GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

[Chris Ahlstrom]

So on my Debian Sid box, I start GIMP to edit an XPM file (overkill, yeah I
know) and see a completely new splash screen. I guess the big feature is the
libgimp API v3 is now stable.

How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.

Too long for you? Well, then why don't you contribute to its
development?

GIMP offers many channels for contributors.

Otherwise stop complaining. This is FOSS, and FOSS does
not magically grow on trees.

GIMP is one of the great wonders of the FOSS world.

GIMP outshines commercial competitors in many areas but
commercial software is oriented towards idiots. GIMP,
for the most part, is not.

Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
any emulation.

[John Ames]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:13:34 +0000

Post by Farley Flud
Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
any emulation.

That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
"single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
are clunky and awkward.

(Shame, because GIMP's technical functionality is quite solid. Yet
another cautionary tale about the unfortunate tendency of programmers,
left to themselves, to treat user experience and UI design as an
afterthought...)

[Farley Flud]

Post by John Ames
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:13:34 +0000

Post by Farley Flud
Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
any emulation.

That's a farcical claim,

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You were a farce since the day you
were born.

Post by John Ames
when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
clone of Photoshop

All image editors, like all word processors, spreadsheets,
and accounting software, etc., are EXACTLY the same. They all
do the same fucking thing and none of them can stake a claim
on having the definitive GUI.

But idiots like you, will always be duped.

Post by John Ames
The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
are clunky and awkward.

Only to a mental asshole like you.

True artists, and their cerebral programming side, envision
in their minds the concepts first and the GUIs much, much later,
if at all.

But you are NOT an artist and you have no cerebral side.
That much is quite obvious from your stupid and droll posts.

My advice to you is simple:

Keep out of professional territory. You will remain a cheap
dilettante until your dying day.

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

[John Ames]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 19:27:45 +0000

Post by Farley Flud
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You were a farce since the day you
were born.

Never claimed otherwise!

Post by Farley Flud
All image editors, like all word processors, spreadsheets,
and accounting software, etc., are EXACTLY the same. They all
do the same fucking thing and none of them can stake a claim
on having the definitive GUI.
But idiots like you, will always be duped.

I'm not even stating that as a criticism; there's nothing wrong with
copying what works, and in fairness even Photoshop has a clear lineage
back to MacPaint. But pretending that there's no imitation going on,
when GIMP started out looking like one version of Photoshop, and its
big "facelift" revision served to make it look like the newer versions
of Photoshop, is just silly.

Post by Farley Flud

Post by John Ames
The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while
GIMP's are clunky and awkward.

Only to a mental asshole like you.

Clearly, I am dealing with a master of rhetoric.

(I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is - I have,
elsewhere, and if you'd like I can go and dig it up - but I think a
single example will suffice to illustrate the general point: the GIMP
team have *no* idea what the point of keyboard accelerators is. They
*have* accelerators, but they frequently assign the same letter to
multiple elements in a single menu/window, so that instead of being
able to quickly navigate through the most commonly-used paths by muscle
memory - as you can in Photoshop and other well-designed professional
software suites - you have to sit there hitting the same key multiple
times until you can visually confirm that the focus has cycled to the
option you want, at which point you might as well have just used the
mouse.)

Post by Farley Flud
True artists, and their cerebral programming side, envision
in their minds the concepts first and the GUIs much, much later,
if at all.

I mean, it's certainly true that form ought to follow function, and
that *working well* is more important than being slick. But good
functionality and good UI design are *not* mutually exclusive, and
treating UI design as if it's a "later, if at all" consideration is a
good way to produce software that is intuitive only to its developer(s).

Post by Farley Flud
Keep out of professional territory. You will remain a cheap
dilettante until your dying day.

I shall treat this golden wisdom with the reverence it deserves. Thank
you, O great sage, for blessing me with the insights of your mighty
brain.

Post by Farley Flud
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

*Master* of rhetoric.

[Farley Flud]

Post by John Ames
(I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is

One must fell a tree.

One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.

I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.

[John Ames]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 20:22:36 +0000

Post by Farley Flud
One must fell a tree.
One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.
I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.

That's lovely, but its relevance to the ccnversation is not immediately
clear.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by John Ames
(I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is

One must fell a tree.
One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.
I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.

