not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
> They're interesting cases. Google is determining the direction that
> the Web evolves, thus the direction Firefox development has to go, and
> they're the main ones paying Mozilla (for now). Hardware manufacturers
> determine how computers evolve, and thus how Linux is developed to
> work well on them, and maybe the Linux Foundation gets some funding
> from the computer hardware companies (is this info public?), or at
> least many code contributions from Intel and the like.

The end of [1] has a high-level breakdown of funding sources. [2] lists
its corporate members and [3] has the fee structure (towards the end).

[1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/publications/linux-foundation-annual-report-2024
[2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
[3]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Brand%20Assets/lf_member_benefits_101424a.pdf

Intel, AMD, Arm, Microsoft, Google, IBM etc contribute code; you can
find them in the kernel’s git history.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 23:47:29 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>
> I agree that the GIMPs GUI can be hard to navigate
> and use sometimes.
>

I cannot understand this at all.

An image is opened. The user then decides what to do with the
image. He then uses the menu to invoke the appropriate action.
What could be simpler?

As with most GUIs, there are more than one way to invoke actions.
Either use the menu or the many toolboxes.

Of course, if a user does not understand the rudiments of image
processing then he will be confused and frustrated by any GUI.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>> Farley Flud wrote:
>>>>> The Photoshop lackeys are always the instigators. They seem greatly
>>>>> distressed by the fact that some folks do not worship their idol.
>>>>
>>>> And, golly gee, the free product isn't as good as the expensive
>>>> product. What a "tragedy".
>>>
>>> LibreOffice beats the crap out of anything M$ offers
>>> these days.
>>
>> I wouldn't know. Both are more than sufficient for my lightweight
>> use. Obviously I choose to use the cheaper one.
>
> I consider both way too bloated, complicated, and slow so choose
> other simpler programs like Ted for word processing. In the same
> way I haven't touched PhotoShop or GIMP in a very long time since
> mtPaint does everything I want. The fact that neither has very
> active development is a plus more than anything - when I do want
> to try something more unusual it still works the same as it did
> years ago when I tried it last, whereas commercial software or its
> open-source copies will have changed everything just for the sake
> of keeping busy and looking new.

Another option to libreoffice, for the ones who do not like it is Abiword.
Tried it briefly, it worked, but libreoffice always was more than enough
for my needs, so I've stayed with it for business use for a decade or two.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-27 18:04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:57:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
>>>>> that good.
>>>>
>>>> If you think Free Software could be better, and you would rather not give
>>>> money to a proprietary company, why not contribute some of that money to
>>>> the development of the Free Software and help make it better?
>>>
>>> Especially since projects like KDE and LibreOffice really need it.
>>
>> Note that money is not the only way to contribute. Even by using the
>> software you contribute,
>
> This is something I wonder a lot about actually. On Windows free
> software developers can see download stats from their website.
> Linux software is usually installed from distro packages though, so
> the author only sees a single download from the package's
> maintainer. Sometimes you see a project on Sourceforge that's had a
> relatively recent update but the monthly download stats for the
> main release file are near single digits. I feel like downloading
> it more times myself just to make the author think they didn't do
> all that work (of documenting and publishing the software, even if
> they're developing it mainly for their own use) for next to nobody.

I evangelize, teach linux and open source, in the hope of bringing in a
new generation into the fold.

From time to time, I might write and email to authors, thanking them, or I
contribute bug reports.

I've helped (behind the scenes, he doesn't know it) the author of curl to
get some good paid presentation gigs.

But yes, it is an interesting idea. Imagine a service that publishes usage
statistics based on package tool downloads.

>> by making others aware of it, you contribute. I actually like
>> projects that are not super wealthy. The linux foundation and
>> firefox are excellent examples of how power corrupts. Would never
>> dream of contributing with money to those two.
>
> They're interesting cases. Google is determining the direction
> that the Web evolves, thus the direction Firefox development has
> to go, and they're the main ones paying Mozilla (for now). Hardware
> manufacturers determine how computers evolve, and thus how Linux
> is developed to work well on them, and maybe the Linux Foundation
> gets some funding from the computer hardware companies (is this
> info public?), or at least many code contributions from Intel and
> the like.
>
> So that development is really about making existing open-source
> projects fit the aspirations of businesses, and one can see then
> how the culture of those open-source organisations might start to
> reflect that more than their original goals. Still, it's much
> better than having to buy software off those companies directly, or
> using more closed-source drivers in Linux.

