RMagick4J: status update

In first place, my apologies if the lack of a new release or new feature is disturbing someone.

Currently, I’m working on new effects and I need a good convolve method for them to work. In the begining, I tried to replicate the convolve method, but finally I prefer to use the ConvolveOp class, expanding the image previously for replicating some ImageMagick functionality about surrounding pixels (Java has only two options while ImageMagick has a few more). And here is the problem. I cannot get the bunch of code working. Maybe, I’m overlooking something; maybe I’m not. If I cannot get it working in two days or so, I will ask (or even cry) for help.

End of report.

Google, you are not doing it right.

Today, I woke up with a quite sad and disgusting new. Google doesn’t let ADPs (Android Developer Phones) see and download neither copy-protected nor paid apps. Why? Because Google protects the apps using a simple method: “Let’s put the apps in a folder the user cannot see”. But there is the problem, ADP’s users can see every folder, and can copy from and to them. I don’t know who the security guys are but avoiding developers to use that kind of apps is not the solution. If hiding the folder is the new super-safe state-of-the-art piracy-avoiding technique let me say that it sucks. This kind of decisions makes me wonder what’s the actual reason the apps cannot be installed in the sd card. Maybe because it is harder to hide a folder there?

¿Quién dijo ego? (El imp-ego contraataca)

Simplemente, leed esto:

Alfredo de Hoces :: Yo maté a Manolete, curso práctico de libertad de expresión

Por supuesto, yo siempre defenderé la libertad de expresión, en cuanto no me toque de los tres el más largo.

Vamos a contar chistes sobre bloggers 2.0:

¿Cuál es el juguete favorito del bloggers 2.0? El yo-yo.

If you are (un)happy with Ruby 1.8.7

There are two interesting topics in the Ruby Forum being discussed right now. Both opened by George Brown (the guy behind Prawn). They are:

I’ve read every single message because backwards compatibility in Ruby 1.8.7 is something that I do not fully understand. It all started with this comment in Jaime’s blog. There, Jaime wondered if Ubuntu did the right thing by updating Ruby to 1.8.7, even if that version breaks rails (in fact, it did). Well, in this case, my humble opinion was yes, Ubuntu did well by updating Ruby. But now, let’s consider other things.

So far, I’ve seen two kind of complains against Ruby 1.8.7:

  • Coding working in 1.8.6 that doesn’t work in 1.8.7. I’ve been talking James Coglan about it, and the one of the errors was that his code relied on the order of the keys in a hash. But, there are other he hasn’t been able to fix, and is something regarding regular expression. I am unhappy with this kind of “new features”.
  • Other people is complaining about working code in 1.8.7 that does not work in 1.8.6. I really understand them, because they program really cool gems and they have to test if they have used not-valid-1.8.6 code. I wouldn’t care too much about but we must keep in mind that 1.8.7 is a minor release.

Finally, I just want to say that, as many people has pointed out before me, it would be better to migrate to 1.9.1. Common! It has been already released! Anyway, that’s not the point of the discussion. It is all about a minor release with too many changes (I’m not talking about bugfixes). Do I like the new things? Yes, I do (except some that I cannot really understand). Am I happy with Ruby 1.8.7? No, I’m not because it is suppose to be a minor version release and it is making too much noise.