Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: D <nospam@example.net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:16:21 +0100
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bbc490e6-beb2-06bc-ce4c-672fb698f415@example.net>
References: <vkjmdg$30kff$1@dont-email.me> <ltmbcmFjcgpU1@mid.individual.net> <ba6263f8-1e7f-5eb1-ae06-757f2ed7a018@example.net> <lto9qbFso18U3@mid.individual.net> <slrnvnegk1.2cl6d.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> <8b262a1f-507f-ef10-e4d3-a981dca5b7d1@example.net> <vl8jdq$3st6d$1@dont-email.me> <vl8jul$3sqfa$4@dont-email.me> <vl8otk$3splv$3@dont-email.me> <vl8qm7$3u6t2$1@dont-email.me> <vl93dl$3vkun$1@dont-email.me> <vl9449$3vo6h$3@dont-email.me> <vl9aov$pp7$1@dont-email.me> <vla4hr$5n4v$1@dont-email.me> <vlblqj$harb$1@dont-email.me> <lttopaFoh2cU8@mid.individual.net> <vle8uk$12sii$2@dont-email.me> <c686fb74-4fac-0809-7005-417c76ee0e3b@example.net> <nbReP.633803$oR74.271654@fx16.iad> <NnVeP.44028$vfee.11890@fx45.iad> <vo6ubb$3ue2q$2@dont-email.me> <RhOdnY5Kb8vulDr6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com> <vo7lp6$25uo$2@dont-email.me> <655acbf6-05e5-69ff-8a44-9f7075aafa2e@example.net> <ddNpP.567620$iNI.244105@fx14.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-1870367311-1739049383=:16712"
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3326619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M";
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ddNpP.567620$iNI.244105@fx14.iad>
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:65283 comp.os.linux.advocacy:685394

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-1870367311-1739049383=:16712
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT



On Sat, 8 Feb 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2025-02-08, D <nospam@example.net> 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."
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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?
--8323328-1870367311-1739049383=:16712--