Nick Hanson

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0

About Nick Hanson

  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fredericksburg, VA (USA)
  • Interests
    Washington Capitals Hockey, VA Tech Football, Computers, Politics

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://spaces.msn.com/nhanson
  • AIM
    nhanson1974
  • MSN
    da_asmodai@hotmail.com
  • ICQ
    578287
  • Yahoo
    da_asmodai
  1. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rick knows the difference between "your" and "you're". :wink:
  2. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rick knows the difference between "your" and "you're". :wink:
  3. I'd just like to say... THANK YOU!!! Paint.Net is pretty much the only app I've found so far with a 64bit version. Not even the betas of Microsoft's new Live apps (Live Messenger, Liver Writer, or Live Mail) have 64bit versions (though the 32bit versions work well enough). Their Live OneCare doesn't support 64bit Vista and so won't even install. A good deal of my drivers are still in beta and unsigned. I realize that perhaps these things are more difficult to port to 64bit but people are also being PAID to do them so it's still impressive to me that Paint.Net, a project done by basically one person in their spare time is so on the ball. Thanks again.
  4. I'd just like to say... THANK YOU!!! Paint.Net is pretty much the only app I've found so far with a 64bit version. Not even the betas of Microsoft's new Live apps (Live Messenger, Liver Writer, or Live Mail) have 64bit versions (though the 32bit versions work well enough). Their Live OneCare doesn't support 64bit Vista and so won't even install. A good deal of my drivers are still in beta and unsigned. I realize that perhaps these things are more difficult to port to 64bit but people are also being PAID to do them so it's still impressive to me that Paint.Net, a project done by basically one person in their spare time is so on the ball. Thanks again.
  5. *bump* Perhaps I missed a more recent post stating this feature was no longer going to be implemented (it is a rather old thread) but as of this thread the indications seemed to be the feature was "coming soon". Not only did it not make it into v2.6 (as expected) it didn't make it into the 2.7 series either nor has it made it to v3.0. For whatever reason a fair number of games I play only output screenshots (using the in-game mechanic) in TGA and it would be really nice to be able to see what the heck these things were without having to open each one.
  6. With the two radial control blocks in the bottom corners it gives me the impression that it's made for a handheld device and those are for use with your thumbs. I think MS has a touchscreen keyboard that is split into two radial sections in the bottom corners like that for use on the UMPC or whatever the heck that handheld computer thing they're selling is called.
  7. You're assumption is incorrect. We have MINIMAL say in when we can upgrade the OS on our corporate desktops. That decision has already been made by others and we won't be getting rid of Win2k till 2008 at the earliest. We DO have a lot of say in what applications we use to do our jobs. There are restrictions of course: budgetary, legal, as well as policy. Budgetary is fine with Paint.Net 'cause it's free (beer). Legal is fine with Paint.Net because the license permits its use. Policy is fine with Paint.Net as long as we standardize on it and each dev isn't using a different app or version. We've been happily using Paint.Net for a while now but the version we are able to use will soon be unsupported. Since the source is available and we are developers we are asking for Rick's opinion of a possible fork. We are NOT asking him to DO anything and we are aware that it is LEGAL for us to do the fork. We have a great deal of respect for Rick and we aren't going to do it if he does not want us to, call it professional courtesy. Your situation is entirely different from ours. We developers are not CHOOSING not to upgrade. If it were up to us we would do so. It's NOT up to us. We do PLAN to upgrade though it's just a long way off (2008 at the earliest). In the meantime we are considering supporting a Win2k version of Paint.Net. That's true from a strictly LEGAL point of view. Many developers become quite upset however when someone comes along and forks their project. Especially when the project is still under active development. So sure we aren't REQUIRED to get Ricks permission but we're asking for it anyway out of respect for Rick and the excellent product he's given us. I'm going to assume you mean it woudn't be a problem LEGALLY. We agree there (see above). It would most certainly be a problem technically however and again we have ZERO intention of backporting improvements from 3.x to Win2k. Our intent is simply to support (i.e. provide fixes for bugs that pop up when Rick's solution would be: upgrade to the latest non-Win2k version) and possibly add printer and scanning support in Win2k. I couldn't disagree more. Making software work on the hardware you have is NOT what open sourse is all about. It's about freedom not hardware but this isn't a discussion I want to take up in this thread. We aren't DEMANDING anything of Rick. Quite the contratrary we are ASKING him his opinion of what we want to do even though we aren't strictly REQUIRED to do so. We're doing it out of respect for him and the tool he has provided for us and we aren't asking to him to DO anything.