This is true. An example of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the
good.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024, Farley Flud wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 23:47:29 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that the GIMPs GUI can be hard to navigate
>> and use sometimes.
>>
>
> I cannot understand this at all.
>
> An image is opened. The user then decides what to do with the
> image. He then uses the menu to invoke the appropriate action.
> What could be simpler?
>
> As with most GUIs, there are more than one way to invoke actions.
> Either use the menu or the many toolboxes.
>
> Of course, if a user does not understand the rudiments of image
> processing then he will be confused and frustrated by any GUI.

Also don't underestimate the power of habit. If you are used to photoshop,
moving to something else will be painful.

But if you have no prior experience, it will be different.

My father has been a happy gimp user for many years, and he is 73. No
problem with the gui. The only thing he is sensitive to is if they make
changes or move buttons around. But all software makers enjoy doing that.

On 29/12/2024 04:47, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 12/28/24 2:07 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 28/12/2024 17:21, Farley Flud wrote:
>>> The conclusion is that anyone who elevates Photoshop above the
>>> GIMP is an ignoramus idiot.  Only the GUIs differ and in the
>>> ultimate sense the GUI is totally irrelevant.
>>
>> Ive never used photoshop but Gimps UI is AFAIAC utter shit.
>> I only know about 3 commands and I had to look every one of them up
>>
>> If I am in a hurry I use Corel photopaint
>
>   Corel was/is good too !
>
>   I agree that the GIMPs GUI can be hard to navigate
>   and use sometimes. However the neat-o features ARE
>   there and 99% of the time you'll never need them.
I wish software designers woul group features in a sort of top down
structurd way starting with the most easily understood and useful at
the top and sub menus for the really obscure.
So many times the often used feature is 3 nests deep and the shit you
don't aver want to know about is on the top.
GUI design is something coders don't seem to enjoy.

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 2024-12-29 04:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>> They're interesting cases. Google is determining the direction that
>> the Web evolves, thus the direction Firefox development has to go, and
>> they're the main ones paying Mozilla (for now). Hardware manufacturers
>> determine how computers evolve, and thus how Linux is developed to
>> work well on them, and maybe the Linux Foundation gets some funding
>> from the computer hardware companies (is this info public?), or at
>> least many code contributions from Intel and the like.
>
> The end of [1] has a high-level breakdown of funding sources. [2] lists
> its corporate members and [3] has the fee structure (towards the end).
>
> [1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/publications/linux-foundation-annual-report-2024
> [2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
> [3]
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Brand%20Assets/lf_member_benefits_101424a.pdf
>
> Intel, AMD, Arm, Microsoft, Google, IBM etc contribute code; you can
> find them in the kernel’s git history.

They contribute code but don't contribute much of the money toward Linux
projects. Bryan Lunduke did a good job a few weeks ago of demonstrating
how the Linux Foundation does very little to help Linux.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

On 2024-12-29 06:29, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>> Farley Flud wrote:
>>>>>> The Photoshop lackeys are always the instigators.  They seem greatly
>>>>>> distressed by the fact that some folks do not worship their idol.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, golly gee, the free product isn't as good as the expensive
>>>>> product.  What a "tragedy".
>>>>
>>>>   LibreOffice beats the crap out of anything M$ offers
>>>>   these days.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know.  Both are more than sufficient for my lightweight
>>> use.  Obviously I choose to use the cheaper one.
>>
>> I consider both way too bloated, complicated, and slow so choose
>> other simpler programs like Ted for word processing. In the same
>> way I haven't touched PhotoShop or GIMP in a very long time since
>> mtPaint does everything I want. The fact that neither has very
>> active development is a plus more than anything - when I do want
>> to try something more unusual it still works the same as it did
>> years ago when I tried it last, whereas commercial software or its
>> open-source copies will have changed everything just for the sake
>> of keeping busy and looking new.
>
> Another option to libreoffice, for the ones who do not like it is
> Abiword. Tried it briefly, it worked, but libreoffice always was more
> than enough for my needs, so I've stayed with it for business use for a
> decade or two.

If you're never sharing documents with others and only need to write,
AbiWord would definitely be my go-to. I love that little program.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

On 2024-12-29 06:44, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024, Farley Flud wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 23:47:29 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>    I agree that the GIMPs GUI can be hard to navigate
>>>    and use sometimes.
>>>
>>
>> I cannot understand this at all.
>>
>> An image is opened.  The user then decides what to do with the
>> image. He then uses the menu to invoke the appropriate action.
>> What could be simpler?
>>
>> As with most GUIs, there are more than one way to invoke actions.
>> Either use the menu or the many toolboxes.
>>
>> Of course, if a user does not understand the rudiments of image
>> processing then he will be confused and frustrated by any GUI.
>
> Also don't underestimate the power of habit. If you are used to
> photoshop, moving to something else will be painful.
>
> But if you have no prior experience, it will be different.
>
> My father has been a happy gimp user for many years, and he is 73. No
> problem with the gui. The only thing he is sensitive to is if they make
> changes or move buttons around. But all software makers enjoy doing that.

My father is going to turn 80 last year and happily used Linux Mint
until he deided to buy himself a new mini desktop with Windows 10 on it.
If anything, he preferred Mint and asked me whether there was a way to
implement some of its functionality onto the desktop like the way that
it imports photos and videos from a phone. I didn't bother to install it
on his new machine though.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

On 12/28/24 10:12 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 07:25:04 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>>
>> He's in YA cycle of building a new PC, which instead of taking hours to
>> get up & running has already consumed a few weeks...
>>
>
> FYFI, my new Xeon W-1270P 8-core machine with 32G ECC memory
> was originally purchased as a replacement for my Core i7
> which I believed was failing.
>
> However, after cleaning the heavy dust accumulation from the
> heat sink fan I have not had a recurrence of the symptoms that
> I had at first attributed to a failing MB.

Translation: self-proclaimed "expert" in everything fails on basic
troubleshooting due to housekeeping maintenance failure/laziness.

> Now I am stuck with a new machine that I don't really need
> and I am in no fucking hurry to get it up and running.

Translation: a fiscal *and* a productivity squandering.

> But I will have to eventually trash the Core i7 machine even
> though a highly tuned GNU/Linux installation makes it operate
> as good or better than the latest gens.

Translation: attempting to save face by noting that all tech eventually
becomes obsolete, even if that day for this year is still years away.
Meantime, the new PC sits idle.

> I have Winblows 10/11 installed on the cheapest junk hardware
> that I possess because that's all that the junk OS deserves.

Translation: not competent enough to get Linux running on even
bare iron in less than a week.

-hh

On 12/28/24 12:04 PM, chrisv wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Farley Flud wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Photoshop lackeys are always the instigators. They seem greatly
>>>> distressed by the fact that some folks do not worship their idol.
>>>
>>> And, golly gee, the free product isn't as good as the expensive
>>> product. What a "tragedy".
>>
>> LibreOffice beats the crap out of anything M$ offers
>> these days.
>
> I wouldn't know. Both are more than sufficient for my lightweight
> use. Obviously I choose to use the cheaper one.

In a manner of speaking, it doesn't really matter too much for casual
users, for most of the productivity gain is through becoming practiced
with the UI and its underlying workflow design philosophy.

When there's a steep learning curve present for actions beyond the most
basic, there's going to be user-based preferences to stick to the known,
even if it isn't theoretically ideal...and pragmatically, that 'muscle
memory' is going to be hard to beat from a productivity/throughput
standpoint.

> Word processing and spreadsheets are examples of highly mature
> technologies. FOSS excels in these areas.

Hopefully, they've gotten far better: I had a horrific experience with
a contractor using {not-MS}office some years ago, which ended with their
contract being terminated. I'd have to search the archives for the
specifics, but it was some glitching with the FOSS spreadsheet not
charting the project's performance data correctly ... and it didn't help
that a pair of PhD's didn't notice that the glitch resulted in their
amplifier design having negative gain. No, not negative feedback, but
negative *gain*: if that's what was what was being paid for, we would
have simply bought an attenuator off-the-shelf.

>> GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.
>
> Again, I wouldn't know. I've assumed that PS is better, based upon
> its popularity and price. I would expect evolving technology would
> favor the payware, when it comes to outright performance.

Which is fine, but then attempts to compare products for assessing
things like value should therefore be deferred to those who actually
have relevant experience with the tools in question.

-hh

On 2024-12-28, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-12-27 18:04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:57:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
>>>> that good.
>>>
>>> If you think Free Software could be better, and you would rather not give
>>> money to a proprietary company, why not contribute some of that money to
>>> the development of the Free Software and help make it better?
>>
>> Especially since projects like KDE and LibreOffice really need it.
>>
>
> Note that money is not the only way to contribute. Even by using the
> software you contribute, by making others aware of it, you contribute. I
> actually like projects that are not super wealthy. The linux foundation
> and firefox are excellent examples of how power corrupts. Would never
> dream of contributing with money to those two.

This grabs my attention...as essentially a 'bystander' I've been totally
unaware of these types of sentiments.
Can someone give (or point me to) a thumbnail of why someone might have
these opinions?

Just curious....

Pureheart in Aptos

On 2024-12-29, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> On 12/28/24 6:05 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2024-12-27 18:04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:57:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
>>>>>> that good.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think Free Software could be better, and you would rather not give
>>>>> money to a proprietary company, why not contribute some of that money to
>>>>> the development of the Free Software and help make it better?
>>>>
>>>> Especially since projects like KDE and LibreOffice really need it.
>>>
>>> Note that money is not the only way to contribute. Even by using the
>>> software you contribute,
>
>
> Well ... "using" doesn't buy much coffee ....
>
> The prob is the usual WAYS of donating - they do not
> seem remotely secure these days. No, I'm not gonna
> put my card number into some, MAYbe legit, website.
>
> A mail address you can send a money-order or something
> to would feel much better.

Huzzah for checks and the like. It can be challenging to find an address to
send it to, as I've found out for a project called "Allstar" for HAM radio.

pH in Aptos
wb6 dwp

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:14:38 -0500, -hh wrote:

>
> Translation: not competent enough to get Linux running on even
> bare iron in less than a week.
>

I hate to burst your bumptious bubble but I've already gotten
it running via the Gentoo Live USB. How else could I have gathered
the relevant CPU parameters?

Indeed, I could have installed a complete distro but I choose
not to go that simpleton route.

Distros are an anathema. Every GNU/Linux machine requires total
customization.

I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.

Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
only customized GNU/Linux.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 12/28/24 7:30 PM, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>> GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 11:04:22 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>> ... I wouldn't know. I've assumed that PS is better, based upon
>>> its popularity and price. I would expect evolving technology would
>>> favor the payware, when it comes to outright performance.
>
> On 2024-12-28, Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>> The primary expenditure of commercial software is to develop
>> a GUI that can accommodate the stupid -- and I mean STUPID.
>> ...
>> Both the GIMP and Photoshop (and all other such software) are
>> merely GUI wrappers around standard image processing techniques.
>> How the fuck can they be different? They can't.
>>
>> Except perhaps in the GUI. Photoshop, as all commercial software,
>> caters to the stupid. The GIMP not so much.
>
> I am not a grapical or photographical professional. I do not know much
> about image processing techniques. I just need to manage a collection of
> 100,000 images (my wife takes a lot of pictures on her iPhone) and
> occasionally polish a few of them up a bit.
>
> To me, the UX design matters a lot - I want the features I need to be
> discoverable even if I don't know what they are called ... or even that
> they exist. I would never spend the money for Photoshop, but I have
> bought PhotoShop ELEMENTS twice. It has some nice features for managing
> large collections, such as automatic face recognition and searching by
> geolocation EXIF tags. But it seems to have gratuitous changes from one
> release to the next, and some performance problems.
>
> I recently discovered digiKam, and it seems to me to be closely aligned
> with what I need. We will see how I feel in 6 months.

