×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

406 comments

2nd (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823607)

f u

(no pun intended) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823615)

If there was no pun intended, and the resulting sentence indeed contained a pun, then either change the wording, or keep it as is, but please do not insult me with (no pun intended).

Re:(no pun intended) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823630)

if there's no pun intended then by definition it's not a pun.

Acrobat Reader (4, Interesting)

jamesshuang (598784) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823616)

If only they'd fix Acrobat Reader for linux...

Re:Acrobat Reader (2, Insightful)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823656)

What's wrong with it? It works well with firefox. It's a lot less bloated than version 6 for windows. Loads faster than the bloated one for windows. I prefer that they haven't filled it to the brim with crap. Every once in a while I'll get a warning telling me it might not display the pdf correctly, but it always seems to work fine.

I'm not discounting any problems you've had, I'm just curious as to what they are.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

thelexx (237096) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823752)

My experience:

1 - The interface/widgets suck badly
2 - The find function crashes the app consistently (for me anyway)
3 - I have to set LANG=C in my /etc/profile or it won't run at all, not sure what this breaks as it is supposed to be iso-8859 or something

This is under RHEL3.

Re:Acrobat Reader (5, Interesting)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823773)

You're right, it is less bloated. But the point is that they're still using some ugly, closed-source GUI library, and that they fully neglected Linux users for one whole major version.

Sure, they announced a 'beta' of version 7 for Linux, but has anyone ever *seen* it? They cancelled the public beta after a few days. So it's not so much that the product is a poor one (version 5.0.10 is pretty decent, really) but that they see Linux as a tier-2, unimportant platform. I truly hope that that changes in the near future as Adobe begins to embrace OSS.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823949)

The GUI is pretty ugly, I have to give you that. I guess they could have chosen to spend more time and create a nicer interface, or choose gtk of qt. The last two options would have created large dependencies. I'm not sure exactly how it works for binary packages, but does that create a problem with different distros putting those libraries in different places? So would that just create a lot more headaches just for a nicer GUI? I don't know the answer to that one, so anyone please correct my ignorance.

I'd prefer if they just made their own GUI that looked nice. But it'd take time and cost them money for a product that they do not charge anything for in a tiny market. I'm sure a lot of Linux users are waiting for a native version of Photoshop, and this could pave the way for that.

Re:Acrobat Reader (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823778)

Simple, older readers will have problems with newer PDF files if those newer files use any of the new features. Since many PDF files are very simple and don't use the extra features in the newer Acrobat versions you probably haven't had a problem yet.

Re:Acrobat Reader (0, Troll)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823787)

Adobe Reader is known around the geek-world as a bloated piece of crap.

I mean, seriously, don't load for 5 seconds, just show me the god damn page! That's why I mostly avoid PDF files. If only they could get a clue...

Re:Acrobat Reader (4, Informative)

shawb (16347) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823983)

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823820)

Well, for starters the Windows version is up to 7, and it fixes a lot of the issues from v 6.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

UnrefinedLayman (185512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11824019)

If by "fixes a lot of the issues" you mean "loads the entire application and its plugins at startup rather than on demand," then yeah, they sure fixed those problems.

RealPlayer tried that crap once too, right around the time of the G2 player and straight through v8 at least. I don't know about since then, because I won't touch the software.

Adobe is basically saying "we can't write the reader without it being a piece of shit that's bloated and slow, so we'll just load it all into memory and hope for the best." They're not even trying; it's akin to Microsoft not trying to fix Windows and instead releasing anti-spyware software.

I'd be a lot happier if they would make some kind of admission that yes, their software does suck and that while they are taking these stop-gap measures, which suck and are very poorly thought-through, they are also fixing the problems with their software permanently. One problem that I see is that companies are stuck in the mindset that they should re-use all the code they can and never rewrite code. This leads to bloat upon bloat upon tangled messes of code that is eventually held together with silly-string. Take for example MFC, or worse ActiveX: Microsoft hasn't come clean or come out to say "don't use these, we didn't know what we were thinking," but they've since come out with .NET saying that it does all the things right that need to be done right and haven't been done right until now.

