September 2005 Arch Screenshots

Lowe · 2005-09-10 18:25:29

Gullible Jones wrote:

Hey Penguin, while you're at it could you change Lowe's latest thumbnail into a link and a "disturbing image" warning?

It's hardly disturbing, it shows some pants and the edge of her boobs? You can see that kind of stuff on day time tv, do you find that disturbing too? Seriously, grow up.

Vince · 2005-09-10 18:26:55

http://img343.imageshack.us/img343/14/screenshot7ta.png

Even if it's unoriginal, it's pretty and I can't help it

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-09-10 19:08:12

you asked for.

elasticdog · 2005-09-10 19:17:07

I'd say rather than labeling something as "disturbing image", perhaps we should just adopt a "work-safe" policy...if something is questionable, just post a link to it, and mention that it's Not Safe For Work (NSFW). These types of things are highly objective, but it's easier to play things on the safe side, and makes it better for everyone...less arguing/flamewars/etc.

Lowe · 2005-09-10 19:57:07

elasticdog wrote:

I'd say rather than labeling something as "disturbing image", perhaps we should just adopt a "work-safe" policy...if something is questionable, just post a link to it, and mention that it's Not Safe For Work (NSFW). These types of things are highly objective, but it's easier to play things on the safe side, and makes it better for everyone...less arguing/flamewars/etc.

Well mines was art, you know. Saying it's disturbing is like asking to cover The Statue of davids penis with a sock.

sh__ · 2005-09-10 20:07:31

Every good screenshot has a video clip playing in the background. Well, this has four. Oh, the redundancy. 8)

keevn7 · 2005-09-10 20:15:23

Pink Chick: Which BMP theme is that and where can I get it?

T-Dawg · 2005-09-10 21:56:25

elasticdog wrote:

I'd say rather than labeling something as "disturbing image", perhaps we should just adopt a "work-safe" policy...if something is questionable, just post a link to it, and mention that it's Not Safe For Work (NSFW). These types of things are highly objective, but it's easier to play things on the safe side, and makes it better for everyone...less arguing/flamewars/etc.

I like the work-safe thought. From now on, the objectional images I come across will be replaced with a link to the image as the following:

Warning: objectional material

Straight porn will be deleted without notice.

Does this work for the family/work people?

dtw · 2005-09-10 21:56:28

Lowe wrote:

elasticdog wrote:
I'd say rather than labeling something as "disturbing image", perhaps we should just adopt a "work-safe" policy...if something is questionable, just post a link to it, and mention that it's Not Safe For Work (NSFW). These types of things are highly objective, but it's easier to play things on the safe side, and makes it better for everyone...less arguing/flamewars/etc.
Well mines was art, you know. Saying it's disturbing is like asking to cover The Statue of davids penis with a sock.

a) it's called the David
b) I understand your slight frustration at having you screenie "censored", I personally thought it was pretty tame but when someone "complains" we are obliged to do something - the key phrase is "generally objectionable" - so if someone objects then...well, we're obliged. It's not like we have deleted it or removed you post, we have just de-thumbnailed it. However, the screenie does also alude to a considerable Hentai collection and I think we'd all prefer you kept that to yourself, if that's ok?

dtw · 2005-09-10 21:58:17

keevn7 wrote:

Pink Chick: Which BMP theme is that and where can I get it?

It could be bmpx. I have a CVS PKGBUILD for it but I can't test it cos I can't upgarde to testing without destablising my system for pkging for [community]

Lowe · 2005-09-10 22:05:54

dibblethewrecker wrote:

a) it's called the David
b) I understand your slight frustration at having you screenie "censored", I personally thought it was pretty tame but when someone "complains" we are obliged to do something - the key phrase is "generally objectionable" - so if someone objects then...well, we're obliged. It's not like we have deleted it or removed you post, we have just de-thumbnailed it. However, the screenie does also alude to a considerable Hentai collection and I think we'd all prefer you kept that to yourself, if that's ok?

Who cares what the statues name was, I just googled for naked statue to prove a point. Now now just because I have a folder named hentai means nothing, I'll continue to post that exact same position of rox filler because having a folder named hentai isn't exactly rule breaking and not only that it's the cleanest folder I have, my home folder is a complete mess so no showing that. Of course I'll make sure my wallpapers have clothes on them next time, but really I think your being just a bit over sensitive.

I'm only 17 years old and obviously my mum doesn't know I download hentai, but she did see my wallpaper and thought there was nothing wrong with it even my 12 year old sister plays on my comp and it doesn't bother her. Really I think you people need to open your eyes a bit, there is worse stuff on day time TV, but hey I have no problems following the rules if that's the way you want it to be.

dtw · 2005-09-10 22:15:01

That's the way it has to be I'm afraid, we normally have to work to the lowest common denominator. We don't always follow this strict as sometimes common sense over-rides a bit but in this case there was an objection so we tweaked your post.

Remember: what we are saying is that you are more than welcome to post links to your screenies if they are a bit "naughty", just as lon as there is fair warning. That's pretty fair I reckon....