Yes, an image organizer ('database' app) is what you're looking for, and
to that end, neither GIMP, Photoshop, nor Photoshop Elements are that
tool; they're image manipulator Apps.

Apple's Photos does some organizing, as does also Adobe Lightroom. In
Adobe land, it used to be Adobe Bridge, although I don't know if that's
current. Apple Aperture was another, but it was obsoleted years ago.

-hh

On 12/29/24 12:57 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:14:38 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>>
>> Translation: not competent enough to get Linux running on even
>> bare iron in less than a week.
>>
>
> I hate to burst your bumptious bubble but I've already gotten
> it running via the Gentoo Live USB. How else could I have gathered
> the relevant CPU parameters?

That you finally got it running wasn't in dispute: it was a question of
how much time did it take you. So how many days did it finally take?

> Indeed, I could have installed a complete distro but I choose
> not to go that simpleton route.
>
> Distros are an anathema. Every GNU/Linux machine requires total
> customization.

Customization is invariably a trade-off. For example, when one
reasonably regularly rotates through multiple PCs, having the same UI is
generally beneficial, but this also requires that you have personal
control over the UI for every last one of them: when you don't, then
there's productivity gains to be had from not straying far from the
standard UI installation.

> I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
> and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.
>
> Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
> only customized GNU/Linux.

Which again depends on the circumstances: when its an appliance with a
known short remaining lifespan, niggling over something which won't
pragmatically make a difference is a waste of one's time & resources.

-hh

On 29/12/2024 16:14, -hh wrote:
> On 12/28/24 10:12 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 07:25:04 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> He's in YA cycle of building a new PC, which instead of taking hours to
>>> get up & running has already consumed a few weeks...
>>>
>>
>> FYFI, my new Xeon W-1270P 8-core machine with 32G ECC memory
>> was originally purchased as a replacement for my Core i7
>> which I believed was failing.
>>
>> However, after cleaning the heavy dust accumulation from the
>> heat sink fan I have not had a recurrence of the symptoms that
>> I had at first attributed to a failing MB.
>
> Translation:  self-proclaimed "expert" in everything fails on basic
> troubleshooting due to housekeeping maintenance failure/laziness.
>
>> Now I am stuck with a new machine that I don't really need
>> and I am in no fucking hurry to get it up and running.
>
> Translation: a fiscal *and* a productivity squandering.
>
>> But I will have to eventually trash the Core i7 machine even
>> though a highly tuned GNU/Linux installation makes it operate
>> as good or better than the latest gens.
>
> Translation: attempting to save face by noting that all tech eventually
> becomes obsolete, even if that day for this year is still years away.
> Meantime, the new PC sits idle.
>
>> I have Winblows 10/11 installed on the cheapest junk hardware
>> that I possess because that's all that the junk OS deserves.
>
> Translation: not competent enough to get Linux running on even
> bare iron in less than a week.
>
> #
Who bit your bum today?

> -hh

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 2024-12-29 12:57, Farley Flud wrote:
> I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
> and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.
>
> Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
> only customized GNU/Linux.
>
My grandfather's 72-year-old tractor is still an important part of our
machinery fleet, used almost every day during the growing season. The
manual states: "Use a good, clean, gasoline with an octane rating of at
least 65."

I can't find any of the 65 octane stuff, so I use 87, closest I can get.
With an optional manifold, the manual says the tractor is supposed to be
able to run on something called "low-cost fuel," whatever that is. I
can't find any of that, either.

I *could* buy premium, TOP TIER gas for it, but it would be a complete
waste of money that I don't have, and I might have to de-tune the timing
so it would run the way it should. I don't have the time, or the
inclination, to do that.

As for my Linux installs, Mageia only needs a little customization here
and there to get it the way I like it, so that's what I use. Besides, as
the Leader of the Mageia Quality Assurance Team, I really ought to use
the distro pretty much as is if it's to stay usable by the less
experienced users that don't know yet what to change and what to leave
alone.

YMMV.

TJ

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:47:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I wish software designers woul group features in a sort of top down
> structurd way starting with the most easily understood and useful at
> the top and sub menus for the really obscure.