  8. I have no idea what this means. What question stands? It makes no difference at all to us that Windows 2000 is developed or supported. We're developers. The OS is supported by the Systems/Networking people (not us). Likewise it is their decision, NOT OURS, on when we can upgrade the OS. If it was our choise we'd upgrade the second Vista came out but then we don't have to deploy or support it either. They've decided we aren't upgrading to Vista till 2008 or so and thus we have a problem with a tool we using being unsupported until then. Since the source is available and we are developers a fork becomes an option. I've already stated all of this I don't know what it is you don't understand. You have it completely wrong. I'm not asking Rick to DO anything, he should continue to work on v3. If we just take the source, post it up on sourceforge and start hacking away at it many developers would be pretty upset by this even if it is LEGAL to do so. So we're asking Rick how he feals about this because we have a great deal of respect for him and his work. This is irrelevent to the discussion. I have no idea where you got this from but we have ZERO intention of attempting to backport features of Paint.Net 3.x to the 2.x series. We want to have a public code base to fix any bugs that may crop up after Rick stops supporting the version and to add features that Rick doesn't even have that we would like (namely print and scanning support on Win2k). Again WE are going to do this, we aren't asking Rick to do anything but give us permission to do so. No, you have clearly misunderstood the entire request. I've already stated I think Rick's course at present is correct (i.e. dropping support for Win2k in v3+). We are a VERY small portion of Rick's user base and it makes no sense for Rick to change development to support us. Even if we go forward I've already stated we're likely to switch to v3+ when we finally do go to Vista (but thats quite a ways off and our concern is what happens until then.) Why would we pay Rick to carry Win2k baggage along with it? It's a mute point however because we are a group of developers and have ZERO budget of our own. I don't represent a corporation I represent a group of developers who work in a corporate environment, there's a HUGE difference.
  9. I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking why someone who is unwilling to upgrade from Windows 2000 to XP or Vista need to upgrade to Paint.Net 3+ then they don't. It's not possible. Paint.Net 2.x runs just fine on Windows 2000 though and when Paint.Net moves to 3+ all those users (which is admittedly a TINY percentage of the overall Paint.Net user base) will have an unsupported and no longer developed piece of software. Well you're probably not a programmer either. In my situation I have an installed user base who uses a tool that is going to (has?) become unsupported. The user base likes the tool and are themselves programmers and the source for the tool is available. While it doesn't make sense for Rick to derail progress for such a small user base it does seem potentially worthwhile for a fork to occur so that we may continue to support the product ourselves (and perhaps pick up some outside contributions) until such a time as we meet the requirements to upgrade to a supported version.
  10. First let me say I didn't mean to imply that I beleived the direction you are going is not correct. I believe you are doing the right thing for the future of Paint.Net in moving to newer technology that the user base will all eventually migrate to. The point of the fork would NOT be to draw users from Paint.Net, I don't see it competing with Paint.Net at all because it's specifically targeting users that you no longer support. That said I represent a group of people that still have many Win2k systems (primarily in corporate environments). I already KNOW my user base and I'm sure it's a TINY fraction of the number of people who download Paint.Net but again the point isn't to compete with Paint.Net. These corporate Win2k boxes will NEVER be UPGRADED to XP. XP offers virtually ZERO value to a corporate seat over an already installed Win2k box. New seats are purchased with XP but in order to standardize applications all new seats will likewise use this fork. Eventually all these Win2k computers be REPLACED with new ones running Vista at which time it is VERY likely that we would move to Paint.Net version 3+. Corporate policy however states that this will not occur however until Vista sp1 is released or 1 year has passed since the Vista launch whichever is LONGER. This means from the point you released the last Paint.Net 2.x version (already happened?) to sometime in 2008 the people I represent would have no support and no updates to the product they use, thus the fork. As for making it easier to port to Mono that really is just an afterthought and there is no specific plans in that respect. It may very well be that there is nothing to do in order to achieve that and of course if the problem lied in mono we aren't going to make work arounds in the fork when fixing mono would be the better solution. That said the things you mention are great candidates. Making a linux installer, replacing the shell extension with a nautilus extension, and removing the photo printing wizard in favor of a linux specific print dialog. That last one works out great anyway because removing that XP specific wizard and adding a Win2k compatible print dialog is one of the desired features anyway. The goal here would be to be able to standardize our corporate tools even across platforms (something we don't currently do but has some appeal) though admittedly this is probably not going to happen. Personally I'll continue to use the latest version of Paint.Net on my HOME PC as it's currently running XP and I'll likely upgrade it to Vista early in 2007. That said I'll be running Win2k on my work PC for quite some time yet (2008?) and so will many of my coworkers. I guess the question we are asking ourselves is how many people does it take to merit a fork. We are in the dozens only and while that is insignificant to you it seems like a good enough number to us. Plus if we put the code repository in a public vcs (sourceforge?) maybe we'll also pick up some random outside contributions (we aren't banking on that though). Anyway nothing is certain yet like I said we're just testing the waters.