Now, there was this one time where this guy went mental and posted full size "tub girl" pictures all over the forum and that was VERY nasty. This case pales into insignificance by comparison...

elasticdog · 2005-09-10 22:16:23

Lowe...I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, I actually think your screenshot is just fine as well. But as the big Dibble-man said, if someone does object, it stands to reason that something be done and I was merely offering a suggestion on how to go about it.

I'm not sure that I even like the phrasing "Warning: objectional material", because like I said, it's fairly subjective and calling someone else's screenshot objectionable basically means you're calling it offensive. What some people find offensive, might be completely acceptable to others. I know Ubuntu went through this same argument on their forums with their default installed artwork that depicted people in the nude (although covered up).

I'm a frequent visitor of Fark.com and find that simply adding NSFW onto a link pretty well takes care of all cases where that might be necessary. Most people have a pretty good grasp on what would be appropriate for work and what's not, it's not a term that shows bias or disapproval of the content...plus the few things that might receive complaints can easily be moderated.

dtw · 2005-09-10 22:29:25

You'll noticed I used the words "adult image" - I think that's pretty un-subjective

T-Dawg · 2005-09-10 22:41:18

dibblethewrecker wrote:

You'll noticed I used the words "adult image" - I think that's pretty un-subjective

I thought adult seemed rather pornish. It's not easy finding the right terminology to suite everybody...I guess NSFW is better but I didn't think everyone would understand what that meant. I guess it could be spelled out though...
Anyways, this thread is meant for screenshots so please continue to post them

Lowe · 2005-09-10 22:44:02

Okay guys that's cool and I do realize your trying to be as fair to everyone as you can. I'll be more careful next time.

dtw · 2005-09-10 22:57:18

Cheers, Lowe

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-10 23:21:06

Thanks. Sorry if I overreacted a bit.

(And FYI, I don't find David disturbing, or for that matter the nude paintings found in almost every art museum.)

Guest · 2005-09-11 06:32:23

keevn7 wrote:

Pink Chick: Which BMP theme is that and where can I get it?

It is samsara-amp1-0, http://www.customize.org/list/winamp2/0 … sc/samsara.

the Moo-Crumpus, formerly known as the Pink Chick.

klapmuetz · 2005-09-11 15:13:42

Hello, it's me again.

Because my former post was deleted, I will try to post it again with a "NSFW" label.
It contains: Some of the nastiest things thinkable: <, _, -, |, (, ) and I even saw a W. Those are only the printable ones, imagine the nastienest the unprintable ASCII characters are doing... You don't want to know that.

http://benny.klapmuetz.org/screenshot.png
NSFW! You will immediatly be booted of the job, expelled from the family and kicked in the nuts by a random person.

Keep it real.

Lowe · 2005-09-11 15:43:56

[URL=http://www.ImageShippers.com/images/JOW53314.png][/URL]

She's fully clothed!

agm · 2005-09-11 23:37:23

.thumb_desktop_2005-09-12.jpg .thumb_laptop_2005-09-12.jpg

Again some Updates. Featuring Openbox, Pypanel, Rox, Aterm, GQView, etc.

phrakture · 2005-09-11 23:59:26

Lowe wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:
Hey Penguin, while you're at it could you change Lowe's latest thumbnail into a link and a "disturbing image" warning?
It's hardly disturbing, it shows some pants and the edge of her boobs? You can see that kind of stuff on day time tv, do you find that disturbing too? Seriously, grow up.

Regardless, the moderation staff is here to try an appease everyone. I stand behind Penguin's decision. I actually recall seeing your thumbnail while I was at work and quickly scrolling past it while checking to see if anyone saw.

I would appretiate it if screenshots such as that are linked to and not thumbnailed, along with a "Not Safe For Work" [NSFW] warning.

And I fully apologize for my part in that...

Cam · 2005-09-12 00:50:47

[URL=http://www.lynucs.org/index.php?screen_id=13626544864324d0a66544e&p=screen] fluxbox0304cz.th.jpg [/URL]

iBertus · 2005-09-12 02:21:56

Cam wrote:

[URL=http://www.lynucs.org/index.php?screen_id=13626544864324d0a66544e&p=screen][/URL]

WOW! Nice match between the fonts and the background image. It really makes the mood.

Arch Linux

#101 2005-09-10 18:25:29

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#102 2005-09-10 18:26:55

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#103 2005-09-10 19:08:12

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#104 2005-09-10 19:17:07

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#105 2005-09-10 19:57:07

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#106 2005-09-10 20:07:31

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#107 2005-09-10 20:15:23

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#108 2005-09-10 21:56:25

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#109 2005-09-10 21:56:28

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#110 2005-09-10 21:58:17

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#111 2005-09-10 22:05:54

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#112 2005-09-10 22:15:01

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#113 2005-09-10 22:16:23

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#114 2005-09-10 22:29:25

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#115 2005-09-10 22:41:18

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#116 2005-09-10 22:44:02

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#117 2005-09-10 22:57:18

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#118 2005-09-10 23:21:06

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#119 2005-09-11 06:32:23

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#120 2005-09-11 15:13:42

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#121 2005-09-11 15:43:56

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#122 2005-09-11 23:37:23

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#123 2005-09-11 23:59:26

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#124 2005-09-12 00:50:47

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

#125 2005-09-12 02:21:56

Re: September 2005 Arch Screenshots

Board footer