Open- vs. closed-source (also looking for good image viewer)

Jipcy · Post by **Jipcy** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:43 am

I'm looking for a good, compact image editor that works in Windows XP, with the following features:

- Can view the most common file types, like jpg, gif, bmp, and png.
- Can read images directly from common archive formats, at least ZIP. Must also be able to move forward and backward alphabetically within the archive.
- Configurable zoom/centering options for windowed and fullscreen modes
- Preferably (but optionally) open-source
- Relatively compact memory footprint / fast load times
- Relatively fast performance

I've used XnView as my main image viewer for a while now, because it meets most of my needs. Starting with the newest version (1.90.*), XnView apparently supports reading within archives, but I can't seem to make it work. If you know how, let me know. Otherwise, XnView has a bit too many features and options, in my opinion. I'm looking for something a bit simpler.

In the past, when I've tried IrfanView, I've been disappointed with it. To my knowledge, neither IrfanView or XnView are open-source.

Windows Picture and Fax Viewer has many obvious limitations.

I welcome any suggestions or thoughts on this.

EDIT: Well, after a little research I found out how to get XnView to read archives. However, any suggestions would still be nice.

Demios · Post by **Demios** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:25 pm

ifranview?

MisterJones · Post by **MisterJones** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:20 pm

Jipcy wrote:I'm looking for a good, compact image editor that works in Windows XP, with the following features:

- Can view the most common file types, like jpg, gif, bmp, and png.
- Can read images directly from common archive formats, at least ZIP. Must also be able to move forward and backward alphabetically within the archive.
- Configurable zoom/centering options for windowed and fullscreen modes
- Preferably (but optionally) open-source
- Relatively compact memory footprint / fast load times
- Relatively fast performance

I've used XnView as my main image viewer for a while now, because it meets most of my needs. Starting with the newest version (1.90.*), XnView apparently supports reading within archives, but I can't seem to make it work. If you know how, let me know. Otherwise, XnView has a bit too many features and options, in my opinion. I'm looking for something a bit simpler.

In the past, when I've tried IrfanView, I've been disappointed with it. To my knowledge, neither IrfanView or XnView are open-source.

Windows Picture and Fax Viewer has many obvious limitations.

I welcome any suggestions or thoughts on this.

EDIT: Well, after a little research I found out how to get XnView to read archives. However, any suggestions would still be nice.

Why do people give a shit wether it is open source or not, unless they intend todo anything with the code.

Anyway, try cdisplay.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:54 pm

"Why do people give a shit wether it is open source or not"
Because closed source is greedy and evil. also, open source has generally a shorter period of time between releases = faster bug fixing (Compare IE VS Firefox). And also if you can make sure they don't put creepy stuff in the code to blow your PC in Pieces, and last but not least.. Open Source is more 1337.

Jipcy · Post by **Jipcy** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:48 pm

The reason I give a shit is because when the program is open-source, I believe it tends to keep the developers a bit more honest about what they put in there. There's other reasons, but I won't go into them.

EDIT: Thanks, cdisplay has some potential.

MisterJones · Post by **MisterJones** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:27 am

Oskar_Hanberg wrote: Because closed source is greedy and evil.

State clear reasons, don't just put adjective for the sake of spouting baseless crap.

Oskar_Hanberg wrote: also, open source has generally a shorter period of time between releases = faster bug fixing (Compare IE VS Firefox).

That's completely dependant on the overall project management, nothing to do with the publicity of the source. You clearly missed (and even perhaps deliberately ommited) the Opera web browser in your example, which also has very frequent releases (mind you, not as frequent as firefox, but that doesn't say much about FF either depending your perspective).

Not long ago, Fireknight/Cyrus posted about the great customer service Antivir has, to the point of releasing updates within a lapse of a day as soon a report is send to them.

pSX is also closed source as well, and you see very frequent version releases, with many features each.

And also if you can make sure they don't put creepy stuff in the code to blow your PC in Pieces,

Which is why you don't use an administrator account to begin with.

and last but not least.. Open Source is more 1337.

