This is my exact setup as well and dear lord gemma is absolutely batshit insane. I'm trying to get a self-reflection and confidence loop going now, but it does feel like it's not the local resources, it's the limits of the training. Dedicated coding or dedicated real-world task models would be a good optimisation.
The roadblock to this is you seem to have to build it yourself. I've noted that none of the current cloud models are very good at building a replacement for themselves, and there's significant work that needs to be done to make a local LLM reliable in any way. I haven't found a single standalone package that makes setting them up easy. Sure, I can run Hermes Agent and a model, but getting the self-reflection loop in and all of the other stuff the need to actually be good? I'm still at it, trying to get anything to work reliably and factually.
Runescape has a similar thing going on. What everyone's not understanding is not that improvements are bad, lots of the player base also want to see games evolve. It's just that a significant proportion of the audience also like The Old Thing and they're often more engaged as an audience in the first place.
You hear this story over and over about every kind of software.
There are two audiences every successful developer needs to cater to: the "I wish this did X, I want new features" side and the "I liked it the way it was" crowd and they're distinctly different groups.
For a long time I produced a popular technical art asset for video games and even I realised I needed to include every single version of the tool with every single installation. If a developer has to go and find out how to get "the right version" at all then I'm 90% likely about to lose a user.
Focusing on the "we did this right just keep going like that" and really understanding WHAT you did right and WHAT people like is really important. It's really hard to be impartial when you made the world rather than consumed it, but always take the win.
It's very familiar. My father was abusive towards me and so I tried to disturb him as little as possible. He was extremely supportive of my younger brother, however, and we both turned out very differently. He turns to my parents constantly for help (and receives it) and the few times I have I've only been brushed off, and so I've always done everything myself, even if it meant spending long periods living in poverty with no footholds upward.
Years later I'm nearly 50 and have transitioned to female. My now divorced mother decided she likes having a daughter and so suddenly all of this support has materialised and with presumably less time to live the life I missed out on I'm making a conscious choice to start being a little dependent on it and shortcut some things that would have taken longer otherwise.
It's hard to describe but it feels like I'm living a more normal, less marginalised life now. I definitely have more friends, where previously I chose to avoid having any because I felt like having friends meant sharing burdens that were mine alone to carry.
I also see a lot of very similar behaviour in the wider trans community where most people's axis of behaviour revolves around some facet of not having support. We don't all handle it in a healthy way, but I now do my best to help my community find stability and adjust their expectations to having better outcomes.
Different people engage in different ways. I think OP is telling us what got them over that initial habit adoption hurdle. Sometimes spending money on something makes you use it.
My example case is I paid for a year of gym membership up front so I could feel the total I'd spent more tangibly. That got me to go regularly, even if I was just showing up to recovery stretching at first. Now I enjoy going and I look forward to it, and I didn't need a PT to motivate me this time.
It looks like it has a 3d draping view, but it didn't seem very good yet. Check out Marvellous Designer, that's what anyone doing digital-first uses.
Drapey clothing is probably the easiest to freehand without a pattern though. It's accurate fits that need more measuring, planning, temporary stitching, test garments, etc.
It's nowhere near Marvelous Designer. Marvelous Designer is for making 3D clothing for games, animation, and such. It's a limited version of Clo[1] , which is for making real-world clothing. Clo lets you design clothing, put it on an avatar, and watch it move and drape with clothing physics. It looks real. When you see good clothing in a game, it was probably created with Marvelous Designer.
Then Clo exports a file for fabric cutting compliant with the ASTM D6673-10 standard, Standard Practice for Sewn Pattern Data Interchange, which is used for the production of garment patterns. It's kind of clunky, being based on Autodesk DXF, AutoCAD's export format from the 1980s, but it's what the industry uses. You can bring such files into anything that reads DXF and view them. So a widely used formal descriptive language for fabric cutting already exists. You can send those files to a contract garment manufacturer and get garments back.
Marvelous Designer is just Clo minus the cutting pattern export feature.
It's not an accurate recollection at all. In 1990 a couple of us 12 year olds snuck into the university library to use the web to look at the Marathon website. It took 5 minutes to load some trivially-sized gifs and a tiny amount of HTML. They had a pretty decent connection for the day.
Web pages took a minute to load, now we're optimising them for instant response.
