Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 May 14

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Computing
Computing desk
< May 13 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 15 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


May 14

edit

Forgot My Computer Password

edit

I forgot my computers password and was wondering if anyone knows how to log (or hack) in without one. My computer uses Windows XP. I can enter in to another user but can not, or don't no how to, change the password from another user. --DJ Bogan (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can log in as the Administrator, you can reset the password in the "Users" Control panel. Astronaut (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to login as the Administrator, any administrator account would do. Or the reset disc mentioned below. F (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Offline NT Password & Registry Editor boot disk allows you to change the password of any account on your computer. --169.232.232.219 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cracking Windows login passwords with physical access is almost trivial with the SAM file and Ophcrack. --antilivedT | C | G 09:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zenity (Linux)

edit

Does anyone know how can I do this in zenity (the collapsible text)? Reading the man pages did not helped... _thanks_ Hacktolive (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't see an easy way to do this. You could investigate options such as --class and --gtk-module (see: man zenity). Alternatively, you could get hold of the source code and try to make your own Zenity to support the collapsible text feature you want (start by contacting the guys mentioned on this page). Astronaut (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried "man zenity" but it did not help, anyway, just found other way to do it, maybe even better. thanks anyway Hacktolive (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google can't find her

edit

Any idea , why google can't find the article Annemarie Eilfeld? 92.227.16.188 (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think google builds its database by crawling the web, so if no other pages on the web link to that article google will not index it, because it doesn't know it exists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, but it is linked, at least from one site:
http://www.thewiplist.com/celebrity/Annemarie+Eilfeld_1840752/
and 4 times within wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Annemarie_Eilfeld
Is it possible, that the template in the Daniel Schuhmacher article might cause the problem? Regards 92.227.16.188 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been around for just one month. Give Google some time. It is a good thing that Google takes time to index articles on Wikipedia. It would be a waste of time to index articles as soon as they are created since most are quickly deleted. -- kainaw™ 13:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is, that google needs 5 to 12 hours to index a new article. Let's wait and see: Umar Khan, created today, 13:27 (UTC). 92.227.16.188 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a bad example, because somebody has put a speedy delete template in it (without a reason, by the way). Let's take this: Lectionary 122, created today, 13:32 UTC 92.227.16.188 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video playback problem

edit

For the last few days, I have been having trouble playing videos : the videos slow down, play with interruptions or pause midway. This happens for videos being streamed online as well as for files stored in the computer. The videos, though, play more or less alright in the VLC Media Player (which I recently downloaded) but even with this, sometimes, the videos display gets muddled up. The problem occurs with Realplayer, Total Video Player and Windows Media Player, with every video I try to play. Any solutions? --Leif edling (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked your hardware acceleration settings? 144.138.21.132 (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With these very settings, the videos were running perfectly up until a few days ago. If there was a problem with hardware acceleration settings, would it be possible for the videos to run in one player and not in the others? --Leif edling (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things can cause jittery playback. Have you installed some new program (or malware) that is running in the background and occupying a large chunk of CPU? Have you updated any codecs or other video playback tools? Are these the same videos which previously played well? Have you had a hardware change or new drivers? Windows media playback is a sort of complicated pipeline of software, ranging from the file system to a decoder to a DirectShow filter to a graphics overlay and finally out to the screen... any one element can cause havoc with the others. Nimur (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These vids were running perfectly just a few days back. I have not had driver changes/codec updates done recently. If it were malware, how come the videos run more or less without a hitch in vlc? --Leif edling (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May i ask what Operating System you are using? as this is a known bug in Ubuntu.– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using Windows XP.--Leif edling (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netrw functionality outside of vim?

edit

I'm wondering... is there a free latex editor for windows with functionality similar to the netrw plugins of vim? I.e. the ability to edit files via ssh. I know that Kile can do this, but there isn't a windows version. Thanks, --129.67.117.76 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at SSHFS? It may solve your problem without a plugin by mapping a "virtual" file system over an SSH connection. You will be able to access remote files as if they were on the local machine. There is a Windows port available, as well. Nimur (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you install Xming and PuTTY, you can run the graphical editor remotely, on the Unix system, by ssh-ing in first and then starting the graphical applications. This really helps work around many Windows and *nix portability issues. Nimur (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your priorities are. If you like vim and are missing this feature from it, then you can just run it on Windows. If you don't like vim and your only concern is having this feature in some editor on Windows, then you have many choices: Emacs can edit over SSH (although you'd need to get an SSH client separately), and there are many others. If, instead, you're looking for an editor that's specifically good for LaTeX and can work over SSH, then that's a matter of taste, of course: you can even search for these (although oddly the first hit there seems to not do SSH). If none of those suit you, then Nimur's suggestion of decoupling the LaTeX and SSH parts is surely the way to go, because then you can look for good LaTeX editors without having to restrict yourself to ones that directly support SSH. --Tardis (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<span><b></b></span> instead of <span><b></span></b>, why?