Ah we have a total dickhead in the group

[Farley Flud]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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!

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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!

*plonk*ing the plonker

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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" :)

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Farley Flud

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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."

[TJ]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by John Ames
(I could write an essay on how slackass GIMP's UI design is

One must fell a tree.
One is confronted with an axe and a chainsaw.
I choose the axe and I can bring down that tree faster than
some flabby idiot who has no choice but to pick up the chain saw.

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.

Dunno what any of this has to do with GIMP 3.0. though.

TJ

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by TJ
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.

[-hh]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by TJ
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

[Farley Flud]

Post by -hh
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.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Farley Flud
But I will have to eventually trash the Core i7 machine

Be cautious :)

[-hh]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by -hh
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.

Post by Farley Flud
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.

Post by Farley Flud
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.

Post by Farley Flud
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

[Farley Flud]

Post by -hh
Translation: not competent enough to get Linux running on even
bare iron in less than a week.

I hate to burst your bumptious bubble but I've already gotten
it running via the Gentoo Live USB. How else could I have gathered
the relevant CPU parameters?

Indeed, I could have installed a complete distro but I choose
not to go that simpleton route.

Distros are an anathema. Every GNU/Linux machine requires total
customization.

I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.

Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
only customized GNU/Linux.

[-hh]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by -hh
Translation: not competent enough to get Linux running on even
bare iron in less than a week.

I hate to burst your bumptious bubble but I've already gotten
it running via the Gentoo Live USB. How else could I have gathered
the relevant CPU parameters?

That you finally got it running wasn't in dispute: it was a question of
how much time did it take you. So how many days did it finally take?

Post by Farley Flud
Indeed, I could have installed a complete distro but I choose
not to go that simpleton route.
Distros are an anathema. Every GNU/Linux machine requires total
customization.

Customization is invariably a trade-off. For example, when one
reasonably regularly rotates through multiple PCs, having the same UI is
generally beneficial, but this also requires that you have personal
control over the UI for every last one of them: when you don't, then
there's productivity gains to be had from not straying far from the
standard UI installation.

Post by Farley Flud
I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.
Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
only customized GNU/Linux.

Which again depends on the circumstances: when its an appliance with a
known short remaining lifespan, niggling over something which won't
pragmatically make a difference is a waste of one's time & resources.


-hh

[TJ]

Post by Farley Flud
I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.
Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
only customized GNU/Linux.

My grandfather's 72-year-old tractor is still an important part of our
machinery fleet, used almost every day during the growing season. The
manual states: "Use a good, clean, gasoline with an octane rating of at
least 65."

I can't find any of the 65 octane stuff, so I use 87, closest I can get.
With an optional manifold, the manual says the tractor is supposed to be
able to run on something called "low-cost fuel," whatever that is. I
can't find any of that, either.

I *could* buy premium, TOP TIER gas for it, but it would be a complete
waste of money that I don't have, and I might have to de-tune the timing
so it would run the way it should. I don't have the time, or the
inclination, to do that.

As for my Linux installs, Mageia only needs a little customization here
and there to get it the way I like it, so that's what I use. Besides, as
the Leader of the Mageia Quality Assurance Team, I really ought to use
the distro pretty much as is if it's to stay usable by the less
experienced users that don't know yet what to change and what to leave
alone.

YMMV.

TJ

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by TJ

Post by Farley Flud
I scoff at these idiots who purchase exorbitant pickup trucks/SUVs
and then fill them up with sub-grade, discount gasoline.
Every vehicle deserves only TOP TIER gas, and every computer deserves
only customized GNU/Linux.

My grandfather's 72-year-old tractor is still an important part of our
machinery fleet, used almost every day during the growing season. The
manual states: "Use a good, clean, gasoline with an octane rating of at
least 65."
I can't find any of the 65 octane stuff, so I use 87, closest I can get.
With an optional manifold, the manual says the tractor is supposed to be
able to run on something called "low-cost fuel," whatever that is. I
can't find any of that, either.
I *could* buy premium, TOP TIER gas for it, but it would be a complete
waste of money that I don't have, and I might have to de-tune the timing
so it would run the way it should. I don't have the time, or the
inclination, to do that.
As for my Linux installs, Mageia only needs a little customization here
and there to get it the way I like it, so that's what I use. Besides, as
the Leader of the Mageia Quality Assurance Team, I really ought to use
the distro pretty much as is if it's to stay usable by the less
experienced users that don't know yet what to change and what to leave
alone.
YMMV.
TJ

If I can use this laptop with Fedora on it until the machine inevitably
kicks the bucket, I'll be happy. I don't like the idea of changing my
hardware every three, four or even five years. If I can go ten with it,
I'll be satisfied to retire it in favour of something new from Framework
or System76.

