On 2025-01-02, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2025-01-02 03:24, RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-01-01, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> (snipped, unread)
>>>
>>> The -highhorse snit sees an advocate or two admitting that they have
>>> no experience with Photoshop. The snit sees an opportunity to attack.
>>> He claims that advocate "haters" have been unreasonable. They have
>>> been "loudly critical" of a product that they have no experience with.
>>>
>>> When challenged, the snit moves the goal posts to advocates talking
>>> about prices and values, which he asserts is being "loudly critical"
>>> of the more-expensive product.
>>>
>>> The snit also positively *gloats* about the fact that one advocate,
>>> sdb, made a stupid argument in the course of one such discussion about
>>> value.
>>>
>>> But even if one accepts the snittish claim that calling Photoshop
>>> "expensive" or whatever constitutes being "loudly critical" of it, the
>>> initial attack was that we were unreasonably critical of something
>>> that we had no experience with, and thus were ignorant of.
>>>
>>> But the price has always been known! Being "critical" of the price is
>>> *not* being critical of something we have no experience with and thus
>>> are ignorant of!
>>>
>>> So, -highhorse's attack *fails* even if one accepts his snittish claim
>>> calling Photoshop "expensive" and comparing value is "loud" "criticism
>>> on cost".
>>>
>>> As usual, -highhorse attacked using nothing but idiocy and lies. As
>>> usual, -highhorse failed.
>>>
>>> And let's consider sdb's brain-fart of ten (or whatever) years ago.
>>> This is about the best that -highhorse can do, apparently. Yes, sdb
>>> arbitrarily assigned a one cent price to GIMP, to compare relative
>>> values. Yes, it was stupid. Notice the absolute *pleasure*
>>> -highhorse gets out of this single example. The guy is a genuine
>>> fscking *asshole*, folks.
>>>
>>> How many *stupid* things have freedom-hating assholes, like
>>> -highhorse, spewed in here? I have hundreds of examples of -highhorse
>>> and many others spewing mind-boggling stupidity.
>>>
>>> And sdb's brain-fart was only that. He wasn't being an asshole. He
>>> wasn't attacking anyone using idiocy and lies.
>>>
>>> -highhorse attacks people using idiocy and lies. -highhorse has
>>> claimed that advocates are "irrational" and "close minded", because
>>> they "hate" Photoshop.
>>>
>>> Do cola advocates really "hate" Photoshop, or did -highhorse attack
>>> using idiocy and lies?
>>>
>>> Between what sdb did, and what -highhorse did, which is worse?
>>
>> Well I worked in a print shop where PhotoShop was one of the tools we needed
>> and I've always said that's really where it's needed, i.e., for
>> professionals (artists, graphic designers, printers, studios, etc.) Its
>> price is way out of whack for personal use (unless you're a very serious
>> hobbyist with more money than brains). It's even worse now than it used to
>> be, since Adobe has gone to renting their overpriced software instead of
>> selling it.
>>
>> But the only reason Photoshop ever comes up in a Linux newsgroup in the
>> first place is because small-minded twits (take your bows, -highhorse and
>> DuFuS) claim that this totally unnecessary software, at least for the vast
>> majority of computer users, isn't available on Linux.
>
> I used to have Photoshop Elements on the Mac; I never used it. Since
> then, I've practically never needed to use such an application. If I
> have, Paint.net or GIMP did the job. I have yet to sit in the corner of
> a room holding my knees and crying because I didn't have Photoshop
> installed.

I owned (own?) Photoshop 6 (or 5?) back in the mid 2000s. Bought used on
eBay, I think. I messed with it for a few hours and decided it wasn't my
"cup of tea," and gave up on it. They talk about GIMP becoming complicated.
What did they think Photoshop was... a walk in the park? If I remember
correctly, Photoshop 5 or 6 didn't look a lot different than GIMP.

>> Whoop dee do. If I
>> actually needed to use Photoshop (I don't) than I would install it (or rent
>> it, or however you use it now) on either a Mac or Windows machine.
>> Non-problem solved. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of
>> Windows users don't use Photoshop either.
>
> They don't. The only people using it and/or requiring it work in the
> field of photography or image manipulation. I would bet that most of us
> don't even know people that work in the former or latter fields.

I've only ever been around Photoshop at the print shop where I worked
(except for my short and lame attempt at learning it). If it's a tool you
need, by all means get it. I'm guessing the Windows or Mac computer you
would need to run it would be cheaper to buy than the Photoshop application
itself. To pretend it's a reason NOT to use Linux is absurd and extreme
clutching at straws.

>> What does any of this "prove" when
>> dealing with Linux? That an expensive, niche product doesn't work on Linux?
>> There's a lot of bloatware that very few people use that doesn't work on
>> Linux. So what? It proves nothing. It's just grasping at straws by
>> small-minded twits in their attempt to bolster their idiot arguments.
>>
>> And Photoshop IS way overpriced for personal use. Point, blank, period. I
>> don't apologize for stating this obvious fact.
>
> Here is an argument for using software under Linux: you don't need to
> create an account to download the software, and don't need to create
> another to use it. In fact, you don't need to identify yourself at all
> to use your computer.

The few times I've used GIMP it's done what I needed it to do. I don't
manipulate photos much (or hardly at all). It would be a total waste of my
money to rent Photoshop. (I think the hobbyists who do rent it, probably use
it sparingly, i.e., they're basically wasting their money.) But that's their
prerogative.

Even taking away the cost factor from Windows software, it's a pain in the
butt to keep registered and (even when you can buy it) upgrades are often
expensive.

For example, I bought Fade In, proprietary screenwriting software that works
in Linux, Windows and Macs for $80 a few years ago. Its license allows me to
use it on as many computers as I want, in any combination of Windows, Linux
or Macs. (I've tested it on Windows and Macs, but I use it in Linux.) Since
I bought it there has been one major upgrade from v3 to v4 and many small
point upgrades. I have never paid for a single upgrade.

Compare it to Final Draft (which doesn't work on Linux), which costs $250
(usually on sale for about $200, sometimes cheaper). It comes with a license
that allows it to be used on three computers (only for one platform). You
buy the Windows version, it only works on Windows, same with the Mac
version, only Macs. You have to activate your licenses via the Internet. If
you want to put it on another computer (and you're out of activations), you
have to deactivate it from the old computer and activate it on the new one.
If your computer crashes, you've lost one of your activations. You can get
it back by requesting it and hoping they believe you. That is, you can get
it back IF the version of your Final Draft is new enough to still be
supported. If you're using an older version of Final Draft and it
deactivates for whatever reason, you're shit out of luck. They'll offer to
sell you an upgrade for $100. If you're using an older Mac computer (for
example) and it's not supported by the newer version of Final Draft, again,
you're shit out of luck. Many writers upgrade every time Final Draft comes
out with a new version, at $100 a pop. Then there's a whole slew of serious
issues reports for about a year because Final Draft (like Microsoft) uses
their buyers as beta testers. And, like Microsoft, it takes forever to get a
bug fix.

Compare that to Fade In. Somebody on Reddit wanted a feature. I got hold of
the publisher, in three days there was a new version of Fade In with the new
feature added. The publisher of Fade In is also a screenwriter. Final Draft
is owned by a corporation and Final Draft is a side business for them. And
since they're the self-proclaimed "standard," they have the "take it or
leave it" attitude. Not surprisingly a lot of people are moving to Fade In
(and several other lesser known applications) — including my favorite,
Trelby — which has just gotten a new release and it's completely free and
open.

(Yeah, I rambled. Sorry.)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien