On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 07:56:57 -0500
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

> Ummmm, what about PhotoGIMP?

Hmm, hadn't heard of that before. Seems to be a couple years out of
date, in any case. I'm a little curious as their description mentions
keyboard shortcuts, but doesn't specify control/menu accelerators; the
former are configurable within GIMP itself, but not the latter.

On 27/12/2024 15:42, TJ wrote:
> I'm not a professional logger. I'm just an old farmer who over the years
> has used both, and if well maintained the saw is faster and more
> accurate for putting the tree where you want it instead of on your
> pickup truck.
>
> I've also bucked the tree into pieces with a chainsaw and with a
> crosscut hand saw, both one-man and two-man, and the chainsaw is easier,
> faster, and better.
>
> I've also split many a log into firewood with a hammer and wedges, as
> well as with a gasoline-powered hydraulic log splitter, and the log
> splitter will split tangled logs into usable pieces with ease that a
> hammer and wedges won't touch no matter how long you beat on them.
>
> Perhaps you believe that the exercise from using hand tools is better
> for health. Well, anybody who thinks you don't get a workout when using
> power tools to put up a winter's supply of firewood clearly has never
> actually done the task.

+1 on all counts.
If God had given us chainsaws we would never have invented the axe.
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 07:59:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:45:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> So, is it an actual “clone” of the Photoshop UI or not? If it is
>>> identical to the Photoshop UI, then it would be just as “clunky and
>>> awkward” as Photoshop.
>>
>> I've never used PhotoShop but I consider GIMP an excellent example of
>> how not to do it. The latest I have is 2.10 on Debian; I don't know if
>> 3 is any better.
>
> Meh. One gets used to a product.... or moves on.

I never used GIMP enough to get used to it. The use case: I've scraped
some SVG icons that I need to lightly edit; I do not have PhotoShop but I
do have GIMP on the Linux box. I start GIMP and find something that wants
to spawn windows like mold spores reproducing in a Petri dish.

GIMP certainly wasn't the only application to take that approach. There
was a period where you had to have dialogs you could tear off and let
float around or dock at various points. Thankfully it seems to have
passed.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 07:59:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:45:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, is it an actual “clone” of the Photoshop UI or not? If it is
>>>> identical to the Photoshop UI, then it would be just as “clunky and
>>>> awkward” as Photoshop.
>>>
>>> I've never used PhotoShop but I consider GIMP an excellent example of
>>> how not to do it. The latest I have is 2.10 on Debian; I don't know if
>>> 3 is any better.
>>
>> Meh. One gets used to a product.... or moves on.
>
> I never used GIMP enough to get used to it. The use case: I've scraped
> some SVG icons that I need to lightly edit; I do not have PhotoShop but I
> do have GIMP on the Linux box. I start GIMP and find something that wants
> to spawn windows like mold spores reproducing in a Petri dish.

I think Inkscape is better for SVG. Even a big Windows .NET programmer
type at work would use it to create his icons and logos.

> GIMP certainly wasn't the only application to take that approach. There
> was a period where you had to have dialogs you could tear off and let
> float around or dock at various points. Thankfully it seems to have
> passed.

Edit / Preferences.

E.g. I just turned off Tool Groups because I like to see the whole toolbox at
once.

--
I think $[ is more like a coelacanth than a mastadon.
-- Larry Wall in <199705101952.MAA00756@wall.org>

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:33:42 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I think Inkscape is better for SVG. Even a big Windows .NET programmer
> type at work would use it to create his icons and logos.

Probably. What I was doing wasn't very complicated, mostly changing fill
colors to display incidents on a map by type.

I remember Visual Studio having some sort of editor so you could create
icons. I knew then life was going to get a lot more complicated. I never
could create an icon that looked like anything.

On 12/27/2024 8:41 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:26:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>
>> Ah we have a total dickhead in the group
>>
>
> You got that part right.
>
> But the actual identity thereof might give you quite a shock.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
>
>
>

Philosophers either purely bullshit, or the good ones among them
discuss, precisely, about stuff that can either never be precisely
known, or can never be known to exist at all.

