it crashed on me occasionally and/or felt sluggish.

I am surprised to hear this. I have used Inkscape for years, and I do not remember it ever crashing on me or it feeling anything but snappy. But I am using it on a very capable machine. I am not saying what you say is untypical (or untrue), just that our experiences with it are very different, and that could explain our different views on it. Do you remember how much free RAM Inkscape had to work with when you used it? Maybe that could have been a limiting factor for Inkscape that caused the sluggishness and the crashes.

Sometimes developers simply do not know about bugs or limitations that only happen with specific hardware, that they just do not own. That is why they really value people telling them about these things.

But then why use Inkscape at all?

The value of Open Source is more than just “it is free” and “you can look at the code”. It is the only software that you truly own. It is the only software that humanity truly owns, forever. It is the software that emerged from humanity, yours to use however you like. Nobody (not even the developers themselves) can ever take it away from us, not even a little bit.

Developers contributing to FLOSS often just want to help make really good software. That is their end goal. Not profit, not user numbers. Just good software. Is it going to be the best software there is, right from the start? Of course not. But when you keep working on something with the sole goal of making it good, it will become better than anything that is made for profit.

I believe that in the long run FLOSS becomes un-compete-able. Free and Open Source Software can have years or decades of hard work put into it. Trying to compete with that is an uphill battle right from the start, even within the Open Source world. Proprietary software trying to compete with established Open Source Software? Forget it. Nobody would switch to a proprietary for-profit SSH, even if it were faster. What if something breaks? How do you maintain it? If something breaks 10 years from now? 500 years from now? With Open Source Software, people can look at the code, and fix it. Unlike with proprietary software, where you rely on the original developer maintaining the software.

why switch to Linux in the first place

For me it is reliability.

Something that can be maintained and patched by anybody is much more reliable than something that can only be maintained by a few. Open Source can always be fixed. Does Open Source Software break? Of course it does. Every bigger piece of software has bugs, or develops bugs with changing hardware. But with Open Source Software anybody can fix the bug. Being able to rely on this, is very valuable when you need something to work, and can not afford it to break forever. This is why Hollywood loves Open Source Software.

free software has a quality problem.

I am reading this as “a quality control” problem.

I do not think FLOSS has a quality control problem. The most reliable software in the world is FLOSS. It has a lack of variety in contributors problem (including bug reporting for when something does not work on specific hardware!). Most contributors to FLOSS are software developers, not UX/UI designers. I do not want to say that software developers can not make good UX/UI designs, but the limited time that FLOSS contributors dedicate to this results in users experiencing a lack of polish in many smaller projects.

No, Inkscape is not good.

What are some areas that you think Inkscape can improve? (Other than “be more like what I’m used to”.)

I use Inkscape all the time, and have created amazing things with it.

I’m using lemmy.world, because it can somewhat be used without Javascript.

Do you happen to have a picture? Asking for a friend.

I also do this! My personal top 3 are:

Jesus - Jesi

Bus - Bi

Penis - Penorum

Is this true?

I don’t disagree with you, and you don’t seem to disagree with me, as we’re both saying the same thing: You are not learning the thing you are trying to cut short with AI.

I’m wondering if the downvotes I’m getting really are for saying that AI can have its uses, and that exposure to AI can reveal those.

The point is to learn, and typing prompts into genAI isn’t learning.

I don’t agree 100%, and I’m still trying to find out why this line in particular stood out to me so much.

Will you allow me to twist your words a little to play devils advocate?

Pressing buttons in Photoshop isn’t learning.

Of course I agree with you that schools are for learning, and by prompting GenAI to generate an image, you don’t learn the basics of photography. But AI can be used as a tool, and usage of tools can be taught. So you still do learn something when using an AI, and that is how to use that AI. When to use that AI, and when usage of that AI does not help at all.

And I think that is what krisevol was trying to say. Students that know how/when/if to use AI for something, have an advantage over students that don’t have that knowledge.

This tweet is going to be 11 years old very soon!

For the anniversary I wish she would tell us what movies her boyfriend possibly could have meant, and how she liked them.

What are the requirements?

Here you go. 22 16:9 monitors.

I chose 22 monitors, because all other numbers have very expected results:

Yes they should have. Fuck Mike Brown.

At 1:40 he defines his minimum hole size, but I chose a minimum size that doesn’t count tear ducts.

Also I just found out, I may not know what a hole is. If I puncture a plate twice, it now has 3 ways to tie a string through it, so 3 holes? Can anything have just 2 holes?

Am topologist, I’m counting 6 holes. 3 from the ass to mouth, and each nostril, one each from each nostril to the mouth, and one from one nostril to the other.

Blender calculates this as the optimal packing. It’s smaller than the ideal, but I’ve seen Blender be wrong before.

That’s just to make sure people don’t actually sit down on the ham, as it’s collecting aroma.

Now it makes sense.

Can you explain them? Not having worked with them, I’m still in the “but why?” phase of complex numbers.

Using a different height texture explains the different results. Odd, that the Arizona State University has more bumps than NASA at the same 64ppd resolution. Do you think they added noise to the NASA data? When I add noise to the height map in Blender, I can make it look like this.

I made this model a while ago with the same NASA data. I have no clue where you get the extra bumps in the flat regions from, because I also used the 1GB height map. But I think my bump strength is accurate, because it matches my references.

This is my recreation of your picture. Your bumps appear more detailed than mine. Did you add noise to it, or are your bumps just stronger than mine?