Linux Class 2

Wallpaper Other

Source (link to git-repo or to original if based on someone elses unmodified work): Add the source-code for this project on opencode.net

0
Score 50.0%
Description:

tutanchamun

13 years ago

Beside the whole discussion a normal question: Whats her name?

Report

debian1993

13 years ago

I'm sure that it's Heidi :)

Report

sphincter

13 years ago

You people hollering about what is and isn't right, or what is and isn't art, or what is or isn't attractive need to all just shut up. I see nothing but a bunch of asshats trying to impose their own narrow and myopic vision on the rest of the people here. You don't like it? Move the feck on. Vote it down. Whatever. But shut up about whether this should or shouldn't be here. Some people actually like bigger women, instead of those scrawny, teats-on-a-twelve-year-old-boy pics that many here call "hot". Linux is, after all, about choice.And attempting to force your own moral and/or views of what's appropriate and what isn't destroys that. Congratulations.

Report

SouthernCross79

13 years ago

Personally, I'm okay with this.

Report

SouthernCross79

13 years ago

Oh and just another thought for y'all, didn't the Venus diMilo have two on her?

Report

slick83

13 years ago

GoNg!! Back to the corners gentelmen !! p0rn or not this is really poor try to present a wallpaper lol

Report

cmost

13 years ago

You conservatives are a joke! Why is it so hard for you to take something for what it is? This is a woman with her breasts exposed. That's it! Whether she's beautiful or not, or offensive or not is merely a matter of personal opinion. But no: All of a sudden it's "vulgar" and "porn" and "offensive" and "not art"; in "poor taste." Just keep reading the other comments and you'll get the idea. Give me a break! Guess what folks, we all have bodies, and underneath our clothes, we're all naked; heck we came into this world naked. No other animal covers itself with artificial "clothes." If, as you religious zealots claim, man is made in God's image, then revealing that image is to pay homage to God and of utmost respect. If you're not religious, then revealing one's body is just that. Let's stop being illogical and inconsisstent.

Report

beany

13 years ago

You can's seperate it into conservative v.s liberal. I'm very liberal and really don't think we should post poorly constructed images of soft porn, male or female. I'm not against porn at all In fact I am connected to the Internet Porn industry. I have profited from it many times. Personally I don't think KDE LOOK is a place for it. It is also not a place for Religious rants or Political posterizing.

This should'nt be a place of anger, (Windows bashing excluded).

sorry bout the spelling.

Report

chavo

13 years ago

I agree 100% I have no problem with porn at all, but it doesn't belong here. There's a time and place for everything and this is not it.

Report

cpufx

13 years ago

Somthing beautiful is nice for a change:)

Report

Divilinux

13 years ago

yes but the pictures looks very voulgar..
is not a mini-dressed woman..and is not artistic..
remind me some porn movies^^

Report

aergern

13 years ago

Did you mean vulgar? If names and words have power.. it's only because they're spelled correctly. ;D

Report

ziuchkov

13 years ago

I don't care about the nudity, but if you're going to claim it as art, do a decent job on the artwork. The only way it belongs on kde-look is if it is related to linux or kde. You people who slap the word "linux" onto an image and call it artwork are seriously lacking talent. You would be better off not submitting anything, than submitting such a poor piece of "artwork" when you already know you're going to get others up in arms for the nudity alone.

Report

surfg

13 years ago

I agree with the fact that this is piss-poor artwork. It's no more than a cut-and paste job. And a sorry one at that. No originality and no talent shown at all.

Personally, I don't think the girl is even that hot.

However, I'm forced to disagree with your stance of "kde-related" stuff. People come to this website looking for stuff to make their desktops look better (to them, at least). If people find it beautiful, there's no reason why it shouldn't be here.

Maybe not the point you were trying to argue, and if it's off-topic, I apologize.

Report

clearthought

13 years ago

agree!

Report

beany

13 years ago

perfectly stated!!! You speek the truth.

Report

petar

13 years ago

However you twist it, pornography is pornography! And it should be removed from the eyes of the community!

Report

cyrtainne

13 years ago

This is'nt pornography by definition. However, I find it rather distastefull. Nudity in wallpapers must be done right, and this is just crude.

Report

caminoix

13 years ago

wait a sec. what for? i mean, what is it going to change? is pornography going to die out this way or what? it's like keeping prostitution illegal - absurd.
"why" is another question...

Report

tvsadako

13 years ago

You're right, this wont change anything in the way of "destroying" pornography, a goal that obviously violates a person's right to expression and choice. However, there is a time and place for everything, and when people visit kde-look they simply aren't expecting to see pornography (or simply naked people, depending on your definition). Why not simply post on another site? Or, a better compromise, alter the thumbnail so that it is understood what is depicted, but without the nude features. There is no right or wrong in deciding what is and is not appropriate, but disregarding another person's opinions because you view them as backwards simply aggravates divisions in society. Censorship is not cool, but neither is invalidating the ideals of others. Since this site is viewed by people who are not looking so view such content, and perhaps by people who appreciate it, it would be fair to balance the wishes of all parties involved and change the preview so that each visitor is allowed the choice of whether or not to view the potentially offensive content.

Report

cmost

13 years ago

Uh, not pornography!! Pornography is sexually explicit, this wallpaper is NOT! This is merely the depiction of a stunning female form. This is no more explicit than what you would see in a museum. That is, if you've ever visited one. Men wander around shirtless all the time and they, too, have breasts. Why is that ok but when a woman does it it's all of a sudden porn? Broaden that narrow mind of yours and try to override your conservative upbringing or religious brainwashing! That failing, grow up! You're an adult now.

Report

caminoix

13 years ago

1. this lady is beautiful, just beatiful (obviously, not as much as my wife in case she read it ;)
2. i don't think i could think nudity is offensive in itself. human body can be really beautiful (though not every single specimen actually is...) and what could be wrong in showing sth beautiful?
3. nevertheless, the overall artistic quality of this picture is not so to say stunning.

don't you guys think 3. is more important than 2.?
especially on a site like this.

Report

katana2k

13 years ago

absolutely nothing wrong with this submission.

why censor nudity? whats the point?!

Report

BorgQueen

13 years ago

I don't really see the big deal. Its just a bosom. There's nothing lewd about it. I think awhile back there was one that was very inappropriate, it was taken down within 24 hrs. Nudity isn't a problem, its what the person is doing that is. She's just standing there looking pretty.

Now, proprietary OS candy emulations, that's offensive!

Report

DrWeird

13 years ago

Er... bla, and a bunch of other words I don't know what they are...
I just want to know... why are you all so big on what liscense it is? No one pays attention to it and cares! lol
It's still there, either way.
He could have put it under Proprietary License, and no one would have known the difference. Except of course for the one who made it. It doesn't hurt you. It would just hurt the one who put it up here, and you act like you're gonna get sued.

Report

12345678910
product-maker Count: 4 Rating: 5.0
File (click to download) Version Description Downloads Date Filesize DL OCS-Install MD5SUM
*Needs ocs-url or ocs-store to install things
Pling
Details
license
version
updated Apr 01 2006
added Apr 01 2006
downloads 24h
0
page views 24h 2