Adobe's in a similar position with Acrobat, except they don't have a solution (which isn't to say .NET resolves anything in particular). They seem to keep saying more of the same is better, and are getting away with it because their customers have been lulled into the idea that Acrobat needs to be a resource hog. Mac OS X users of Preview already know better, and I'm still in disbelief that there are no alternative readers for Windows given Adobe's piss-poor performance.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823900)

It doesn't crash firefox for everyone else? On both my computers, closing a tab with adobe open (or using the back button to go from a pdf to html) has about a 50% chance of crashing the browser. The newest release of firefox seemed to drop this percentage to about 25%, but that is still way too high.

Re:Acrobat Reader (0)

digidave (259925) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823923)

Acrobat Reader 7.0 for Windows is 95MB. I certainly hope it's not that bloated.

To the average person, Acrobat Reader is just for viewing a few files on the web. Where do they get off creating some huge monstrosity of an application? The Windows 95 full OS install was the same size!

Now excuse me while I go play my 130MB minesweeper.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

Katravax (21568) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823747)

If they'd only fix it for Windows, that would at least be something. You'd think after as many revisions that it's gone through you'd be able to easily save your place in a long document. The full version has bookmarks, but you have to go out of your way to define them, and their little drag & drop editor to move the bookmarks around is atrocious. Besides that, it requires you to modify and resave the document. You'd think that a simple leftOffPageNumber entry in a state file or the registry would be simple enough.

Re:Acrobat Reader (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823786)

fix for linux request: check
fix for windows request: check
fix for mac request: screw it, Preview is better anyway.

Re:Acrobat Reader (2, Interesting)

dsginter (104154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823756)

If only they'd fix Acrobat Reader for linux...

We don't want Adobe Reader on Linux. For that matter, we don't want it on any platform.

Adobe, like a page from the Evil Corporation book, has taken it upon themselves to cash in on the success of Acrobat Reader. Currently, if you're a Windows Joe User who wants to download it, you'll wind up with all sorts of stuff [adobe.com]. You'll get the Adobe Download Manager, the Yahoo Toolbar, Adobe Photoshop SE, and some mysterious Adobe Internet Printing that just appears in the start menu. Didja ever wonder why SO MANY people have the Yahoo toolbar even though they don't use Yahoo?

This is bullshit. While I realize that, in an ideal world, everyone would uncheck the little checkboxes and opt out of it but this isn't an ideal world. Adobe needs to be punished.

If some programming hero wanted to step up, it wouldn't be hard to knock a few hundred million dollars off of the value of Adobe's stock [yahoo.com]. Here's how:

1) Create free, open-source PDF writer and reader with none of the typical Evil attributes.
2) Distribute.

Adobe derives a significant amount of their revenue from their Acrobat Writer [cdw.com] product. Most people simply want to create PDF files so they buy it. The company that I work for has thousands of licenses because they just want simple PDF creation functions. This is mind-boggling. They use none of the advanced features.

While we can all create PDFs in OpenOffice for free, I think that a set of PDF tools would devastate Adobe. This needs to happen if only for the simple fact that they've crossed the line.

PLEASE!?

Flame? (was: Re:Acrobat Reader) (2, Insightful)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823830)

I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you on many points... seriously, the Hotmail signup process requires a LOT more unchecking of boxes than the 3 unchecks you need when downloading Acrobat... it's a very common practice, and even Joe Shmoe who is able to find out he needs Acrobat is aware to not check everything... besides, at least Adobe doesn't sell your email addy to dozens of third parties...

Secondly, what's wrong with a business paying for creating PDF's ? There's nothing really wrong with Adobe Acrobat's business model: create a portable document format, make readers available for free on any OS, guarantee that it looks the same everywhere, and let people who want to create PDF documents using Acrobat pay...

Now, there already are pdf writers other than acrobat, so what's the problem...

IMHO, you're highly overreacting.

Re:Flame? (was: Re:Acrobat Reader) (1, Troll)

dsginter (104154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823921)

I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you on many points... seriously, the Hotmail signup process requires a LOT more unchecking of boxes than the 3 unchecks you need when downloading Acrobat... it's a very common practice

You know,

Crime is also a very common practice. Just because it is common doesn't mean that it is right. Someone needs to start making examples of this garbage and I think that Adobe is a good place to start.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

scmason (574559) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823917)

1) Create free, open-source PDF writer and reader with none of the typical Evil attributes.
2) Distribute.

You mean like OpenOffice? ps2pdf?