[rbowman]

Post by Andrzej Matuch
If I can use this laptop with Fedora on it until the machine inevitably
kicks the bucket, I'll be happy. I don't like the idea of changing my
hardware every three, four or even five years. If I can go ten with it,
I'll be satisfied to retire it in favour of something new from Framework
or System76.

My Fedora box is a ten year old Dell with a 4th gen i5. I did get a little
snappier processor on eBay and added 8 GB or RAM and a SSD but I'm not
planning an upgrade. The only limitation is the only PCIe slot is in use
so the SSD is SATA rather than NVMe so it boots a little slower than the
Ryzen 7 Ubuntu box. Considering it's been up 41 days that is not a big
deal.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by rbowman

Post by Andrzej Matuch
If I can use this laptop with Fedora on it until the machine inevitably
kicks the bucket, I'll be happy. I don't like the idea of changing my
hardware every three, four or even five years. If I can go ten with it,
I'll be satisfied to retire it in favour of something new from Framework
or System76.

My Fedora box is a ten year old Dell with a 4th gen i5. I did get a little
snappier processor on eBay and added 8 GB or RAM and a SSD but I'm not
planning an upgrade. The only limitation is the only PCIe slot is in use
so the SSD is SATA rather than NVMe so it boots a little slower than the
Ryzen 7 Ubuntu box. Considering it's been up 41 days that is not a big
deal.

+1

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by -hh
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.

Post by Farley Flud
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.

Post by Farley Flud
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.

Post by Farley Flud
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.
#

Who bit your bum today?

-hh

[Farley Flud]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

[D]

Post by John Ames
I shall treat this golden wisdom with the reverence it deserves. Thank
you, O great sage, for blessing me with the insights of your mighty
brain.

Post by Farley Flud
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

*Master* of rhetoric.

Might I suggest a fight to the death with the Lirpa?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by John Ames
That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
"single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
are clunky and awkward.

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.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by John Ames
That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
"single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
are clunky and awkward.

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.

[rbowman]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
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.

[RonB]

Post by rbowman

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
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.

I kind of look at PhotoShop the same way. Last I tried it, though, was
several versions ago. I have almost zero use for either.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by rbowman

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
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.

[rbowman]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by rbowman

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
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.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by rbowman

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by rbowman

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
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.

Post by rbowman
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.

[rbowman]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
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.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by rbowman

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
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 :-)

[rbowman]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by rbowman

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
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.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by John Ames
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:13:34 +0000

Post by Farley Flud
Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
any emulation.

That's a farcical claim, when its UI from the get-go has been a naked
clone of Photoshop - first in its original Mac-style "separate windows
for documents & tool palettes" incarnation, and then in its later
"single window, tool palette on the left, extended options docked on
the right" version. The biggest difference is that Photoshop's workflow
and UX choices are generally well thought-out and helpful, while GIMP's
are clunky and awkward.
(Shame, because GIMP's technical functionality is quite solid. Yet
another cautionary tale about the unfortunate tendency of programmers,
left to themselves, to treat user experience and UI design as an
afterthought...)

Ummmm, what about PhotoGIMP?

Anyway, having never used Photoshop, I have no real issue with the GIMP
interface.

I once owned a 600-page book describing (with graphics) the things that could
be done with GIMP.

[John Ames]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 07:56:57 -0500

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
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.

[Joel]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.

Too long for you? Well, then why don't you contribute to its
development?
GIMP offers many channels for contributors.
Otherwise stop complaining. This is FOSS, and FOSS does
not magically grow on trees.
GIMP is one of the great wonders of the FOSS world.
GIMP outshines commercial competitors in many areas but
commercial software is oriented towards idiots. GIMP,
for the most part, is not.
Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
any emulation.

There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.
--
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.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Joel
There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.

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.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Charlie Gibbs
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.