I can remember some Microsoft Office person saying, back in the 200x’s or
so, that of the requests for new features that they got for the next
version, some substantial fraction of them (on the order of 25%-75%) were
already in the existing version.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:24:13 -0500, -hh wrote:

> In a manner of speaking, it doesn't really matter too much for casual
> users, for most of the productivity gain is through becoming practiced
> with the UI and its underlying workflow design philosophy.

Some things are just badly designed, though.

For example, the Microsoft Office “Ribbon” originated in the days before
modern widescreen monitors became popular. But most text documents
continue to be laid out in portrait mode. So you have this mismatch which
leads to wasted, unused space on the sides of the screen, while this big
“Ribbon” thing on the top reduces the amount of space available to show
your document.

This is why the LibreOffice Sidebar is a better design. It leaves more of
the height of the screen available to show the long dimension of your
document.

> I had a horrific experience with a contractor using {not-MS}office
> some years ago ... some glitching with the FOSS spreadsheet not
> charting the project's performance data correctly ...

Sure it wasn’t Excel? Microsoft Excel is notorious for leading users into
such errors. There are entire websites devoted to collecting instances of
such screwups.

>>> GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.
>>
>> Again, I wouldn't know. I've assumed that PS is better, based upon its
>> popularity and price. I would expect evolving technology would favor
>> the payware, when it comes to outright performance.

Remember that, since Adobe moved to the rentware model, it removed any
incentive to actually continue improving the product, since customers pay
exactly the same regardless.

> Which is fine, but then attempts to compare products for assessing
> things like value should therefore be deferred to those who actually
> have relevant experience with the tools in question.

Too often, though, we see supposed experts who have become so invested in
their expensive proprietary tools and the companies that make them, that
they refuse to believe that something else could offer just as much power
for much less money.

On 2024-12-29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 00:30:31 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
>
>> ... I just need to manage a collection of 100,000 images ... and
>> occasionally polish a few of them up a bit.
>
> No GUI is going to work efficiently for that. You need automation via
> command line/scripting.
>
> Tools like ImageMagick/GraphicsMagick are commonly used to do bulk
> processing of images on that scale.

I am NOT trying to do bulk processing of images.
I want to find images relating to places, people or times, and add/edit
metadata on one at a time. I do have a set of scripts (written in Perl)
to browse through the collection in a folder tree of
/pictures/
yyyy/
yyyy-mm/
yyyy-mm-location-or-event
But I don't have the web-2.0 skills (or the time) to write the few
thousand lines of code to switch in and out of image editing through the
web windows.

My /pictures/ lives on my home fedora server, which is remote mounted
from my Win-10 desktop, which has the good display (a 4K TV on my desk)
and digiKam is running in a Fedora image on WSL.

Yes I know, this is politically incorrect in soooo many ways!

--
Lars Poulsen

On 2024-12-28 06:12, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-12-27 18:04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:57:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
>>>> that good.
>>>
>>> If you think Free Software could be better, and you would rather not
>>> give
>>> money to a proprietary company, why not contribute some of that money to
>>> the development of the Free Software and help make it better?
>>
>> Especially since projects like KDE and LibreOffice really need it.
>>
>
> Note that money is not the only way to contribute. Even by using the
> software you contribute, by making others aware of it, you contribute. I
> actually like projects that are not super wealthy. The linux foundation
> and firefox are excellent examples of how power corrupts. Would never
> dream of contributing with money to those two.

Indeed. My discretionary funds are very limited, so I can not afford to
contribute with money. But Mageia, as my distro of choice, is
community-based, meaning it is maintained by volunteers who contribute
their free time to make it as good as we can.

I have no coding skills to speak of, so development isn't my forte. But,
as the current Leader of the Mageia Quality Assurance (QA) Team, I
contribute in other, equally valuable ways.

We are the layer between the developers and the public, tasked with
testing updates before they are released to be as sure as possible that
they won't break Mageia systems. Developers are only human, and
sometimes mistakes creep in - a missing dependency, or maybe the package
won't work on hardware the developer doesn't have. Our job is to catch
that stuff.