Re:Acrobat Reader (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823992)

No, he means more like pdfcreator [sourceforge.net] , at least for the writing side. There are enough readers already.

Acrobat Reader and Yahoo! Toolbar (1)

bsd4me (759597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823927)

Didja ever wonder why SO MANY people have the Yahoo toolbar even though they don't use Yahoo?

I just installed Acrobat Reader 7 on one of our test machines yesterday. There was a rather obvious checkbox to select whether you want this or not.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

TheHornedOne (50252) | more than 9 years ago | (#11824029)

Well, it's not free or totally open-source, but Mac OS X has some pretty darned good PDF functionality (like printing directly to PDF). I am sure Apple have held back some of the really good stuff to make nice with Adobe, though.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823864)

If only they'd fix Acrobat Reader...

There, I fixed your sentence for you. Acrobat drives me insane.

Re:Acrobat Reader (1)

rdieter (112462) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823898)

If only they'd fix Acrobat Reader for linux...


What's in need of fixing? The latest version, 5.0.10, WORKSFORME.

Oh, and you *did* report your problems/bugs to adobe at
http://www.adobe.com/misc/bugreport.html [adobe.com]
right?

Now, it would be nice to get an update for new features, like those in version 7 for Windows.

The GIMP (2, Interesting)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823620)

Not being familiar with the MIT License (too lazy to RTFL), just wondering what use these libraries could be to projects like the GIMP.

Re:The GIMP (5, Informative)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823644)

Too Lazy? It's one of the shortest licenses known to man:


The MIT License

Copyright (c)

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


So, YES, Gimp could use the Adobe UI, as long as it includes the "obnoxious advertising clause".

Re:The GIMP (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823679)

Hehehe...That's what I get for not bothering to click the link. Thanks for pointing out just how lazy i was being. (Although, I was actually busy checking out the adobe site to see what these two libraries are capable of doing).

Re:The GIMP (4, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823716)

So, YES, Gimp could use the Adobe UI, as long as it includes the "obnoxious advertising clause".

You mean "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software"? I think most (all?) "open source" licenses have a similar requirement. Don't confuse your dislike for Adobe with reality.

Re:The GIMP (0, Troll)

daserver (524964) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823824)

It makes it incompatible with GPL just like the original BSD license

No it isn't (1)

grouse (89280) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823896)

This isn't the obnoxious advertising clause you're looking for. There is similar verbiage in the GPL saying that the copyright notice and license notice have to be kept.

Re:The GIMP (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823988)

Nonsense. This is the MIT license, it is 100% compatible with the GPL, and the Free Software Foundation certify this if you take ten seconds to look it up on their list of which licenses are and aren't compatible.

The "obnoxious advertising clause", which is indeed incompatible with the GPL, is the one which requires you to mention the creator of the library in any advertising material related to your work. That is part of the original BSD license, but it is not included in the MIT license that Adobe have adopted.

Adobe have got something right. They have released free software that is truly Free in the RMS sense of the word, and released it under a GPL-compatible license. There is no possible way they can exploit this act for evil ends!
Let's give them some fucking credit for once, okay?

Re:The GIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823853)

Don't confuse your hatred of Adobe with humour.

Re:The GIMP (1)

gnuadam (612852) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823865)

The obnoxious advertising clause" is not a requirement of "most" open source licenses, because it is explicitly incompatible with the GPL.

That said, I'm not entirely certain that the MIT license requirements are really the same as the "obnoxious advertising clause."

Re:The GIMP (3, Informative)

lordpixel (22352) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823742)

That's not the obnoxious advertising clause.

The OAC was a part of the BSD license which used to say you had to print out a message when your program started up giving props to the Regents of the University of Berkley, CA or some such.

This was probably the only real difference between the MIT and BSD licenses, but since the BSD license dropped this clause, they're the same for all intents and purposes.

Re:The GIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823743)

The MIT X11 license like the new (modified) BSD license does not include the "obnoxious advertising clause". It is listed on the FSF's license list as the X11 license.

Re:The GIMP (5, Interesting)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823761)

Too Lazy? It's one of the shortest licenses known to man:

The OpenBSD license [openbsd.org] is even shorter :

Below is an example license to be used for new code in OpenBSD,
modeled after the ISC license.

