Photoshop, the name that hangs on every lackey asshole's lips,
is actually severely limited in its bit depths.

Photoshop, as well as other commercial garbage, only allows
processing in 8, 16, or 32-bit (integer) depths.

The mighty GIMP, otoh, offers 6, 16, 32-bit integer as well
as 16 and 32-bit floating point and this is a HUGE difference
in modern, cutting-edge processing.

If you don't what all of this means then get out. You belong
to the Photoshop idiot crowd.

Photoshop is for brain-dead assholes.

The GIMP is for creative innovators with the intelligence
to match.

--
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <pan$12f0c$b8055f7b$e138cd3a$8c4aa277@linux.rocks>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 21
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.usenetexpress.com!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 11:56:23 +0000
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 11:56:23 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 1092
Organization: UsenetExpress - www.usenetexpress.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetexpress.com
Xref: unconfigured comp.os.linux.advocacy:27656

Photoshop, the name that hangs on every lackey asshole's lips,
is actually severely limited in its bit depths.

Photoshop, as well as other commercial garbage, only allows
processing in 8, 16, or 32-bit (integer) depths.

The mighty GIMP, otoh, offers 6, 16, 32-bit integer as well
as 16 and 32-bit floating point and this is a HUGE difference
in modern, cutting-edge processing.

If you don't what all of this means then get out. You belong
to the Photoshop idiot crowd.

Photoshop is for brain-dead assholes.

The GIMP is for creative innovators with the intelligence
to match.

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

On 1/4/2025 6:56 AM, Lying Lameass Larry Piet (posting as Farley Flud)
wrote:

> Photoshop, the name that hangs on every lackey asshole's lips,
> is actually severely limited in its bit depths.
>
> Photoshop, as well as other commercial garbage, only allows
> processing in 8, 16, or 32-bit (integer) depths.
>
> The mighty GIMP, otoh, offers 6, 16, 32-bit integer as well
> as 16 and 32-bit floating point and this is a HUGE difference
> in modern, cutting-edge processing.

Show us the visual difference, with your own code of course, "image
processing expert" and "computing virtuoso" that can "program anything".

> If you don't what all of this means then get out. You belong
> to the Photoshop idiot crowd.
>
> Photoshop is for brain-dead assholes.

And don't forget "C++ is for degenerate sissies" (according to you anyway).

What an idiot.

> The GIMP is for creative innovators with the intelligence
> to match.

"The GIMP people want me to implement netpbm HDR formats." - Feeb Sep 2022

That was a voice in your head. Gimp devs are too smart to enlist help
from a clown like you.

On 1/5/25 10:53 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 1/4/2025 6:56 AM, Lying Lameass Larry Piet (posting as Farley Flud)
> wrote:
>
>> Photoshop, the name that hangs on every lackey asshole's lips,
>> is actually severely limited in its bit depths.
>>
>> Photoshop, as well as other commercial garbage, only allows
>> processing in 8, 16, or 32-bit (integer) depths.
>>
>> The mighty GIMP, otoh, offers 6, 16, 32-bit integer as well
>> as 16 and 32-bit floating point and this is a HUGE difference
>> in modern, cutting-edge processing.
>
> Show us the visual difference, with your own code of course, "image
> processing expert" and "computing virtuoso" that can "program anything".

While Feeb is at it, he needs to explain how & why it is significant for
there to be floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer
based: where is this necessary? Because without a clear need, it
sounds more like sloppy/lazy programming and/or false features.

Similarly, why 16 or 32 bits/channel is necessary when the human eye
can't even biologically perceive that resolution (its considered to be
10-12 bits/channel): did the GIMP programmers choose 16 because they
chose an easy (lazy) way to get to the 10 or 12 bits/channel that's
anthropometrically appropriate? Overkill results in sub-optimally
larger file sizes.

Finally, just what good is for this amount of overkill on color bit
depth when there's not even the hardware to display the answer on?

Specifically, who makes a 16 bit/channel computer monitors? Who makes
32 bit ones? Name names/makes/models (and price). Because the last
I've seen was 12 bits/channel in an expensive reference display; the
mainstream 'State of the Shelf' is still at 8 bits/channel (plus there's
still some 6 bit based displays which are faking 8 bits/channel - one
manufacturer got hit with a lawsuit on that a few years ago).

