Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Feedback Requests' started by Sol_HSA, May 19, 2007.
+1 Excellent points for the Speccy one!
So does GNOME. And .tar.gz, .tar.bz2, .rar, .cab and some other more arcane formats...
but this doesn't make .tar.gz a native format for Linux nor .zip a native format for Windows XP (besides .zip was invented decades before Windows XP). It's just the most popular, but it happens to be so because the most popular software for opening and creating archives is WinZIP followed by WinRAR. But both of these programs can open (but unfortunatelly not create) .tar.gz and .tar.bz2.
I've yet to find an up-to-date archiver for Windows that doesn't support .tar.gz or .tar.bz2 (and even if such an archiver exists, it plainly sucks and anyone who uses it should get a better one).
Anyway, you don't have to use the .tar.gz archives. You could just get the monolithic installer which does the job for you (yes, it's the previous version but it works).
EDIT: i don't want to sound harsh or bad or anything. You've done a great job on making these filter (esp the speccy one)... i just assume that you want to make the GIMP version and i'm trying to make some things clear .
If I want to create a zip on windows (or mac, for that matter), I can use the integrated features. I've yet to see a archiver for windows that makes it easy to create .tar.gz packages, but then again, I haven't really been looking for any.
My point here is that we're talking about development tools for windows, and there's one package format (apart from self-extracting ones) that's works on all xp (or later) systems, but they decide to use one which requires third-party software.
And this is cleverly absent from their download page to make things convenient.
Yes, I'd love to, but it just feels like these things have been made difficult to set up deliberately =)
My plan for the time being is (unless I get things running with that monolithic installer) to write a standalone proggy that loads a bunch of different image formats and spits out the filtered ones. When I find the time. =)
You may want to try 7zip. It's free and open source. Also it's native format (.7z) is superior (in compression) to everything else available. And while we're on that, between .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip, .zip has the worst compression especially for an archive that contains lots of small files (like those distributed by MinGW). Also even between .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 there can be a huge difference (Mozilla's source code was distributed in both formats and the .tar.gz file was around 10MB larger than the .tar.bz). When you have to pay for bandwidth such things are important, especially when you're one of the most known websites about a development tool .
No, it's there. It's just too low.
I had this feeling many times at the past. I got angry on stuff like the naming scheme, why Linux uses case sensitive names, why they don't use a well know filesystem (such as FAT32...), why their graphical user interface is so different than what everybody knows (Windows), why should i have to use a so crippled command line environment to do some very basic stuff (bash) which looks so different than what i know (DOS), why i have to compile most of the program i want from source, why they don't include the dependencies of their applications *with* their applications and leave me to track them down, etc.
However as i used the system and saw how and why things are like what they are, i got to understand the decisions. After a while everything made sense. My major problem was that i simply didn't knew the system, which was a different one.
So i think that you find these things frustrating only because you don't know about them .
Well, that would be nice too .
You don't seem to understand.. I don't care what the package format is. It might as well be PKPAK for all I care - I still would have to go and fetch a third party tool to unpack it. These are development tools targeted for windows; why not use a package format that, say, is built into the target platform?
Ah, between different separate packages there's one line that's just titled 'mingw'. I had been searching the whole page for keywords like 'monolithic' etc. Maybe I'm just not clairvoyant enough.
Note that I've ported stuff, for living, for dozens of obscure platforms. I've also ported stuff to linux. But somehow gnu tools in windows seem to be.. hostile.
Luckily the modern, more sane packaging management systems take care of all that mess.
Still, this apparent attitude of, "hey, if you want to help us out, please do run around the block a couple hundred times and ask nicely again" is rather irritating.
Because the package format that is built into the target platform is very inefficient. What's the problem with installing a 3rd party archiving program? It's not the only program you'll ever install in your system and the tools are targeted to people who know about their computer good enough that they won't fear to install new software. At the end if you dislike the software, once you decompress the archives you can remove it.
Their download page sucks. It should have a big fat giant button saying "download installer here". And they should upgrade the installer with the latest tools. I agree with you on that point.
I'm not really sure what you mean by 'hostile'. As i said, when you learn how they work (yes they don't work the same as most other similar tools, but that's because they weren't developed for windows originally), you won't have any problem.
Back in 1999 when i first started using Linux (not as my primary OS though), i used an RPM-based distro which demanded from me to solve all the depedencies . When i tried Debian and later Ubuntu that kind was a thing of the past. I said "was" because i've encountered it these days again since i decided to use a custom Linux system built from sources. But now i have the knowledge to manage them so it's not a big issue (the biggest issue is waiting for source to compile ).
I understand your view. However note that many projects have developed their own methodologies of working (including what tools they'll use and how they'll use them) and they find these methodologies to work with them. It's natural that if someone wants to work with their stuff, to have to work just like the project's developers work.
As an example, most of my programs are built using a custom tool i wrote which sits on GNU make. I use this tool for a few years now and it really makes my life easier. However, if someone wants to work on some of my open source tools, he has to use that tool. Since it's very improbable that he also uses that tool, he'll possibly be used to other tools or means of building source code and he'll object on using this tool. If he wants to contribute modifications which alter the project itself (add/remove files or change build options), he'll have to do it using my tool.
However here is the fine line: i don't ask anyone to contribute stuff back to my work. If someone wants, he's free to do so, but if he wants to send me his contribution, he has to use my tool.
The case with GIMP and others is similar, i think: you don't have to develop for them, but once you decide to do so, you have to play by their rules.
Okay, the standalone converter can be found at:
http://iki.fi/sol/zip/standalone_filters.zip (about half a meg, win32 binaries)
I might look into the gimp filter creation again when I have more time.
Note that I could have compressed only the .exe of the above tool with ZOO, a compressor for which a decompression tool can be found, and let users figure out where to find the bunch of dlls it requires, but figured it would be a bit too much. =) Hope someone will find that toy useful - I haven't tested it throughoutly, so there might be some kinks in there.
Now that it's been a while since I posted those standalone filters, I wonder if anyone ever used them for anything.. =)
I realize this is 9 years old, but is there any way to make the Koalizer filter work on CC 2014? For some reason, it doesn't work for me.