It is important to specify the year of the copyright. Additional years
should be separated by a comma, e.g.
Copyright (c) 2003, 2004

If you add extra text to the body of the license, be careful not to
add further restrictions.

/*
* Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user@your.dom.ain>
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
* ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
* ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
* OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/

Re:The GIMP (4, Funny)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823931)

shortest license I ever saw was the "Beerware" license. Went something like this:

Copyright (c) xxxx Joe Q Programmer. Permission granted to use this thing however you want, subject to the condition that if you see me on the street, you buy me a beer.

Leave the license FUD at home. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11824020)

The quoted license has no advertising clause, abnoxious or otherwise. Go spend some time actually reading the FSF website before incorrectly spouting their propaganda.

The MIT License (2, Informative)

nick8325 (825464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823717)

It's very similar to the BSD license in style:

Copyright (c) year copyright holders

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


Apparently the main difference is that BSD explicity forbids you from saying that you were endorsed by the original writer.

A good list of licenses is http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html [fsf.org]

Re:The GIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823832)

You forgot to RTFL and I ROFL!

Adam & Eve? (4, Funny)

carninja (792514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823624)

Insert Cain & Abel joke here...

Re:Adam & Eve? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823645)

Was thinking more along the lines of "How dare they use anything religious" personaly.

Re:Adam & Eve? (1)

Swamii (594522) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823771)

Was thinking more along the lines of "Cool. They used something from the Bible" personally.

Re:Adam & Eve? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823953)

I'm the same AC from before, Yeah, I was glad that they did too. However, it has seemed lately that anytime anyone uses anything even remotely religious they get bashed.

Let me volunteer (4, Funny)

Swamii (594522) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823919)

For the love of God, Cain't they find better names? Just right now, I was Abel to think of a few just off the top off my head. My mind is being Flooded with ideas for software names, in fact. Funny story, I used to Noah guy who could Babel out a hundred names on command...what a Nimrod that guy was.

Nothing to see here (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823631)

I was expecting some amazing graphics library but it is just a bunch of fairly trivial C++ templates. Nothing Boost cannot already do.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 9 years ago | (#11824023)

Uh, no. If you actually read up on Adam and Eve it seems to be some kind of widget library abstraction with a generic data engine behind it - a bit like what XUL/RDF Templates were supposed to be back in the early days of Mozilla.

Beginning of a trend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823640)

I'd like to see them offer some of their products for the linux platform... That would seem to be in-line with this opensource GUI effort, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I don't really know much about Adobe, but I do know their linux native client for Adobe Acrobat (still 5 btw) really sucks.

That's cool... (3, Interesting)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823652)

...But please, release something worthwhile under an open source license, like the backend stuff for Acrobat or something...

And for the love of God, release Reader 7.0 for Linux, and do it soon!

Re:That's cool... (2, Informative)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823872)

release something worthwhile under an open source license, like the backend stuff for Acrobat or something...

So what about the backend stuff for Photoshop? 'cos that's what they've released:


Eve (the name is derived from Express View Engine) is a layout engine and declarative language for constructing a human interface (HI) layout. Eve was developed originally for Photoshop (a prototype version was used in Photoshop 5) and has since seen gradual evolution and integration into other Adobe applications.

OMG fix your CODE!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823665)

Slashdot is totally fucked right now on FireFox in Windows.

For a site that loves to bash others for shoddy coding or lack of adherence to standards this is pretty fuckin' lame!

Re:OMG fix your CODE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823845)

That's not a troll, it's been hosed for me too, with Mozilla/Linux, for the last day or so. The home page keeps coming up with all the content missing.

Dmitry Sklyarov (4, Insightful)

digitaltraveller (167469) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823686)

I welcome Adobe's efforts to work with the open source community.

That being said, I am still too afraid to use any Adobe products after DmitryGate.

I think it's going to take alot more from Adobe to win the trust and respect of this community, or at least this member.

I should mention that I am also a former Adobe customer.

Re:Dmitry Sklyarov (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823749)

What happened to Dimitry at the end? Did he serve his sentence?

Re:Dmitry Sklyarov (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823885)

What happened to Dimitry at the end? Did he serve his sentence?

The jury found him not guilty.