So even if humans could perceive 32 or 16 over 12 bits/channel, where's
the hardware which can actually display more than 12 bits/channel?

-hh

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:

>
> While Feeb is at it, he needs to explain how & why it is significant for
> there to be floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer
> based: where is this necessary? Because without a clear need, it
> sounds more like sloppy/lazy programming and/or false features.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a total ignoramus!

A base in integers completely sacrifices any fractional portions
thereof, and therein lies the need for floating point representation.

Check out the global standard, openexr:

https://openexr.com/en/latest/about.html

Photoshop is made for marketdroids, like you, that cannot see
their digital hand in front of their digital face.

(The same obtains for all Microslop software.)

The GIMP is made for true scientific professionals.

The case is closed.

No amount of bickering from your ignoramus ass can alter the
reality.

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

On 1/5/25 5:10 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>>
>> While Feeb is at it, he needs to explain how & why it is significant for
>> there to be floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer
>> based: where is this necessary? Because without a clear need, it
>> sounds more like sloppy/lazy programming and/or false features.
>>
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a total ignoramus!

So you couldn't answer the questions.

> A base in integers completely sacrifices any fractional portions
> thereof, and therein lies the need for floating point representation.

Except that those integers are already a fractionalization
representation of color gradients across the three channels (RGB), so
just what are you allegedly gaining by when adding even more decimal
points which are going to be truncated off?

> Check out the global standard, openexr:
>
> https://openexr.com/en/latest/about.html

Yeah, so what? Same question still applies: where's the value-added to
the configuration that they've chosen? Do they have a financial
interest at hard drive manufacturers for extra storage space?
> ...
> No amount of bickering from your ignoramus ass can alter the
> reality.

Translation: Feeb once again snips the questions that he knows that he
can't answer.

-hh

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:

> ... needs to explain how & why it is significant for
> there to be floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer
> based ...

OpenEXR files are commonly used in CG these days, and they have floating-
point numbers for each pixel component. They also allow for more than 3-4
pixel components. The values still have their usual meaning, with 0 being
full black and 1.0 being full white, but the values are allowed to go
outside this range to avoid clipping of dynamic range.

GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop needs
to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality. This is
probably why Adobe products are not used much in VFX work.

On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 20:00:46 -0500, -hh wrote:

>
> Except that those integers are already a fractionalization
> representation of color gradients across the three channels (RGB), so
> just what are you allegedly gaining by when adding even more decimal
> points which are going to be truncated off?
>

OMFG! What an inane attempt at the defense of substandard software!

I hope you are not on Adobe's payroll. They deserve better.

But there can be no refutation. The absence of native floating point
support makes Photoshop a highly deficient and substandard product.
It can hardly be suitable for professional scientific image processing.

The case is closed.

No counter argument is possible, unless one is a rambling, deluded,
psychotic.

--
Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!

Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 20:00:46 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> Except that those integers are already a fractionalization
>> representation of color gradients across the three channels (RGB), so
>> just what are you allegedly gaining by when adding even more decimal
>> points which are going to be truncated off?
>
>OMFG! What an inane attempt at the defense of substandard software!
>
>I hope you are not on Adobe's payroll. They deserve better.
>
>But there can be no refutation. The absence of native floating point
>support makes Photoshop a highly deficient and substandard product.
>It can hardly be suitable for professional scientific image processing.
>
>The case is closed.
>
>No counter argument is possible, unless one is a rambling, deluded,
>psychotic.

I'd almost be surprised you could load GIMP on your barebones setup.