The Classic Mac OS model in general I think is the best that has been or ever will be in terms of sheer practical user power/control/customization thanks to its extension and control panel based architecture. Sure, it was a security nightmare, but there was practically nothing that couldn’t be achieved by installing some combination of third party extensions.
Even modern desktop Linux pales in comparison because although it’s technically possible to change anything imaginable about it, to do a lot of things that extensions did you’re looking at at minimum writing your own DE/compositor/etc and at worst needing to tweak a whole stack of layers or wade through kernel code. Not really general user accessible.
Because extensions were capable of changing anything imaginable and often did so with tiny-niche tweaks and all targeted the same system, any moderately technically capable person could stack extensions (or conversely, disable system-provided ones which implemented a lot of stock functionality) and have a hyper-personalized system without ever writing a line of code or opening a terminal. It was beautiful, even if it was unstable.
I’m not too nostalgic for an OS that only had cooperative scheduling. I don’t miss the days of Conflict Catcher, or having to order my extensions correctly.
Illegal instruction? Program accessed a dangling pointer? Bomb message held up your own computer and you had to restart (unless you had a non-stock debugger attached and can run ExitToShell, but no promises there.)
It had major flaws for sure, but also some excellent concepts that I wish could've found a way to survive through to the modern day. Modern operating systems may be stable and secure, but they're also far more complex, inflexible, generic, and inaccessible and don't empower users to anywhere near the extent they could.
> unless you had a non-stock debugger attached and can run ExitToShell
You could also directly jump into the ExitToShell code in ROM (G 49F6D8, IIRC). Later versions of Minibug had an “es” command that more or less did the same thing (that direct jump always jumps into the ROM code, “es” would, I think, jump to any patched versions)
> The Classic Mac OS model in general I think is the best that has been or ever will be in terms of sheer practical user power/control/customization
A point for discussion is whether image-based systems are the same kind of thing as OSes where system and applications are separate things, but if we include them, Smalltalk-80 is better in that regard. It doesn’t require you to reboot to install a new version of your patch (if you’re very careful, that’s sometimes possible in classic Mac OS, too, but it definitely is harder) and is/has an IDE that fully supports it.
Lisp systems and Self also have better support for it, I think.
ENVY suffered of a problem that many other Smalltalk technologies suffered: a conflict between a culture of proprietary zeal as a business model and powerful network effects of adoption. Visualage in general was plagued by this. I used to blame Microsoft and Apple successes for the pervasive push for lock-in and "integration" as a feature that defined the era so strongly.
You had on the one hand had a technology that desperately needed adoption to build a culture and best-practices documentation, and on the other hand you had short term profit motive seriously getting in the way, so what you had that was completely cutting edge for decades, eventually it wasn't anymore - or the world moved in another direction and your once revolutionary technology became an ill fit for it.
By the 2000s with monotone and darcs, but specially with the rise of git, other standards for versioning have superseded what could have been. Smalltalkers already by the 2010s should have been wise to try to incorporate what is clearly a standard now but instead a bunch of invented-here systems for versioning and repositories and hybrids have developed in its place. And by incorporate i don't mean "let's make X for ST" but making it core in their implementation so that the system itself is more easily understood and used, even if its to take pieces of it away and use them which is actually a strength and not a weakness! contrary to some brand of 90s-era beliefs.
Generally speaking, to this very day it's regarded as cool and as a feature in ST world that something is ST-only, conveniently "integrated" into the system as tightly as possible and, implicitly but insidiously and glaringly, near-impossible to use elsewhere except maybe as a concept and laundered of its origin.
Right, but my point is that users didn’t have to write extensions because developers had already written one for just about any niche use one could think of.
And it wasn’t just theming. Classic Mac OS extensions could do anything from add support for new hardware to overhaul the text rendering system entirely to giving dragged desktop icons gravity and inertia to adding a taskbar or a dock. The sky was the limit, and having a single common target to do any of those things (vs. being split between the kernel and a thousand layers/daemons/DEs/etc) meant that if it could be done, it probably had been.
You’d need to touch many different parts of the OS to write those extensions. The difference is that, on MacOS classic, there isn’t much of a boundary between user space and kernel space.
I’ve done a couple MITM toys with Windows 3.x and the trick is always exposing the same interface as the thing you want to replace, even if you only do something like inverting mouse movements on odd minutes, you just pass everything else down to the original module.