Re:Dmitry Sklyarov (2, Informative)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823886)

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978497.html [com.com]

He ended up not serving a sentence at all. He was released from charges by the government which went after the company he worked for instead, and the jury acquitted the company of all charges. Looks like the system worked for once. Too bad no one took advantage of the chance to strike down the DMCA (or at least parts of it) as unconstitutional.

Dmitry Sklyarov was executed on November 3, 2004 (2, Funny)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823936)

Oh, he was executed for "Crimes Against Copyright".

The dirty little secret of the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits is that the people who refuse to settle and pay "damages" are being charged with the same crime. Fortunately for the file traders, most of these cases are being settled in one manner or another, but they aren't going to arbitration or a courtroom. Some DHS agents just walk in, arrest the "file trader" and charge them. While the 12 year old girl and the 80+ grandma who got served reached the media, there's already about a dozen 20 something file traders that have been put to death by the federal government.

One poor slob was running Freenet as well as eDonkey, and was promptly charged with distributing child pornography. Most people don't know that the courts have taken running freenet as "proof" that the user is distributing kiddie porn. Remember folks, if you can't police the content, police the utility.

Re:Dmitry Sklyarov was executed on November 3, 200 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823951)

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Dmitry Sklyarov was executed on November 3, 200 (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11824030)

Imagine the goatse.cx picture.

Now imagine it's talking.

And yes, I did just pick a round about way to say "I'm talking out my a**."

Or perhaps it's a picture of the future, as corporate rule of the nation and laws continues to grow, and the vestiges of Democracy and Human Rights are slowly but surely stripped away.

Re:Dmitry Sklyarov (1)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823811)

I think it's going to take alot more from Adobe to win the trust and respect of this community, or at least this member.

In contrast to other companies (say, SUN), Adobe choosed a license that is free and well understood.

uhoh (5, Funny)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823694)

Combine these with an Apple and you have the downfall of mankind...

Parent Not Troll- FUNNY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823779)

Geez, who moderates here these days?

Re:Parent Not Troll- FUNNY (0, Offtopic)

beanlover (710167) | more than 9 years ago | (#11824002)

It's modded down because it references something that the moderator wishes wasn't the case...but is.

This is why I metamod on a regular basis.

How about a little effort from the moderators... (1)

William_Lee (834197) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823962)

Can we now expect the same lack of effort on /. from the moderators that we get from the editors? The parent was a joke employing wordplay regarding the fact that Adobe has named its open source releases Adam and Eve. The Apple comment is referencing the Downfall of mankind via Original Sin in the Garden of Eden, not an attack on the Apple corporation trolling for trouble. Hmmm, the jokes aren't as funny when they have to be explained in detail to triggerhappy mods...

Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823703)

Hahahah warez them doood so leet to get their serizls 0 day :) woot free free

Just what the world needs... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823709)

...another GUI library.

FWIW... (3, Interesting)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823713)

...Searching for "Linux" using the site-only Google search on the opensource.adobe.com website, yields one result: http://opensource.adobe.com/pipermail/pythonphotos hop/2004-January.txt

And that one result no longer exists (you get a 404 when trying to access it). So if any of you folks are preparing to post "Oh boy, that means Photoshop for Linux is just around the corner!" -- you'd better think again.

Re:FWIW... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823740)

So if any of you folks are preparing to post "Oh boy, that means Photoshop for Linux is just around the corner!" -- you'd better think again.

Yes, because as we all know, two UI libraries are all there really is to Photoshop...

Re:FWIW... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823758)

"Oh boy, that means Photoshop for Linux is just around the corner!" -- you'd better think again.

Why? it's been here for a long time [gimp.org]

Re:FWIW... (1)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823804)

"Why? it's been here for a long time"

I personally prefer The GIMP to Photoshop, and I never said anything against the GIMP. But I think you know what I meant ;-)

It looks like the x11 license to me. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823714)

X11 License
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

This license is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.

source [gnu.org]

adam - overambitious? (4, Funny)

dhbiker (863466) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823726)

from the webpage:

The most ambitious library, Adam, stems from the intuition that the logic behind a simple human interface can be distilled to a function:

f(x) -> x'

Is it just me but does this not sound a little to broad a definition of a library? I mean I can write anything like this:

My most ambitious library (The_Meaning), stems from the intuition that the logic behind the entire universe can be distilled to a function:

f(x) -> x'

obviously there is much work to be done on "The_Meaning" but when it is finished it will do everything (and the answer will turn out to be a disappointing 42 ;-) )

Since when do they cater to open source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823759)

I remember looking for info on when they and MacroMedia would release products for linux, and found that Adobe was one of the most Anti-open source companies out there. Now they are open-sourcing some crap that noone cares about. I want photoshop for linux! That and StudioMX are the only reasons I use Windows, but they both run fine under Cross-Over Office anyway... It just seems silly to emulate such a crappy OS.