--
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 1/5/2025 5:10 PM, Lying Lameass Larry Piet (posting as Farley Flud)
wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>>
>> While Feeb is at it, he needs to explain how & why it is significant for
>> there to be floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer
>> based: where is this necessary? Because without a clear need, it
>> sounds more like sloppy/lazy programming and/or false features.
>>
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a total ignoramus!
>
> A base in integers completely sacrifices any fractional portions
> thereof, and therein lies the need for floating point representation.
>
> Check out the global standard, openexr:
>
> https://openexr.com/en/latest/about.html
>
> Photoshop is made for marketdroids, like you, that cannot see
> their digital hand in front of their digital face.
>
> (The same obtains for all Microslop software.)
>
> The GIMP is made for true scientific professionals.
>
> The case is closed.
>
> No amount of bickering from your ignoramus ass can alter the
> reality.

You don't deal in reality, Feeb. You deal in fraud, lies, ignorance,
bragging, and the unreasonable promotion of inferior GuhNoo crapware.

On 2025-01-06 06:42, Joel wrote:
> Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 20:00:46 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> Except that those integers are already a fractionalization
>>> representation of color gradients across the three channels (RGB), so
>>> just what are you allegedly gaining by when adding even more decimal
>>> points which are going to be truncated off?
>>
>> OMFG! What an inane attempt at the defense of substandard software!
>>
>> I hope you are not on Adobe's payroll. They deserve better.
>>
>> But there can be no refutation. The absence of native floating point
>> support makes Photoshop a highly deficient and substandard product.
>> It can hardly be suitable for professional scientific image processing.
>>
>> The case is closed.
>>
>> No counter argument is possible, unless one is a rambling, deluded,
>> psychotic.
>
>
> I'd almost be surprised you could load GIMP on your barebones setup.

He started compiling GIMP a few months ago. He will get to use it in the
next few weeks.

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

On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> ... needs to explain how & why it is significant for
>> there to be floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer
>> based ...
>
> OpenEXR files are commonly used in CG these days, and they have floating-
> point numbers for each pixel component. They also allow for more than 3-4
> pixel components. The values still have their usual meaning, with 0 being
> full black and 1.0 being full white, but the values are allowed to go
> outside this range to avoid clipping of dynamic range.

Dynamic range is why to support more bits, but that's oblique to adding
more intermediate values by using floating point instead of integer.
For example, using 16 bits instead of 12 to address the perceivable
spectrum range only is enough on its own to have more than a full order
of magnitude greater than perceivable gradations.

> GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop needs
> to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality.

But isn't integral vs modular just a software architectural design
choice? Particularly since there's nothing inherent of one over the
other for questions of if it is designed to be lossless or not/etc.

> This is probably why Adobe products are not used much in VFX work.

Adobe's product here is probably After Effects, and it supports formats
such as ProRes, where the originals are integer 10 or 12 bits/channel.

For others, see:

<https://www.actionvfx.com/blog/10-best-vfx-software-how-to-choose-what-s-best-for-you>

-hh

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:12:21 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> ... needs to explain how & why it is significant for there to be
>>> floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer based ...
>>
>> OpenEXR files are commonly used in CG these days, and they have
>> floating- point numbers for each pixel component. They also allow for
>> more than 3-4 pixel components. The values still have their usual
>> meaning, with 0 being full black and 1.0 being full white, but the
>> values are allowed to go outside this range to avoid clipping of
>> dynamic range.
>
> Dynamic range is why to support more bits, but that's oblique to adding
> more intermediate values by using floating point instead of integer.

That, too, seems to be important to them. You’d think single-precision
floats would be enough, but no, they want the option for double-precision
as well.

>> GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop
>> needs to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality.
>
> But isn't integral vs modular just a software architectural design
> choice?

The limiting factor is what the native pixel engine can handle. And
Photoshop’s one is pretty limited compared to GEGL.

>> This is probably why Adobe products are not used much in VFX work.
>
> Adobe's product here is probably After Effects, and it supports formats
> such as ProRes, where the originals are integer 10 or 12 bits/channel.

But it’s not a node-based compositor, is it? Even Blender can do better
than that.

On 1/6/25 3:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:12:21 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... needs to explain how & why it is significant for there to be
>>>> floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer based ...
>>>
>>> OpenEXR files are commonly used in CG these days, and they have
>>> floating- point numbers for each pixel component. They also allow for
>>> more than 3-4 pixel components. The values still have their usual
>>> meaning, with 0 being full black and 1.0 being full white, but the
>>> values are allowed to go outside this range to avoid clipping of
>>> dynamic range.
>>
>> Dynamic range is why to support more bits, but that's oblique to adding
>> more intermediate values by using floating point instead of integer.
>
> That, too, seems to be important to them. You’d think single-precision
> floats would be enough, but no, they want the option for double-precision
> as well.

