Back in the day we used to download files from certain FTP servers via an email with the correct terms.
I never found it very interesting, but it was novel. It would have been much cooler had smartphones been around then.
I have no beef with 8K in a philosophical or technical sense, but I only worry about bandwidth. To me, 1080p alone is already taxing the infrastructure given the mass of humans incessantly streaming. While my old eyes can certainly grok the difference between 1080p and 4K, I just wonder if it is really worth it in most cases? Do I need to see a sitcom in 8K? Is an unboxing video in 8K going to sell the product better than 1080p? I game quite a bit and I still think 1080p is the sweet spot for most games given the cost/benefit ratio of hardware and gameplay. The skeptic in me can't help but think it is nothing more than a ploy by the camera manufacturers and the ISPs to get me to spend more money. But then, I'm old, so take it for what it is worth.
My very first computer purchase was a ZX81 with 16K memory expansion and "high resolution" graphics expansion. Cost a bunch, everything was a tad confusing, crappy graphics looked crappier on a tiny black and white television, loading a cassette took more than 20 minutes... but it got me started in my career. Best purchase ever.
I enjoyed the series produced by public television called "Irasshai". The lessons are available on the Georgia Public Broadcasting site and texts can be purchased from Amazon. For those who have fond memories of "French In Action", this will give you a similar vibe even though it isn't quite the same thing.
Perhaps I am just dense, but the article references, specifically, the "Pro" market. For most pros that I know (and I am among them), our OS choice is often based on our tools, not the other way around. If I need Photoshop, Lightroom, Logic Pro, Visual Studio, etc., switching will be quite a chore. For the average user, this is probably a much more appealing argument.
I think over the past 15 years, lots of Linux users migrated to macOS because it was a pretty, usable Unix. Those users might not be terribly loyal to Apple and will move to back to Linux if it's better for them.
If you use macOS because you need to run Mac software, then you probably aren't going anywhere.
That's exactly my case, I went from Gentoo to Mac about 10 years ago. I loved Gentoo when I was a student but getting it to work perfectly on a laptop was a hassle and while I loved customizing fvwm, macOS had great UI right out of the box.
I think this is the sort of person that elementary are trying to capture. i.e. those who don't want the hassle of customizing the UI, who want a well thought out UI out of the box. And combine that with the underlying flexibility of Linux. They're not quite there yet, but the vision is right.
that's basically me. i went from linux to osx ~9 years ago because it was pretty, worked out of the box and it was a *nix.
now i'm back to linux because i can't stand the decisions apple took. plus, it feels like osx (now macOS) is less and less table on every iteration. i had a BSOD while trying to plug my external monitor ffs.
From what I've seen it's been getting much better. Linux has very powerful tools for media creation/editing now: Blender, Krita, Darktable, Natron are some quality apps that I'm aware of.
I've played around with it a bit - someone packaged Krita as a snap for Ubuntu and I wanted to test installing it. Looked good, more for painting like you say but looked powerful enough for basic image editing. I've seen people produce beautiful digital art with it
That depends on what kind of creative pro you are. In general I'd completely agree with you, but the major VFX vendors all run on Linux - with Nuke, Maya, Houdini, Modo, Clarisse, Mari, etc.
I think you can forget Adobe porting all their stuff to Linux. They have a ton of different projects and teams going on at the same time, they certainly are not going to bother increasing that by 50% to support an open source platform with 1.x% market penetration.
Depends on what work you're doing. My (slowly improving) programmer art workflow is based on Blender, Substance Designer, and Substance Painter, all of which are available on Linux as of a few months ago.
Since the Linux release of SD I've been dual booting elementary on my desktop and have had a pretty solid experience. For me it's games that make me keep a Windows installation around.
One nice thing though is that the "Pro" market for developers is mainly centered around Unix, not OSX. Sure, some devs might like OSX specific tools like a GUI for Git or some such.. but at its heart, most tools are Unix oriented, with plenty of crossover between OSX and Linux.
Yes, even for a developer looking to switch from OSX to Linux, it's much more relevant to discuss how he will be working with his usual tools (git, IDE/editor, installing with apt-get, docker, etc) than whether the dock or the notification bar will behave the same as on OSX.
There are also pros who primarily do web development. They need a terminal window, a text editor, and a web browser -- making switching to a different platform not as painful.
Yes, exactly. I've read that people are expecting photographers to move to Linux because the new MBP doesn't include an SD slot.
They're actually claiming I'm going to give up Photoshop, Pixelmator, Lightroom, CaptureOne rather than buying an external card-reader. And that's ignoring that most of us already prefer 3rd-party external card readers for speed alone ..
If you need Adobe stuff, the alternative is Windows (where it's more stable) not Linux. If you need Logic, you are stuck on macs. For everything else you MAY be able to get away with linux, but simple stuff like Evernote or Google Drive are not available
I am sure it was a slow change that we hardly noticed. I think a couple things contributed to this mentality (there are plenty of others): 1) The tragic death of Adam Walsh became national news and spawned his father's advocacy for victims of crime. That spawned "America's Most Wanted"; a show that convinced viewers that each person wearing a sleeveless undershirt was a criminal. Faces of missing people appeared on milk cartons. No one wanted their child to be next. 2) Cable TV news needs to fill up 24 hours a day, so it breathes fear into us with each story so we don't dare change the channel.
I had a conversation today at work that was on an unrelated topic, yet still dealt with the difficulty of operating in the vortex of left-leaning politics. The main issue that drove me away from being active after many years in the fray was the blazing passion that came from many within the group (almost always young people) who wanted to emphasize their one-key issue over the broader message. Meaning, issues such as, environment, LGBT, animal rights, women, race, peace, etc. were more urgent as a particular issue than finding consensus for a broad range of issues as a unified political group. This splintering caused dissipation of unity, energy and resources. In the end, this behavior caused me to lose any motivation to work for the cause in any real "boots on the ground" way. I wasn't alone in that sentiment. This article echoes a bit of my feelings. I am not pointing fingers and saying this one is right and this one is wrong, I am just saddened because it seems so much energy is being used to attack those with whom we are allied or to preach to the converted just so we can hear our voices through a megaphone. If one was interested in making a particular group impotent, this strategy would appear to be quite effective.