The Photoshop lackeys are always the instigators. They seem greatly
distressed by the fact that some folks do not worship their idol.

The last time I used Photoshop, the desktop and not the "cloud" version,
I was appalled that it is actually based on the MDI, or the multiple-
document interface. MDI is by far the stupidest idea of an interface
that anyone could imagine, especially in this era of multiple desktops/
screens. The GIMP uses the sensible SDI model which is infinitely
more comfortable and efficient.

But the only advantage that Photoshop has over the GIMP is its ability
to handle huge numbers of layers which I suppose is very important in
that ridiculous world of commercial art and marketing. I can't see
any REAL image pro being that enthused about multiple layering.

The Photoshop apologists will always focus on the graphical interface
which should be of minor concern to any image pro. The important part
of image processing is understanding what has to be done and then how
to accomplish it. The actual GUI is only a secondary consideration.

[chrisv]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Charlie Gibbs
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.

Post by Farley Flud
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".

[[e-mail]]

Post by chrisv

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Charlie Gibbs
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.

Post by chrisv

Post by Farley Flud
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.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by Charlie Gibbs
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.

[chrisv]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by chrisv

Post by Farley Flud
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.

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

[Farley Flud]

Post by chrisv

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

[Joel]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by chrisv

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by Joel

Post by Farley Flud

Post by chrisv

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Farley Flud
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

[Diego Garcia]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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!

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?

[[e-mail]]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Farley Flud
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.

[Farley Flud]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

[D]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by D

Post by Farley Flud

   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.

[Lars Poulsen]

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by D
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.

Depending on what type of phone, it can be simple to open the CameraRoll
folder through a USB cable. In Android, you may have to explicitly
authorize the use of USB for anything beyond charging.

On iPhone, Windows can mount the entire iCloud Photos database as a
folder in "This PC" (or "My Computer" or what they call it this year.
On Linux, there is "icloudpd", a python program that can grab the last
several hundred new photos from an iCloud account. I have used both.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by Lars Poulsen

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by D
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.

Depending on what type of phone, it can be simple to open the CameraRoll
folder through a USB cable. In Android, you may have to explicitly
authorize the use of USB for anything beyond charging.
On iPhone, Windows can mount the entire iCloud Photos database as a
folder in "This PC" (or "My Computer" or what they call it this year.
On Linux, there is "icloudpd", a python program that can grab the last
several hundred new photos from an iCloud account. I have used both.

I don't want to subscribe to another cloud service so I'm content to
just keep the photos on my phone for now. Whatever my wife shares with
me eventually gets synced to the cloud too from my computer's storage.
If and when I run out of space on the phone or I upgrade to a new
device, I'll just upload whatever's on it to the cloud and make it
accessible to the new device.

[rbowman]

In Android, you may have to explicitly authorize the use of USB for
anything beyond charging.

In reasonably new Android releases you need to enable developer mode. You
do that by tapping the build number 7 times I think. Just keep tapping.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Farley Flud
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.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

I can remember some Microsoft Office person saying, back in the 200x’s or
so, that of the requests for new features that they got for the next
version, some substantial fraction of them (on the order of 25%-75%) were
already in the existing version.

[Lem Novantotto]

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.

[Lars Poulsen]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.

... 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.
...
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.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Lars Poulsen
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.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

... 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.

[Lars Poulsen]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

... 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.

I am NOT trying to do bulk processing of images.
I want to find images relating to places, people or times, and add/edit
metadata on one at a time. I do have a set of scripts (written in Perl)
to browse through the collection in a folder tree of
/pictures/
yyyy/
yyyy-mm/
yyyy-mm-location-or-event
But I don't have the web-2.0 skills (or the time) to write the few
thousand lines of code to switch in and out of image editing through the
web windows.

My /pictures/ lives on my home fedora server, which is remote mounted
from my Win-10 desktop, which has the good display (a 4K TV on my desk)
and digiKam is running in a Fedora image on WSL.

Yes I know, this is politically incorrect in soooo many ways!

[-hh]

Post by Lars Poulsen

Post by Farley Flud

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.

... 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.
...
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.

Yes, an image organizer ('database' app) is what you're looking for, and
to that end, neither GIMP, Photoshop, nor Photoshop Elements are that
tool; they're image manipulator Apps.

