Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 11:47:42 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <6637a9f3-c9bf-2303-d9be-e2bd360a5b7c@example.net> References:

<8b262a1f-507f-ef10-e4d3-a981dca5b7d1@example.net>

<655acbf6-05e5-69ff-8a44-9f7075aafa2e@example.net>

<3sWcnYBIZYYjrDX6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-1208404274-1739098064=:16712" Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3407891"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <3sWcnYBIZYYjrDX6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com> Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:65300 comp.os.linux.advocacy:685453 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1208404274-1739098064=:16712 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sat, 8 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/8/25 4:16 PM, D wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2025-02-08, D wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/02/2025 07:36, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, a lot of this is just "busy work" from >>>>>> people looking for something to do. Their >>>>>> idea of "better" means "better for ME - and >>>>>> screw YOU". It's not better for the average, >>>>>> or even professional, user. >>> >>> I always loved that description of a piece of software: >>> "It's a great improvement on its successors." >>> >>> >>> >>>> I am fascinated by the fact that when it comes to programming, there can >>>> be an enormous disconnect between academic programmers, and a guy in his >>>> room who just pounded out the code and got the work done. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying he did it in the most "elegant" way or the best documented >>>> way, but I do claim that in many instances, the guy without the official >>>> training is able to do it. >>> >>> And, in the end, his solution might be the more elegant one, >>> in that it takes all sorts of real-world factors into account. >>> >>>> Reminds me of when I went to university. I often had to help the A >>>> students with their practical assignments, and I got it done. On the >>>> theory part however, they were always the A students. >>> >>> My university computer science courses left me quite disillusioned. >>> Between my second and third years I managed to land a summer job >>> programming in a small shop in the real world. For my third year >>> I arranged my schedule so that I had Thursdays off, and continued >>> to work at my part-time programming job. There was no fourth year - >>> I dropped out and went full-time, and have been programming ever since. >> >> Were you successful? Did you become a powerful technologist with wealth and >> many women? > > > Not everybody defines "success" the same way :-) Oh, I let the definition of success be done by the speaker. =) > Me, my social skills are more like "Sheldon", so I'd > have had to make billions and know a good yacht-designer > to find nubile insincere women who could ignore that :-) Nah... don't you think a few 100 millions would be enough? ;) Another option might be to find a nice Sheldonesque female with photo model qualities? =D --8323328-1208404274-1739098064=:16712--