[16:01] <Whoopie> Hi, does anyone have a screenshot of the Maverick plymouth theme in a resolution of 1024x768?
[16:11] <coz_> mmm
[16:12] <coz_> Whoopie,   I dont ,, I am not using maverick right now
[16:12] <coz_> let me google this hold on
[16:13] <Whoopie> coz_: I just found a 640x480
[16:13] <coz_> Whoopie,  is the theme just the Ubuntu 10.10   thing?
[16:14] <Whoopie> coz_: http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/_image?target=Plymouth%2Fubuntu-logo.png
[16:14] <coz_> ah
[16:14] <Whoopie> I'm searching this image in 1024x768
[16:14] <coz_> let me check the theme I have here  I think its the same  hold on
[16:15] <Whoopie> thanks
[16:19] <coz_> Whoopie,   mm I am not finding it on  natty   hold on
[16:22] <coz_> Whoopie,  nope ... I am not finding any images on natty ...o0
[16:23] <Whoopie> coz_: problem seems to be that it's generated by plymouth so someone must have made a screenshot somehow.
[16:26] <coz_> Whoopie,   mmm  yeah apparenlty ...
[17:32] <troy_s> thorwil: Greets.
[17:33] <thorwil> troy_s: hi! belated happy new year. so ... you got unto hacker news :)
[17:33] <troy_s> thorwil: Yeah... silly that.
[17:34] <troy_s> thorwil: A _great_ (and hoped) discussion on lwn, and a bunch of people who are, ultimately, wrong. A fellow that works in GIMP creating monochrome die(?) layouts and calls bunk on bit depth. Wow.
[17:34] <troy_s> thorwil: The discussion on LWN was great.
[17:35] <troy_s> thorwil: (And, despite the fact that I tried to redirect the blasted animosity, vitriol, freetard, zealot, anger, hate, flare up, emotional instability, and other detriment with the second relatively clear paragraph, it indeed happened anyways.)
[17:36] <thorwil> troy_s: got mentioned on other big sites? as the quality on hacker news tends to be notably higher than what was left on your blog
[17:37] <troy_s> thorwil: God... I was really torn at one point. The article has already hit 35000 views and is climbing _still_. I have fluctuated between editing comments (see a few of the toxic comments for reasoning), blocking comments, and taking the whole blog down (If the community isn't mature enough to understand what the hell I was trying to get at then really, why bother at all?)
[17:38] <thorwil> ah, people like boudewijn commenting is great
[17:38] <troy_s> thorwil: Thankfully the LWN article made me hold back a little.
[17:39] <troy_s> thorwil: I am just _tired_ of trying to say "Yes it does matter" to someone that doesn't get it, doesn't understand it, and is immovable on the subject while simultaneously blatantly misleading an audience about why and what is at stake.
[17:39] <thorwil> troy_s: whenever you think it's bad, look at comments on youtube and you will think that what you got is seventh heaven ^^
[17:40] <troy_s> thorwil: Well... in this instance, I can happily ignore all of the 'freetard' inflammatory crap. Not a point of focus as those are the people that seem to think that deep colour has been in Photoshop for 20 years. And quite frankly, I am _loathe_ to discuss Photoshop because it really has _nothing_ to do with the issue.
[17:40] <thorwil> troy_s: misleading kinda implies someone would follow. others will look through it or can't be helped
[17:40] <troy_s> thorwil: In this case, some _do_. Why?
[17:40] <troy_s> thorwil: Because the people that actually know the types of details have the knowledge at a "you can't be seriously arguing the point can you?" level.
[17:41] <troy_s> thorwil: And in fact, some have valuable resources in our community.
[17:44] <thorwil> "GTK is a boat anchor around the neck of any project"
[17:44] <troy_s> thorwil: Yes... side tangential issue I suppose, with a pretty decent discussion there too.
[17:44] <darkmatter> so lads, what is todays discussion? (I'm in no mood to scrollback :P)
[17:45] <thorwil> darkmatter: we discussed not talking with people who can't be bothered to scrollback!