Again, state logical reasons.

I believe it tends to keep the developers a bit more honest about what they put in there

This might result offensive to any author who has no desire of releasing their source for noble reasons.

While the most popular OS projects hardly have thousands of uncredited derivatives, this is not always the case.

I'll put the simple example of the Warcraft 3 map making community. If you happen to release anything of quality on battle.net without any sort of protection, expect within a couple of days to get hundreds of derivatives of your map with other people taking credit. Working for weeks if not months crafting a map for people to enjoy, oinly to get credit stolen by a random jerk who just added a couple of items and released your work under his name is something prone to hurt your self-steem and motivation.

This stuff people only truly understand when they work and release stuff.

Cyrus · Post by **Cyrus** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:02 am

A decent one is CDisplay, it has a fair amount of options/settings. It can at least read archives in zip and rar format.

EDIT: Nevermind it was already mentioned -_-'

MisterJones · Post by **MisterJones** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:12 pm

Cyrus wrote:A decent one is CDisplay, it has a fair amount of options/settings. It can at least read archives in zip and rar format.

EDIT: Nevermind it was already mentioned -_-'

HA! TAKE THAT FUCKEEEER!

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:49 pm

Open source is greedy and evil because by prohibiting others from viewing the code, you do not allow others to see that nothing bad is put in there, read Microsoft and their fucking WGA stuff that they keep lieing about,

also, open source has generally a shorter period of time between releases = faster bug fixing (Compare IE VS Firefox).
[/quote]

If Opera was open source, I'm sure releases times would be shorter, as they would benefit from the help of enthusiast programmers.

I should have the right to use the Admin account on my own computer for less

and last but not least.. Open Source is more 1337
Because sharing your knowledge with others is a good thing. Knowledge breeds knowledge, and it IS possible to get paid for software and still keep it open source. and if you are concerned about code theft, closed source is not really that safe because you can still reverse engineer.

doktor_kris · Post by **doktor_kris** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:31 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:I should have the right to use the Admin account on my own computer for less

Constantly running as admin/root is just plain silly!

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:45 pm

doktor_kris wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:I should have the right to use the Admin account on my own computer for less
Constantly running as admin/root is just plain silly!

It might be, but with open source I at least know that none of the Open Source programs will bullshit me, EVEN if I'm running as admin.

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:03 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:
doktor_kris wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:I should have the right to use the Admin account on my own computer for less
Constantly running as admin/root is just plain silly!
It might be, but with open source I at least know that none of the Open Source programs will bullshit me, EVEN if I'm running as admin.

you are smart enough to hurt yourself and others, and you are dumb enough not to realize it.

Using an admin account as standard practice is like inspecting a fuel tank with a lit match.

You are trusting that open source software has no flaws that can be exploited, and that you can apply the fix before it gets exploited if one is discovered, and thats a very dangerous attitude.

Open source software is not a license or excuse for stupidity.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:35 pm

Not ME in person.. I don't know programming. but chanses are at öeast bigger than with closed source.

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:35 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:Not ME in person.. I don't know programming. but chanses are at öeast bigger than with closed source.

you got nothing to back that up with.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:51 pm

funkyass wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:Not ME in person.. I don't know programming. but chanses are at öeast bigger than with closed source.
you got nothing to back that up with.

closed source requires reverse engineering = troublesome

open source just requires knowledge of the programming language used = less trouble. also, companies like Microsoft has the attitude "Its not a bug until several people complain about it." they can have this attitude due to closed source. If something is wrong in say Firefox, they will have a fix out the same week.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:42 am

MisterJones wrote:State clear reasons, don't just put adjective for the sake of spouting baseless crap.

Firon · Post by **Firon** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:53 am

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:Not ME in person.. I don't know programming. but chanses are at öeast bigger than with closed source.

Which is totally why Azureus (a large, open source project) had been sending huge amounts of info back to their server for months, and initially DENIED it until a lot of proof was provided (then said it was "a simple mistake"). Yep.