  11. Rick, First let me say this is just a general inquiry not a statement of intent. That said since v3.0 no longer supports Win2k and never fully supported it (printing/scanning) and I assume the 2.x series will no longer be developed what are your feelings on having your project forked? More specifically: The idea would be to take the source for the last 2.x version and use that as the basis for a project. The main goal of the project would be to continue supporting Win2k, expand that support to possibly include printing/scanning, and potentially even try to rework some things to make a mono version easier to develop in the future. This fork would of course not continue to be called Paint.Net but you and the other Paint.Net developers would be credited as appropriate. Also it would be made clear that Paint.Net did form the basis of the project. I believe this is all allowable by the licensing but I'm looking for both clarification on that as well as a personal statement on your opinion of this. If this were to happen, and it is far from certain that it would, I would only want it to do so with your approval even if it is not strictly required by the license. Again, just testing the waters not a statement of intent.
  12. Any of you Firefox fans following the IceWeasel issue? I'm just curious what others think of it. For those that don't know: The Mozilla Corp. decided that the Debian Linux distribution can no longer distribute Firefox under that name without including their non-free logo and artwork and submitting all patches to Mozilla for approval before release. Debian has a social contract that prohibits them from distributing non-free items that forms the whole basis for their distribution. They previously had an arrangement with the Mozilla Foundation that allowed them to use the name without the non-free artwork but the new Mozilla Corporation has decided that they will no longer allow this. If you call it Firefox, you MUST use the non-free artwork. As a result Debian has been forced to rename their Firefox. The name they chose is IceWeasel (Ice is not fire and a weasel is not a fox, thus there can be no trademark confusion). This issue is magnified by the fact that Debian forms the basis for many other linux distributions, including the currently most popular desktop linux distro Ubuntu. This means that it's entirely possible that the Firefox brand could all but disappear on Linux (just as XFree86 has been replaced by X.org). It remains to be seen if this will have any impact on the PC side. To make things even more confusing Gnu has FORKED Firefox and also calls their fork IceWeasel (they also forked the Mozilla Suite and call it GnuZilla.) While Debian will not use this fork in their upcoming relese (Debian's Iceweasel is just a rebranded Firefox) they have stated they will look into working with Gnu in the future. This issue also applies to all other Mozilla projects. For example Debian has already renamed Thunderbird to IceDove and they have IceApe coming also. Personally my primary system is a XP box and I consider myself a windows man. However I do run Debian on my old hardware and I am enjoying the flame war going on right now in the blogs between Mozilla and their fans and Debian and theirs.
  13. The CSS support is MUCH improved (though still not as good as either Firefox or Opera.) The security features are GREAT. I like how it handles RSS much better then Firefox. The Quick Tabs are a great feature. All that said I HATE the UI. I was hoping it would grow on me but I've been using it since the first public beta and I still HATE it. So much so that I'm probably going to get a 3rd party browser that uses the IE engine just because the UI is so painful for me to use. I can't believe usability studies said this thing was good.
  14. I'm confused. Doesn't the Donate button on the website go to Washington State University? Does this OneCare ad revenue go there to? Do they want more money to host or something? If you would like to derive money from Paint.Net (which is reasonable consider how much time/effort you put into the project) why not just make the donate button funds go to you (and your fellow developers) instead of Washington State University?