We also test the install ISOs before they are released.

We are always looking for new members, and users of all skill levels are
welcome. One of the great things about Mageia is that the opinions of
new contributors are received with as much respect as those of our "old
hands."

But those aren't the only ways to contribute. If something in Mageia
doesn't work for you, please file a bug report. We also need
translators, documentation writers, bug triaging, website designers, the
list goes on.

https://www.mageia.org/en/contribute/ is a good place to start if you
wish to contribute to our project.

TJ

On 2024-12-29 06:44, D wrote:
>> My father has been a happy gimp user for many years, and he is 73. No
>> problem with the gui. The only thing he is sensitive to is if they make
>> changes or move buttons around.
>> But all software makers enjoy doing that.

On 2024-12-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> My father is going to turn 80 last year and happily used Linux Mint
> until he deided to buy himself a new mini desktop with Windows 10 on it.
> If anything, he preferred Mint and asked me whether there was a way to
> implement some of its functionality onto the desktop like the way that
> it imports photos and videos from a phone. I didn't bother to install it
> on his new machine though.

Depending on what type of phone, it can be simple to open the CameraRoll
folder through a USB cable. In Android, you may have to explicitly
authorize the use of USB for anything beyond charging.

On iPhone, Windows can mount the entire iCloud Photos database as a
folder in "This PC" (or "My Computer" or what they call it this year.
On Linux, there is "icloudpd", a python program that can grab the last
several hundred new photos from an iCloud account. I have used both.

On 2024-12-29 16:00, TJ wrote:
> On 2024-12-29 12:57, Farley Flud wrote:
>> I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
>> and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.
>>
>> Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
>> only customized GNU/Linux.
>>
> My grandfather's 72-year-old tractor is still an important part of our
> machinery fleet, used almost every day during the growing season. The
> manual states: "Use a good, clean, gasoline with an octane rating of at
> least 65."
>
> I can't find any of the 65 octane stuff, so I use 87, closest I can get.
> With an optional manifold, the manual says the tractor is supposed to be
> able to run on something called "low-cost fuel," whatever that is. I
> can't find any of that, either.
>
> I *could* buy premium, TOP TIER gas for it, but it would be a complete
> waste of money that I don't have, and I might have to de-tune the timing
> so it would run the way it should. I don't have the time, or the
> inclination, to do that.
>
> As for my Linux installs, Mageia only needs a little customization here
> and there to get it the way I like it, so that's what I use. Besides, as
> the Leader of the Mageia Quality Assurance Team, I really ought to use
> the distro pretty much as is if it's to stay usable by the less
> experienced users that don't know yet what to change and what to leave
> alone.
>
> YMMV.
>
> TJ

If I can use this laptop with Fedora on it until the machine inevitably
kicks the bucket, I'll be happy. I don't like the idea of changing my
hardware every three, four or even five years. If I can go ten with it,
I'll be satisfied to retire it in favour of something new from Framework
or System76.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41

In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>> They're interesting cases. Google is determining the direction that
>> the Web evolves, thus the direction Firefox development has to go, and
>> they're the main ones paying Mozilla (for now). Hardware manufacturers
>> determine how computers evolve, and thus how Linux is developed to
>> work well on them, and maybe the Linux Foundation gets some funding
>> from the computer hardware companies (is this info public?), or at
>> least many code contributions from Intel and the like.
>
> The end of [1] has a high-level breakdown of funding sources. [2] lists
> its corporate members and [3] has the fee structure (towards the end).
>
> [1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/publications/linux-foundation-annual-report-2024
> [2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
> [3]
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Brand%20Assets/lf_member_benefits_101424a.pdf

I see, I went to their members page before, but there's more to see
in a Web browser with Javascript support.

But memberships don't seem to add up to much of the $125,120,830
recorded as received from "membership & donations" in the annual
report.

Silver
1366 * $20,000 (best case, if all members had >5,000 employees)
$27,320,000

Gold
12 * $100,000
1,200,000

Platinum
12 * $500,000
$6,000,000

Total
$34,520,000 max. from memberships.

So most of that money must come from, seemingly-anonymous,
donations.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#