Let's see a product output from each and if the alleged differences are
even perceptible by humans (without pixel peeping, of course).

>>> GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop
>>> needs to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality.
>>
>> But isn't integral vs modular just a software architectural design
>> choice?
>
> The limiting factor is what the native pixel engine can handle. And
> Photoshop’s one is pretty limited compared to GEGL.

Yet both are limited by what the original image source is too: when one
only has 10-12-14 bits/channel, it requires gyrations to claim that
double precision 32 bit floating point is going to be noticeable.

>>> This is probably why Adobe products are not used much in VFX work.
>>
>> Adobe's product here is probably After Effects, and it supports formats
>> such as ProRes, where the originals are integer 10 or 12 bits/channel.
>
> But it’s not a node-based compositor, is it? Even Blender can do better
> than that.

Don't really know yet, as I've been more stills-centric than video, with
effectively all of it being reality-based instead of fake.

-hh

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:59:14 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 1/6/25 3:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:12:21 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop
>>>> needs to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality.
>>>
>>> But isn't integral vs modular just a software architectural design
>>> choice?
>>
>> The limiting factor is what the native pixel engine can handle. And
>> Photoshop’s one is pretty limited compared to GEGL.
>
> Yet both are limited by what the original image source is too ...

The “image source” is here computer-generated images, with potentially
very high dynamic range.

On 1/6/25 5:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:59:14 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/25 3:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:12:21 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop
>>>>> needs to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality.
>>>>
>>>> But isn't integral vs modular just a software architectural design
>>>> choice?
>>>
>>> The limiting factor is what the native pixel engine can handle. And
>>> Photoshop’s one is pretty limited compared to GEGL.
>>
>> Yet both are limited by what the original image source is too ...
>
> The “image source” is here computer-generated images, with potentially
> very high dynamic range.

Which means fictional, not reality. And trying to use ~3x more bits of
data than a human can perceive is an inefficient waste of resources.

-hh

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 19:49:15 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 1/6/25 5:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> The “image source” is here computer-generated images, with potentially
>> very high dynamic range.
>
> Which means fictional, not reality.

How do you tell? The technology has long passed the point where CG could
be reliably identifed as CG; now you can only tell if they want you to
tell.

On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 19:49:15 -0500, -hh wrote:

>
> Which means fictional, not reality. And trying to use ~3x more bits of
> data than a human can perceive is an inefficient waste of resources.
>

That's right! Keep on fighting! Give 'em hell! Don't let up!

Then maybe some day, with a bit of extaordinary luck, you just may convince
some derelict at the retard clinic to share in your technical delusions.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

In the meantime, however, GNU/Linux/FOSS will just keep on exuding its
total superiority.

--
Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!

On 1/7/25 5:10 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> In the meantime, however, GNU/Linux/FOSS will just keep on exuding its
> total superiority.

Linux' superiority disappeared when I connected a Canon Pixma 2520
scanner-printer combo to it.

It is the most common printer combo you can buy. Walmart has it for just
$40. So I imagine a lot of people have that printer cause Walmart has
been selling it for more than 10 years straight. Earlier versions of it
sold since early 2005 as far as I personally know.

But attach it to a linux machine and you're shit out of luck :)

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:34:24 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> Linux' superiority disappeared when I connected a Canon Pixma 2520
> scanner-printer combo to it.
>

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-install-a-Canon-MG2520-printer-in-Ubuntu

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

On 1/8/25 4:57 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:34:24 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>> Linux' superiority disappeared when I connected a Canon Pixma 2520
>> scanner-printer combo to it.
>>
>
> https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-install-a-Canon-MG2520-printer-in-Ubuntu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks but I already found a scanner software that sees the scanner and
prints the stuff I want. Cannot do printer head cleaning, etc, but that
has been enough for me so far.

