has a Christmas tree farm. The other has a pasture with horses. I don't personally have a huge amount of land--a bit over 4 acres. Don't do anything personally with my land.
But, basically, while Bay Area CA is complicated (because of the geography) you can generally get away from walking to things in a city and there are a lot cheaper options in other cases. Lot of exurbs even around generally expensive cities--and even when lots of companies are out there as well.
Probably shaped by Bay area narratives, a lot of people assume that you're either living in the city or you're living in some remote rural location.
Despite Linux, llvm and Blender proving that open source can beat closed source, GIMP has failed for a very long time. If Microsoft sold something like GIMP, we've never hear the end of criticisms.
I'm not good enough to fix it, but I hope one day a team of great programmers simply restart from scratch. If they simply copied Affinity's or Photoshop's UI and core functionality, we'd have a winner.
Many years ago I spent quite some time getting used to Gimp and did some designing on it, etc. I also wrote a tutorial for it to create some torn paper effect.
I say all this to give some context to the following: GIMP is just not great software. It is super unintuitive and when you don't use it for a while, you totally forget how to use it to select things, put them on layers, etc.
I use Pixelmator on Mac. I bought it years ago and haven't regretted it. It is getting better and better of the years, the UI is great. When I use linux I miss Pixelmator more than I do Photoshop. So if someone were to create a Pixelmator-inspired editor for linux, that would be great.
The unfortunate part is gimp is intensely useful software with many amazing features...buried under such an awkward interface.
I used it today for doing a color range selection to get an estimate for parameters to use in image magick. It had the easiest dynamic visualization of the matte for the selected range as I was selecting. It did exactly what I needed, very well.
I also tested out krita and nuke. Was easier in gimp.
But gimp is still the tool of last resort as it is just so painful to use. I wish there was a more positive engagement between the graphics community and the gimp devs. It feels very combative and negative compared with tools like krita and blender.
I've used GIMP and Photoshop for a very long time (close to 30 years).
In ~1998, GIMP was not quite as good as Photoshop 5 and was more awkward to use, but you could see how it could close the gap. It had impressive underlying tech that could handle large images on computers at the time. There was an expansive library of weird and neat plug-ins and scripts. It felt like we were at the start of a great shift in which OSS software would "catch up" and eventually replace desktop power tools, just as Linux had done with web servers. It was... the year of Linux on the Desktop!
By ~2005, GIMP was starting to really catch up to where Photoshop was in 1998, but Photoshop had added lots of quality of line features like adjustment layers and layer effects, way better text rendering, and amazing new features like spot healing brushes, vanishing point warping, etc. The gap was widening. But GIMP still did all the core stuff, and Photoshop was annoying users by shoving Adobe Bridge down their throat, etc. So people were still hopeful for a replacement.
By ~2012, GIMP was adding.. an awkward single window mode? It lacked tons of by-now-basic features that made it totally impractical for professional use. Photoshop, meanwhile, was adding amazing time-saving features like Content-Aware Patch and Move that seemed "magic" at the time. The tech gap was widening, but Adobe was also pushing subscriptions down users' throats, which was very unpopular, so GIMP still had a chance to make a come back.
By ~2018, GIMP was finally adding.. basic CMYK support for printing, something which literally no one uses GIMP for professionally and was a dying need? Meanwhile, Photoshop was demoing an AI object selection tool that could magically select objects without needing to trace them, which came out in 2019. Using GIMP felt like using software from a decade previous.
The last 5 years have been the worst for GIMP. Photoshop has been improving at an astonishing rate. Now it's literally what photo editing looked like in 90's movies - you just open an image, click "select object" and it perfectly selects it, and lets you move/drag/add elements with AI, etc. You can do edits in seconds now that used to take hours, and the results are really good.
None of this is a complaint about GIMP or all the people who contributed to it. It's impossible for a few volunteers to complete with infinite money and hundreds of full-time employees. But Photoshop and GIMP are no longer in the same league. And Adobe knows this, which is why it can get away with punitive subscription-only pricing.
It used to lack non-destructive editing ("adjustment layers" in Photoshop parlance) until recently, it's a core foundation of editing workflows for designers and photographers, it lets you layer transformations of over immutable rasters. This was in Photoshop since 2005.
It has been a very long time since I tried GIMP (>15 years) to remember everything I found wanting, but as I recall, GIMP lacks both macros and batch editing, the former letting you record a set of actions to a hotkey so you don't have to repeat them yourself all the time, and the latter letting you apply a set of actions to hundreds or thousands of images at once. I would literally have to spend hundreds of hours to do things in GIMP that can be done with no effort in Photoshop, to the point where it would actually be easier to just program something myself from scratch than it would be to use GIMP, if Photoshop didn't exist.
I see that GIMP has since gotten a UI revamp, but the multiple window UI from the time I used it was also unbearably bad and one of the main things that sticks out in my memory.
Have you looked into script-fu? It would probably be a very steep learning curve.. BUT there is an opportunity to do something impossible 10 years ago, and that is to use AI and an external application. BATCH-FU is one such attempt but it seems to be a 'select action from a menu' thing.
But Gimp developers: implementing batch in one go is a big ask I know. But a great first step might be to create a channel in Gimp where correct script-fu is emitted for operations in progress. Being able to connect to that from outside would allow 3rd party projects to assemble "record by doing" macros that could be turned into Photoshop-like batch capability.
Macros are on the roadmap (https://developer.gimp.org/core/roadmap/#macros-script-recor...), and in fact we did a lot of prepwork for them during 3.0's development (internally, several features like filters and plug-ins now have configs that store settings, which will be used by macros in the future to repeat operations).
I would guess you don't need to start from scratch, just take the functionality, fork and put a Photoshop-like UI on top of it. That would already be so much better.
As an avid GIMPer for ~12 years now, I hate the UI. It's only fine because I've struggled through it for so long and now I know where and how things are.
But it's really poorly designed and outdated. I completely understand and sympathize with anyone trying to use GIMP for the first time.
For DOS, IMO, it's overkill. DOSBox-X does a very good job even for late and heavy dos games and is far more performant. A big advantage of DOSBox is not needing to setup a real OS inside the emulator - things just work.
For Windows things are the opposite, however. 86Box's better emulation of real hardware makes it far easier to setup the drivers and in general make the OS work well (on dosbox there are quite some quirks last time I checked, essentially requiring you to follow a specific guide, tweak some settings etc; on 86box it's just good old "install the os, put on the drivers and you're good to go"). Also, I notice that 86Box vms tend to be considerably faster than real hardware of the same level (likely will not be important for most games).
Note that this tends to require specific license exemptions. In particular, GCC links various pieces of functionality into your program that would normally trigger the GPL to apply to the whole program, and for this reason, those components had to be placed under the "GCC Runtime Library Exception"[1]
FOSS code is the backbone of many closed source for-profit companies. The license allows you to use FOSS tools and Linux, for instance, to build fully proprietary software.
Well, if its GPL you are supposed to provide the source code to any binaries you ship. So if you fed GPL code into your model, the output of it should be also considered GPL licensed, with all implications.
Sure, that usage is allowed by the license. The license does not allow copying the code (edit: into your closed-source product). LLMs are somewhere in between.
reply