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.

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 00:10, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> 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.

I entirely agree here. Photoshop will generally come up with a new
feature, something nobody would actually use, and then the users will
put pressure on the competition to implement something similar. It's the
same story with Microsoft Office. One feature Microsoft Office
implemented that I absolutely can't stand is its insistence on saving
your files on the cloud by default. Sure, you can change the default
save location, but it always seems to find a new reason to use OneDrive.

>>> 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.

That might be true. People simply need to learn how to use LibreOffice
properly to do the same things as in Microsoft's suite. I know that
pivot tables were often cited as a must-have feature and my wife used
them all the time herself. It turned out that doing the same thing
existed in LO but under a different name. It works just as well too.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch

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 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.

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.