But it took me more than half a day to find that software.

And that's the problem. What you gave a link for, if indeed successful,
only shows that the solution is out there somewhere. And this is the
problem. This is why Windows rules over Linux. The existence of a
solution is not good enough. User can only click on "install."

When installing software for canon pixma 2520 on a linux machine becomes
a matter of clicking on "install" button, that's when Windows is
history. Nowhere else earlier than that.

My issue is that Windows _must_ become history. It has become a gigantic
amount of abuse for tens and tens of millions of users. It must go. It
is still here because Microsoft Al Capones do not let Linux develop as I
described. And enthusiasts like you, are happy enough to mind your own
business being enthusiastic about linux as it is today.

You do _not_ represent a linux user that wants it to also defeat the
Windows racket. I do! Calling it "Winblows" is just another way of
saying, "that's not the operating system I am using, and beyond that I
don't care."

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

>Calling it "Winblows" is just another way of
>saying, "that's not the operating system I am using, and beyond that I
>don't care."

I call it that because it does suck balls, requiring ever-increasing
hardware specs, Linux is so much sleeker, even when using a full GUI
setup.

--
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 Wed, 8 Jan 2025 14:48:18 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> And that's the problem. What you gave a link for, if indeed successful,
> only shows that the solution is out there somewhere. And this is the
> problem. This is why Windows rules over Linux. The existence of a
> solution is not good enough. User can only click on "install."
>

That is true.

But GNU/Linux has always been for those who have the knowledge/
experience to overcome those problems. IOW, GNU/Linux is not
really appropriate for the "unwashed masses."

The distros try to make it more foolproof, but, largely because
of vendor reticence, they cannot always succeed.

As I indicated in an earlier post, the GNU/Linux user should
always research compatibility issues BEFORE acquiring hardware.

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

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:

>As I indicated in an earlier post, the GNU/Linux user should
>always research compatibility issues BEFORE acquiring hardware.

When I first built this box, it needed Windows, but Linux caught up
and saved me from remaining with Windows long-term.

--
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 1/8/25 3:31 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> But GNU/Linux has always been for those who have the knowledge/
> experience to overcome those problems. IOW, GNU/Linux is not
> really appropriate for the "unwashed masses."

I don't think so. Enthusiasm can go in any direction. Linux is being
developed by enthusiasts, No? And yet, it does not take itself near
where Windows is.. So I highly suspect that racketeering is being
conducted by Microsoft.

Linux, by now, should've been and become "really appropriate" for the
unwashed masses. But it has not. The enthusiasts involved in that
direction, either are threatened by Windows Capones, or are bought by
them into inaction. And that's to the utmost detriment of the consumers
like any racketeering practice is.

I don't like that. I cannot say I cannot live with that, no, nothing
like that, but I certainly don't like stuff of this nature around me. I
resent it profoundly, and sincerely. I can't be that indifferent to such
practices. That's how I am. I suspect that's also how .. what was his
name, the fat guy with long hair who advocates linux over Windows with
some vengeance involved, I guess. I've personally been pained enough by
Windows to want it to go away where it belongs. Up the MS Capones asses,
and nowhere else other than that.

If Windows didn't have a better rival, sure, I'd be content with it. But
not when Linux is around. I want Linux to kill Windows. You do that by
making it suitable for "unwashed masses."

On 1/8/25 2:54 PM, Joel wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Calling it "Winblows" is just another way of
>> saying, "that's not the operating system I am using, and beyond that I
>> don't care."
>
>
> I call it that because it does suck balls, requiring ever-increasing
> hardware specs, Linux is so much sleeker, even when using a full GUI
> setup.
>

It's true. Same experience for me. When I installed mint on my optiplex,
weeks later I found myself having not touched the windows machine, _or_,
the windows install on the other half of this ssd. And months came and
passed, and I didn't need to touch Windows except on two occasions as I
said before. Occasions that directly point to what I'm saying in this
thread.

So the way it is for me, with linux, I have not escaped Windows as yet.
The motherfucker Capone is still standing right behind me, all the time.
And I don't like that. I can't be silent about it.