edit

My friend couldn't explain to me why what's in the title applies. She suggested I ask you. Obviously, I know nothing of programming, or I'd know the answer to this... 90.193.232.41 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard HTML (and XML) requires that nested tags are strictly ordered. This eliminates ambiguity about which tags apply at any given level of the Document Object Model. Although a lot of web-browsers accept non-standard HTML like the example above, they are technically "incorrect" if they render, and are just trying to gracefully fail instead of popping up an error message. Take a look at HTML and XML#Correctness. To put it in layman's terms, these specifications exist in order to make sure that there is exactly and only one correct interpretation of the document object model. If you violate those rules, you introduce ambiguity into how you want the document presented. (In your second example - after closing the span tag, but before closing the bold tag, there is a region of uncertain text-formatting). Nimur (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it uncertain? What else could it be, other than bold? 90.193.232.41 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The example as given isn't ambiguous, but consider "<b><b></b></b>". Does that mean "<b1><b2></b1></b2>" or "<b1><b2></b2></b1>"? Only be imposing the above rules can you make it unambiguous. --Sean 17:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is of note that both of those are functionally identical for any text in the middle of both tags. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding, it's not so much the question of how to merely display the text, but how to interpret it: if someone asks for the contents of the span tag (say, from JavaScript, or some general DOM application), what should be returned? We could introduce a new data type "still-open tag" (and "already-open tag" for other cases), but that would complicate everything because HTML would then contain more than tags; furthermore, in the "already-open" case you would lose access to any attributes that were specified earlier. If we implicitly adjoin a </b> to the return value so as to make it a legitimate fragment of HTML, then someone that scans through the document tag-by-tag will decide that the b tag ends twice when it really doesn't. Put differently, given <span>AAAA<b>BBBB</span>CCCC</b>, what is gained by not rewriting it as <span>AAAA<b>BBBB</b></span><b>CCCC</b> (or as <span>AAAA</span><b><span>BBBB</span>CCCC</b>) that justifies complicating the set of possible HTML constructs? --Tardis (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A simpler answer, which I think is equally correct, is that modern software treats markup languages like HTML and XML as defining a tree structure, where the contents of each matched pair of tags is a branch, and can contain either more matched tag-pairs (a sub-branch) or text.
Another way of looking at such markup is as a set of instructions that have to be followed in order - so that <i>a<b>b</i>c</b> could be interpreted as turn on "italic" mode; emit "a"; turn on "bold" mode; emit "b"; turn off "italic" mode; emit "c"; turn off "bold" mode.
But this makes manipulating the content much more complicated - you can't change the "b" into a "z" (but keep its formatting) without following all the instructions again from the beginning. As Tardis points out, you could come up with ways of interpreting an unbalanced set of tags as a tree, but they'd introduce a lot of complexity for very little gain. - IMSoP (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ripping a DVD?

edit

Alright so I have this Chobits DVD, and I want to put it on my computer and possibly convert it to a MPG so it can play on my iPod, but the only things I'm able to use are Windows Media Players, iTunes, and all basic tools on my computer.(Parental controls are not allowing me to get to Google or anything other than Achieve Online website and Wikipedia.) Is there a way to do such a thing with the things I am provided with? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a direct quote from Microsoft's website;

"

It is not possible to use Windows Media Player to rip movie files from a CD to your computer's hard disk. However, if you can see the movie file on the CD in Windows Explorer, then you probably can copy and paste that file to your computer's hard disk instead.

"

Now, as of about 2 minutes ago i did not know that you can not rip DvDs with WM. I did not quote this to be rude, mealy informative. It does suggest something useful. If you can see the DvD in My Computer then try Copying the files to yuor hard drive. I hope this helps. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! Yeah, I figured that out the hard way, by crashing my computer almost.(I can't stand vista!) And I also figured out how to copy and paste the files, I'm doing that right now actually. 6 Minutes left. ^^ Yay! It's in VOD format though... Wonder how I can convert it to MPG... Hmmh.. Gothrokkprincess (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you might have to download something to do that. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But.... Try dragging the largest of the VOB files in to iTunes, See what happens Disclaimer; I am not responsible if your computer suddenly bursts in to flames  :)– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa man my computers running slower than usual! x_x;; Uhm, see, thing is, I don't use iTunes for my iPod, I use Rock Box, so I just plug it in, and it's like a Flash Drive, or thumb drive, same thing. Copy paste into folders I make into it, and it plays. Only thing it can play video wise though is MPG's.. v_v;; Sadens my heart that all my mp4's will no longer play on it. T^T Poor poor narwhals..! Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Alright! I found a way to convert it without a converter!! I think.. Just right click, Rename, and delete the VOB part and put MPG. xD It changes it automatically..! Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if that will work. Its kinda like slapping a label on a Spanish book saying "this book is in English". Please let me know if it works. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Well it worked whenever I took m4a music files, changed it to MP3, and they played on my iPod. Even if it didn't support m4a. ^^ I don't see why this wouldn't work, but oh well. I'm copying them onto it right now, then I'll see if it can play them or not..! I'll let you know in 1O minutes when it's done. Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some interesting information

– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Huh.. I didn't know that, thanks.. o.o; Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It opened as if it were going to play, I clicked Play From Beginning, and it just froze on me, and I had to restart the whole thing.. Man.. Now how am I gunna play em? T.T Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets try something. Open your start menu. Right click on your internet explorer, click 'Run as Administrator', If it lets you run it then you might be able to get around those Parental controls. Once done download VLC– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Nope it asks for an Admin password. T^T Plus I already have VLC, it's just blocked. v_v Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i don't know of any way to convert these files for you. That is unless you somehow unlock VLC or download a converter. VLC has the ability to convert the VOB File for you. Talk to the person who put those restictions on that computer. Ask them nicly to unlock VLC for you. Tell them the truth; That you would like to copy DvDs that your own to your iPod. Good luck. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmh.. My Dad put them on here so I could focus on school, seeing as though I'm home schooled, I highly doubt he will unblock it.. Ugh, oh well, just going to have to have friends email me some converted files then. Thanks though! You helped me quite a bit. ^^ Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it hurt to ask? in the mean time lets just wait, Maybe someone else sees something that i am overlooking.– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will do. ^^ Gothrokkprincess (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you use a password cracker to gain administrator access to the computer and download the tools you need onto a usb stick. Then they'll be available to you under the restricted account (don't use the admin account all the time cause you'll be caught) and you can hide the usb stick when needs be. Also download portable tor and portable firefox so you can view other websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or have your friends download and burn Ophcrack– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you want is DVD ripper software. There are lots of places to download it from, but unfortunately Achieve Online and Wikipedia are not among them. Best bet is to ask your parents if they will download a variety of ripper software for you - be prepared for a discussion about the morals of ripping DVDs (best not go down this route if they are copyright lawyers or film/TV execs), but if you try to break the parental controls, the answer will always be "no" until you have earned their trust again. Alternatively, get a friend to download the software onto a USB pen drive or CD for you. Astronaut (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saving a web-page: Firefox vs. IExplorer

edit

Sometimes (but consistently) IExplorer is not able to save a page at all (mainly from nytimes.com, but also others). However, I don't have any problems saving these pages with my Firefox. Why?--Mr.K. (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Fire Fox is way more awesome and WAY more advanced than Internet Explorer is. Gothrokkprincess (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or to put it more precisely, Firefox is standards-compliant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already suspected that Firefox was more advanced. I just didn't know where and how.--Mr.K. (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider upgrading to IE8 (assuming you aren't already using it). I've just tested and saved multiple pages from nytimes.com without a problem. ZX81 talk 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can try using some sort of virtual printer to save webpages for future use 194.99.216.135 (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Install Windows on ext3

edit

Is it possible to install windows on a ext2 or ext3 partition? – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe I watched my Dad do it once a while back. Though I'm not too sure how he did it, what he was doing, and whether or not that actually was what he was doing. @_@ Gothrokkprincess (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Windows is built to work with FAT, FAT 32 and NTFS formats only. You would need to hack some sort of application into the windows system architecture to make this work, which would be far more trouble than it's worth. In short, windows is not compatible with ext3 unless microsoft decide they wish to include support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is de-compiling and re-compiling the kernel an option?– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not realistically practical. So much would change that your resulting system would no longer be "Windows." Nimur (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, it would almost be easer to just install linux, then install VirtualBox and us windows under that... oh well– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved
This seems within the realm of possibility even without Microsoft cooperation. GRUB could presumably load NTLDR off of an ext2 partition. There is an open-source clone of NTLDR (FreeLoader, part of the ReactOS project). And there is a kernel-mode ext2 driver for Windows (Ext2 IFS) which could deal with the rest of the boot process. I think NT can also boot from a ram disk (like Linux initrd) and it might be possible to hack something together that way. I tend to agree with the "more trouble than it's worth" assessment though. I wouldn't use this unless it was stable and well supported, and it's hard to see the motivation for putting that much effort into it, since the two-partition approach works just fine. The only advantage I can see would be saving disk space, but I think most people have more disk space than they know what to do with. -- BenRG (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are dead wrong. It is not possible to have a working copy of Windows on an ext3-partition. 194.99.216.135 (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er... okay... could you elaborate? -- BenRG (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you want to use ext3 in Windows? What's wrong with NTFS?--24.8.183.197 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Install linux (or BSD) on ntfs (or fat32)