Re:Since when do they cater to open source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823813)

> I want photoshop for linux!

http://www.gimp.org/

MIT License (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823769)

Haven't looked at what they've actually released, but kudos to Adobe for not creating yet another "Open Source" license like so many other companies seem to do in this situation.

Where are the previous open source projects? (4, Interesting)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823785)

For several years, Adobe used to have several other open source projects on their old web site [archive.org], that have now been removed [adobe.com] from their current web site, http://www.opensource.adobe.com [adobe.com]. The missing projects include:

Simulated Partial Specialization for non-compliant C++ compilers. [archive.org] Allows a user to obtain many of the benefits of partial specialization of C++ templates without direct compiler support.

Python action plug-in for Adobe Photoshop. [archive.org] Allows a user to write Photoshop action plug-ins using Python. Has Python interfaces to all the actions APIs.

Python plug-in for Adobe Illustrator. [archive.org] An Illustrator plug-in adapter that allows users to access the C level API from Python

Python plug-in for Adobe After Effects. [archive.org] An After Effects plug-in that allows users to access the C level API from Python.

Python module for Perforce SCM. [archive.org] A C coded Python module that provides access to all the calls in the Perforce source code management system SDK.

-Don

Help me out... (2, Interesting)

BlueThunderArmy (751258) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823801)

For the less code-literate among us, what exactly do these files do? Adobe's site doesn't make it clear at all, so R'ing TFL doesn't help...

Re:Help me out... (2, Informative)

dauthur (828910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823860)

These files can be used to make newer "user-released" projects, just as how Linux works, as well as E-mule, Mozilla, Soulseek and other opensource projects. Anyone can update the program to tailour their needs.
Say I needed to fix a compatability issue in Photoshop so I could run PSP/JFR files from Paint Shop Pro. The problem is getting Adobe to read PSP files, and getting PSP to read Adobe files. If I needed to do this, I wouldn't have to wait for Adobe to come out with a fix.

Re:Help me out... (2, Informative)

Swamii (594522) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823987)

For the less code-literate among us, what exactly do these files do?

In layman's terms, it's a collection of pieces of code (Application Programming Interface) for building a user interface. This aides developers in writing applications that have user interfaces (i.e. most desktop applications).

Richard Stallman said (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823806)

The FSF won't happy until they release it as "Adam and Steve".

I've found the first bug! (0)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823808)

Distributed under the MIT License (see accompanying file LICENSE_1_0_0.txt
or a copy at http://opensource.abobe.com/licenses.html)

It's wrong in every one! I am 311337 programmer! And now, my greatest hack of all! A Photoshop clone!

10 Print "Starting Amazing Photoshop clone!"
20 Run Photoshop
30 End

Cherry OS guy, please send your job offers to the above address.

Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11823861)

Even though several close friends work for adobe,
I am still not much of a fan of anything
they do. Although Photoshop became the
defacto standard for creating graphics for
the web, I now use fireworks and am much
happier.

And, I suspect, like many, I groan when I
realize I have clicked a pdf on the web.
Despite having a 3 Ghz machine connected to
a T3 I still have to often wait 15-20 seconds
for a pdf page to come up. And then I get
to suffer while it uses 50 (fifty) megs of
memory!!! No thanks guys...

Something easy and useful (2, Insightful)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823873)

How about "open sourcing" (or just making freely available) the damn Photoshop plugin SDK?

Sounds like an ambitious undertaking (5, Interesting)

TeeJS (618313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11823904)

From the article: (referring to Adam) "The code providing this functionality accounts for a third of Adobe's code base and nearly half of the bugs found during development."

combined with: "The Eve layout engine has already saved Adobe millions of dollars in localization costs."

Means this contibution (mainly UI work based on Boost [boost.org]) is a very decent contibution.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...