[17:46] <troy_s> thorwil: Note that boudewijn steps up there a few points and dismantles the folks that suggest the depth doesn't matter on displays or other such rubbish.
[17:46] <troy_s> thorwil: And _that_ is optimistic.
[17:46] <darkmatter> troy_s: racist! ;o
[17:46] <troy_s> thorwil: Also, to be fair, the same discussion happened at YCombinator.
[17:46] <troy_s> thorwil: http://lwn.net/Articles/422414/ <- The bit depth discussion starts there.
[17:47] <troy_s> In particular
[17:47] <troy_s> Links to _incredibly_ useful samples for those that are too stubborn - such as - http://mypaint.intilinux.com/?p=19
[17:49] <thorwil> http://mypaint.info/misc/8bit_vs_16bit.png is gold
[17:49] <troy_s> Yes...
[17:49] <troy_s> thorwil: See this is a common misconception with some of the talkers.
[17:49] <troy_s> thorwil: 1) They don't have the experience. Period. They are quite simply _wrong_ and that is a tough word around Libre software.
[17:51] <troy_s> thorwil: 2) They feel empowered to speak when they shouldn't. Period. The discussion goes no further with people that are, as the comments highlight, "I didn't read the article. The bit depth thing is wrong. A screen can only display 8 bits per channel. I can see bands at 25, but I can't see any at 255. The author is an idiot."
[17:52] <troy_s> thorwil: And what frustrates me is that the _informed_ and _intelligent_ people in our community don't shutter them. I know that tends to be the 'feed the trolls', but by stepping up and silencing the absolute rubbish, we make progress. Things like the links boud highlights or the discussions from other informed voices.
[17:53] <thorwil> i've been thinking a lot of how one would go about shutting such bs out in any kind of open collaboration website. not so much about making sure it sees correction
[17:54] <thorwil> you know how a wrong statement often still lives on after it has been debunked, even in very public and complete way
[17:54] <troy_s> thorwil: Exactly.
[17:54] <troy_s> thorwil: Precisely.
[17:55] <troy_s> thorwil: And that's ... I suppose historical?
[17:55] <troy_s> thorwil: How many problems does Libre software bump into that others have already solved and encountered?
[17:55] <troy_s> thorwil: And yet the efficiency of communicating that history is extremely difficult.
[17:56] <troy_s> thorwil: As a parent I know the old rule that you "Can't teach anyone anything" well. It's largely true. Passive teaching without allowing someone to get there themselves is pretty ineffective.
[17:56] <thorwil> stackoverflow does well in fostering quality and letting bs sink to the bottom, but i guess the career buidling aspect plays a role there, not just collecting karma as such
[17:57] <troy_s> thorwil: We have made good strides (obviously logs and such or mailing lists) but the sheer size of some of it is pretty ineffective to arriving at distilled knowledge.
[17:58] <troy_s> thorwil: Another good link that I've since learnt of thanks to the views... http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/page-3.php
[18:00] <troy_s> thorwil: Tangent - I also don't understand how I am supposed to prepare a post for all people outside of my 300 views per day. No clue. I don't syndicate, I don't cross post, I don't do any of that and I value the folks that read the blog. I tend to write _to_ them.
[18:01] <troy_s> thorwil: And yet I read plenty of comments that seems to indicate that I should somehow (*surprise*) address all audiences, all languages, and all roles. Citing bug reports? Easily translatable via Google Translator? Exploratory and explanatory investigations into things that are, by the main audience, entirely accepted and agreed upon?
[18:02] <troy_s> thorwil: Learning experience to be sure. Not entirely sure what to take from all of it.
[18:02] <thorwil> troy_s: you can't target an occasional flash mob audience ... why bother?
[18:02] <troy_s> thorwil: Well that's exactly my point.
[18:03] <troy_s> thorwil: LWN is the _only_ place that stayed on point.
[18:04] <thorwil> though having stuff like that mypaint comparison right in your post as support would be great in any case
[18:04] <thorwil> dinner, bbl
[18:04] <troy_s> thorwil: Sure. But I didn't even know it existed.
[18:41] <thorwil> *plop*