On 2024-12-28 14:48, rbowman wrote:
> 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.

I wanted it to be my default too but I can't use a browser that
automatically turns on the dGPU when I'm running on the battery.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

Il Sat, 28 Dec 2024 17:21:33 +0000, Farley Flud ha scritto:

> 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.

NO! GIMP is awesome, it's been perfectly on pair with (or better than)
Photoshop for almost any non-professional uses, and for many professional
uses too. Hands down, considering it's free. But there have been (and
there are still) some cases in which it simply has lacked what's needed
(however GIMP 3.0 will probably be a great improvement).

> Except perhaps in the GUI. Photoshop, as all commercial software,
> caters to the stupid. The GIMP not so much.

Stop writing nonsense. You'd better not send your fingers alone wondering
on the keyboard: it's already too clear who the stupid is, here.
--
Bye, Lem
Talis erit dies qualem egeris

On 12/28/2024 9:12 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> But I will have to eventually trash the Core i7 machine

Be cautious :)

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

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.

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

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.

> 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.

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

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

> Ive never used photoshop but Gimps UI is AFAIAC utter shit.

Lots of people are quite productive with it. Perhaps the problem is you
don’t understand the difference between image manipulation and a paint
program?

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:10:15 -0500, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2024-12-28 14:48, rbowman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I wanted it to be my default too but I can't use a browser that
> automatically turns on the dGPU when I'm running on the battery.

That's not a problem for me. I seldom run the laptop on the battery and
it' an Acer Swift with a Ryzen 7 Radeon iGPU. That does seem like strange
behavior.

>>> 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.

On 2024-12-29 01:30, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> 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.

digikam may be more appropriate, specially if you have many photos.
Shotwell is even simpler.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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.

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.

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.

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