Tallgeese · Post by **Tallgeese** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:58 am

Firon wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:Not ME in person.. I don't know programming. but chanses are at öeast bigger than with closed source.
Which is totally why Azureus (a large, open source project) had been sending huge amounts of info back to their server for months, and initially DENIED it until a lot of proof was provided (then said it was "a simple mistake"). Yep.

Which (before Oskar is stupid enough to suggest it was found out because of it being open source) likely could have been done by a dedicated and intelligent individual with a packet sniffer.

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:02 am

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:Open source is greedy and evil because by prohibiting others from viewing the code, you do not allow others to see that nothing bad is put in there, read Microsoft and their fucking WGA stuff that they keep lieing about,

also, open source has generally a shorter period of time between releases = faster bug fixing (Compare IE VS Firefox).

If Opera was open source, I'm sure releases times would be shorter, as they would benefit from the help of enthusiast programmers.

I should have the right to use the Admin account on my own computer for less

and last but not least.. Open Source is more 1337
Because sharing your knowledge with others is a good thing. Knowledge breeds knowledge, and it IS possible to get paid for software and still keep it open source. and if you are concerned about code theft, closed source is not really that safe because you can still reverse engineer.

why is he saying that open source is evil then saying lotsa positive things about it?

edit: er, that [/quote] oskar wrote screwed up the quoting -.-

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:05 am

The tendency of open source software is having more frequent updates. This doesn't mean that vulnerablities are fixed (or fixed properly) at a faster rate. On the other hand, most of you that fawn over open source can't read a lick of the code that you claim to like, so we could hack your system openly because you don't have a fucking clue what we did.

Closed source software tends to have better testing done before releasing. It tends to be slower (like MS, but it is more annoying if they don't acknowledge the bug), but if the bug is reproduced consistantly, it can be fixed, but that is never limited to being open or closed source.

It really doesn't matter which is in use (I do lean towards open source), but if you program shit, it doesn't matter if the code is open or closed source.

alexz721 · Post by **alexz721** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:01 am

I uh, use what works.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:11 am

MisterJones wrote: Why do people give a shit wether it is open source or not, unless they intend todo anything with the code.

Because the penguins implanted mind control devices into their heads and/or are holding their family at gunpoint.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:41 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
MisterJones wrote: Why do people give a shit wether it is open source or not, unless they intend todo anything with the code.
Because the penguins implanted mind control devices into their heads and/or are holding their family at gunpoint.

March of the penguins!

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:10 am

Sure.. the "public" can find bugs even in a program where the source code is the programmers own secret, All I'm saying is its more SIMPLE to do so if the developer chose to let his code be viewable to the public.

blackmyst · Post by **blackmyst** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:38 pm

funkyass wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:
doktor_kris wrote:
Oskar_Hanberg wrote:I should have the right to use the Admin account on my own computer for less
Constantly running as admin/root is just plain silly!
It might be, but with open source I at least know that none of the Open Source programs will bullshit me, EVEN if I'm running as admin.
you are smart enough to hurt yourself and others, and you are dumb enough not to realize it.

Using an admin account as standard practice is like inspecting a fuel tank with a lit match.

You are trusting that open source software has no flaws that can be exploited, and that you can apply the fix before it gets exploited if one is discovered, and thats a very dangerous attitude.

Open source software is not a license or excuse for stupidity.

Will somebody explain to me exactly what the deal is with not running as admin? In the 8 years I've owned a PC for myself, never once have I had any problems doing it. On the other hand, some family members of mine would run as a user and still have their PC lock up or break from all the shit that it gathered. Isn't it just a matter of common sense and a good virusscanner+firewall?

Seriously, I'm interested in hearing this.

ZSNES board

Open- vs. closed-source (also looking for good image viewer)

Open- vs. closed-source (also looking for good image viewer)

Re: Looking for a very simple/compact image viewer

Re: Looking for a very simple/compact image viewer

Re: Looking for a very simple/compact image viewer