edit

Since linux is open source there should not be any principial problems, right? There is UMSDOS, but it works only in fat16 (and has been discontinued), and there is Wubi, but it creates ext2(3) filesystem image. Is there a more native method? -Yyy (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux based disk utilities

edit

Are there Linux based Disk utilities that will mimic Checkdisk and Defragment on a NTFS Drive? Or could these programs ge downloaded and installed under Wine?– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fsck would be the equivalent to chkdsk. Most of the filesystems that are used under Linux do not support defragmentation, and generally rarely have need for it; see the defragmentation article for more details. --76.167.241.45 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind this is to mount a NTFS disk and use Linux utilities to check for NTFS problems. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  19:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NTFS-3G might have some utilities for that. Windows programs under wine MIGHT not work due the the low level requirement for this kind of programs SF007 (talk)
I don't think ntfs-3g has that support. These guys talked about it and linked [1] to a *nix based ntfs defragger. I have no clue how well it works, if at all, or whether to trust it. I don't think fsck will work with ntfs (which is why ntfs-3g is around). You might find this [2] interesting though. Shadowjams (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Font identification?

edit

Can anyone help me with this font - it's from the opening titles of Dad's Army, but is still in use (the modern DVD commentaries etc. are produced in it). Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very similar to "Bodoni MT Black"– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It reminded me of a bold version of Bookman. Tempshill (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like one of the Caslon typefaces. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the similarity to all those (and some people have AMAZING visual memories!!), but the picture's font is completely rounded, it doesn't have any corners, which all of those do... It's a hard one! I've also just found a larger example, already on-wiki (here) if that helps at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give an example of what other tv shows/movies have used this font? – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know of any, but as I say, there must exist an actual computer .ttf or similar version of this font, in modern times, as it's still in use on modern sources ([3] among other places). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:According to thiswebsite it is EF Aster. I hope this helped...– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction; Cooper Black seems to be the winner. At lease according to http://new.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, definitely Cooper Black — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, guys! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved
 – Cont)  20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo-editing FOSS

edit
  Resolved

Hello, everyone! I was wondering if there is any decent photo-editing FOSS available. I'm looking for a little more than just the basic viewer with brightness/contrast controls and stuff. I'm looking for more editing capabilities (like something that can do touch-up effects), free software that could compete with Adobe. Thanks!--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GIMP is the closest free equivalent, but Photoshop is a far sight better. Tempshill (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Gimp is a good program. To quote from thissite;

"

Probably the oldest and most well-known open source graphic application - GNU Image Manipulation Program or Gimp was started in 1995 and has since then grown to the status it has today. Gimp is a valid competitor to all of the commercial bitmap drawing programs on the market. Among its features you find: powerful painting tools, layers and channels support, multiple undo/redo, editable text layers. Gimp as a plug-in architecture and a scripting engine that allow easy extension of it's functionality. More than a 100 plug-ins and scripts are already available. Also Gimp imports files from Photoshop (psd) and can also read scalable vector graphics (svg) files."

– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt - GIMP is the answer. It's by far the most powerful and stable OpenSourced image processing program. I doubt claims that Photoshop is significantly better. I know a lot of professional artists who prefer GIMP - and the CinePaint program (which is a spin-off of GIMP) is used quite extensively in the movie business. But for the price - you certainly can't beat it! If you already know photoshop - you might want to check out GIMPshop - which is GIMP - but hacked to make it look and feel much more like Photoshop. Some people prefer the user interface of Krita - but it's nowhere near as powerful as GIMP. You may also want to check out Comparison of raster graphics editors...but you're almost certainly going to pick GIMP anyway - so you might as well not bother! SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the OP mean by "FOSS"? Astronaut (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FOSS. -- 164.214.1.51 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paint.NET is also quite good. It seems to have become less and less open sourced with time, but you can still get full MIT-licensed source code. -- BenRG (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless GIMP has changed dramatically since the dozen times I have tried to be productive with it over the years, the real answer to this question is infact Paint.NET. It's free and very easy to use for the scope that the OP dictated. GIMP, while featureful and capable, is anything but user-friendly (even when compared to Photoshop). Having spent a decent amount of time working with each (Photoshop, GIMP, Paint.NET) I can assure you that for the imaging needs of almost all users, Paint.NET is going to be painless. --66.195.232.121 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, everyone! I've downloaded the GIMP-powered "GimPhoto" and it's great. I'll also give Paint.NET a try per your suggestions. Thanks again!--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 21:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2009_May_14&oldid=1142586413"