So someone choosing "Natural Philosopher" as alias right away is telling
others "kill file this pretentious idiot that I am" :)

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

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?

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.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

On 2024-12-28 00:04, 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?

How do you know if I already do, or don't?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 12/27/2024 2:33 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 12/27/2024 8:41 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:26:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Ah we have a total dickhead in the group
>>>
>>
>> You got that part right.
>>
>> But the actual identity thereof might give you quite a shock.
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Philosophers either purely bullshit, or the good ones among them
> discuss, precisely, about stuff that can either never be precisely
> known, or can never be known to exist at all.
>
> So someone choosing "Natural Philosopher" as alias right away is telling
> others "kill file this pretentious idiot that I am" :)
>
>
>

Here's an example of a philosopher who "purely bullshits."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHhnYuPeD5w

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 12/27/24 7:34 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Farley Flud wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>> For many people, it's nothing more than a pissing match over the number
>>> of features that their favourite software package offers. Whether they
>>> actually use those features or not is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, those of us who just want to get the job done ignore all
>>> that and look for a package that does what we want without all that
>>> other stuff getting the way.
>
> Indeed. I was tired of hearing about it decades ago. I've never once
> had any need for either.

You're right ... 99% of people never NEED the 'new features'
in the latest releases. Just tend to THINK they do.

>> 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. GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.

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.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:33:42 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I think Inkscape is better for SVG. Even a big Windows .NET programmer
>> type at work would use it to create his icons and logos.
>
> Probably. What I was doing wasn't very complicated, mostly changing fill
> colors to display incidents on a map by type.
>
> I remember Visual Studio having some sort of editor so you could create
> icons. I knew then life was going to get a lot more complicated. I never
> could create an icon that looked like anything.

That's what googling for images is for :-)

--
To get something clean, one has to get something dirty.
To get something dirty, one does not have to get anything clean.

On 12/27/24 11:23 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/12/2024 15:42, TJ wrote:
>> I'm not a professional logger. I'm just an old farmer who over the
>> years has used both, and if well maintained the saw is faster and more
>> accurate for putting the tree where you want it instead of on your
>> pickup truck.
>>
>> I've also bucked the tree into pieces with a chainsaw and with a
>> crosscut hand saw, both one-man and two-man, and the chainsaw is
>> easier, faster, and better.
>>
>> I've also split many a log into firewood with a hammer and wedges, as
>> well as with a gasoline-powered hydraulic log splitter, and the log
>> splitter will split tangled logs into usable pieces with ease that a
>> hammer and wedges won't touch no matter how long you beat on them.
>>
>> Perhaps you believe that the exercise from using hand tools is better
>> for health. Well, anybody who thinks you don't get a workout when
>> using power tools to put up a winter's supply of firewood clearly has
>> never actually done the task.
>
> +1 on all counts.
> If God had given us chainsaws we would never have invented the axe.

Unfortunately, such objective discussions are beyond old "Farley" here;
the appropriate analogy more akin to that he believes that one must only
use one's teeth, because that's how a beaver does it.

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...

-hh

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.

Lunduke did a good job of highlighting how bad Firefox has become and I
have to admit that I am currently using Firefox begrudgingly. It's been
my favourite since the original version came out, but I lost interest in
making it my default once I heard what they did to Brendan Eich. The
administration of the company has only gotten worse with time. Still, on
Fedora at least, it respects my wish not to use the dGPU, it's
open-source (so it was be forked when Mozilla inevitably goes down), it
can easily be themed and supports every plug-in imaginable.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:23:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> If God had given us chainsaws we would never have invented the axe.
>

No, but we would have had to invent the technology for drilling,
transporting, refining, and distributing petroleum as well as the
industrial manufacturing base for the production of spare parts --
and that is one TALL order.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

--
Gentoo: The Fastest GNU/Linux Hands Down

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.

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

> 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.

--
"The FACT is that Comcast issued the EXACT same ID for you and your
"William Poaster" troll-mate PROVES that both of you are the same
idiot." - Larry "message ID" Qualig, AKA the trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel"

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 11:04:22 -0600, chrisv wrote:

>
>> 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.
>

The primary expenditure of commercial software is to develop
a GUI that can accommodate the stupid -- and I mean STUPID.

I have done paid, work for various "professional" studios and
those people are STUPID. STUPID! They are have little knowledge
of image processing and they don't need it because their equally
STUPID customers won't notice. What we have is a pathetic case
of stupidity nullifying other stupidity -- and the same applies
to other ares of software.

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.

But, ever since the "Goat Invasion," i.e. the incorporation by the
GIMP of the GEGL and BABL libraries, the GIMP now offers high
bit image capabilities, up to 64-bit floating point, that
Photoshop cannot match (at least since the last time I used that
junk Photoshop).

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.

--
Gentoo: The Fastest GNU/Linux Hands Down

Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 11:04:22 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>The primary expenditure of commercial software is to develop
>a GUI that can accommodate the stupid -- and I mean STUPID.
>
>I have done paid, work for various "professional" studios and
>those people are STUPID. STUPID! They are have little knowledge
>of image processing and they don't need it because their equally
>STUPID customers won't notice. What we have is a pathetic case
>of stupidity nullifying other stupidity -- and the same applies
>to other ares of software.
>
>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.
>
>But, ever since the "Goat Invasion," i.e. the incorporation by the
>GIMP of the GEGL and BABL libraries, the GIMP now offers high
>bit image capabilities, up to 64-bit floating point, that
>Photoshop cannot match (at least since the last time I used that
>junk Photoshop).
>
>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.

I frankly don't have an opinion, because I've tried Photoshop, wasn't
especially impressed, wouldn't have renewed the license another year,
even if I were running Winblows, which I'm not. GIMP is simply a
great alternative, available on Linux, it doesn't have to be perfect,
it is part of how one is freed from M$.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-12-28 12:31, Joel wrote:
> Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 11:04:22 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The primary expenditure of commercial software is to develop
>> a GUI that can accommodate the stupid -- and I mean STUPID.
>>
>> I have done paid, work for various "professional" studios and
>> those people are STUPID. STUPID! They are have little knowledge
>> of image processing and they don't need it because their equally
>> STUPID customers won't notice. What we have is a pathetic case
>> of stupidity nullifying other stupidity -- and the same applies
>> to other ares of software.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> But, ever since the "Goat Invasion," i.e. the incorporation by the
>> GIMP of the GEGL and BABL libraries, the GIMP now offers high
>> bit image capabilities, up to 64-bit floating point, that
>> Photoshop cannot match (at least since the last time I used that
>> junk Photoshop).
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I frankly don't have an opinion, because I've tried Photoshop, wasn't
> especially impressed, wouldn't have renewed the license another year,
> even if I were running Winblows, which I'm not. GIMP is simply a
> great alternative, available on Linux, it doesn't have to be perfect,
> it is part of how one is freed from M$.

There is also Krita and online Photoshop-like options. I'm not
interested in anything Gnome so you can imagine which application I
installed.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

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

--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:07:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> 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
>

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ha, ha, ha!

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 06:59:23 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:33:42 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I think Inkscape is better for SVG. Even a big Windows .NET
>>> programmer type at work would use it to create his icons and logos.
>>
>> Probably. What I was doing wasn't very complicated, mostly changing
>> fill colors to display incidents on a map by type.
>>
>> I remember Visual Studio having some sort of editor so you could create
>> icons. I knew then life was going to get a lot more complicated. I
>> never could create an icon that looked like anything.
>
> That's what googling for images is for :-)

Google, which was barely in existence when Visual Studio 6.0 came out
wasn't very helpful in finding the non-existent websites featuring free
icons.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:33:31 -0500, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> Lunduke did a good job of highlighting how bad Firefox has become and I
> have to admit that I am currently using Firefox begrudgingly. It's been
> my favourite since the original version came out, but I lost interest in
> making it my default once I heard what they did to Brendan Eich.

Eich's Brave browser is my default. It was rough around the edges for the
first couple of years but has come along nicely.