Apple's Photos does some organizing, as does also Adobe Lightroom. In
Adobe land, it used to be Adobe Bridge, although I don't know if that's
current. Apple Aperture was another, but it was obsoleted years ago.


-hh

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by chrisv

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by chrisv

Post by Farley Flud
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.

[D]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by chrisv

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by chrisv

Post by Farley Flud
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.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by D

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by chrisv

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.

[-hh]

Post by chrisv

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by chrisv

Post by Farley Flud
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.

Post by chrisv
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.

Post by chrisv

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by -hh
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.

Some things are just badly designed, though.

For example, the Microsoft Office “Ribbon” originated in the days before
modern widescreen monitors became popular. But most text documents
continue to be laid out in portrait mode. So you have this mismatch which
leads to wasted, unused space on the sides of the screen, while this big
“Ribbon” thing on the top reduces the amount of space available to show
your document.

This is why the LibreOffice Sidebar is a better design. It leaves more of
the height of the screen available to show the long dimension of your
document.

Post by -hh
I had a horrific experience with a contractor using {not-MS}office
some years ago ... some glitching with the FOSS spreadsheet not
charting the project's performance data correctly ...

Sure it wasn’t Excel? Microsoft Excel is notorious for leading users into
such errors. There are entire websites devoted to collecting instances of
such screwups.

Post by -hh

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

Remember that, since Adobe moved to the rentware model, it removed any
incentive to actually continue improving the product, since customers pay
exactly the same regardless.

Post by -hh
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.

Too often, though, we see supposed experts who have become so invested in
their expensive proprietary tools and the companies that make them, that
they refuse to believe that something else could offer just as much power
for much less money.

[chrisv]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Remember that, since Adobe moved to the rentware model, it removed any
incentive to actually continue improving the product, since customers pay
exactly the same regardless.

They will continue to improve it. Just as Free software continues to
get improved, despite not being "sold". There is user demand and
competitive pressure.

[-hh]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by -hh
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.

Some things are just badly designed, though.

Of course.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
For example, the Microsoft Office “Ribbon” originated in the days before
modern widescreen monitors became popular. But most text documents
continue to be laid out in portrait mode. So you have this mismatch which
leads to wasted, unused space on the sides of the screen, while this big
“Ribbon” thing on the top reduces the amount of space available to show
your document.
This is why the LibreOffice Sidebar is a better design. It leaves more of
the height of the screen available to show the long dimension of your
document.

Good example.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by -hh
I had a horrific experience with a contractor using {not-MS}office
some years ago ... some glitching with the FOSS spreadsheet not
charting the project's performance data correctly ...

Sure it wasn’t Excel? Microsoft Excel is notorious for leading users into
such errors. There are entire websites devoted to collecting instances of
such screwups.

No, I know it wasn't MS, as it became part of the evidence I had to work
through with our lawyers in order to terminate their contract. I could
search the COLA archives to see if it was LibreOffice or OpenOffice, but
frankly, I don't recall nor care anymore.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by -hh

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
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.

Remember that, since Adobe moved to the rentware model, it removed any
incentive to actually continue improving the product, since customers pay
exactly the same regardless.

That argument can go either way, but the ground truth AFAIC is that
shortly after that change, Adobe reported to their stockholders that
revenue (or profits?) doubled as a result of that business decision.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by -hh
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.

Too often, though, we see supposed experts who have become so invested in
their expensive proprietary tools and the companies that make them, that
they refuse to believe that something else could offer just as much power
for much less money.

A fair & balanced point which isn't particularly relevant to what gets
shouted about on COLA, for on this go-around many of the longstanding
"haters" are finally admitted that they have zero experience with the
product that they've been so loudly critical of for so long. To use an
automotive analogy, its been like someone lambasting BMWs despite never
having even learned how to drive a car, let alone a sporty one.

-hh

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

To use an automotive analogy, its been like someone lambasting BMWs
despite never having even learned how to drive a car, let alone a sporty
one.

But we all have experience of other BMW drivers on the road ... I need say
no more ...

[rbowman]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

To use an automotive analogy, its been like someone lambasting BMWs
despite never having even learned how to drive a car, let alone a
sporty one.

But we all have experience of other BMW drivers on the road ... I need
say no more ...

It sometimes spills over to BMW riders when the same demographic purchases
bikes. I wouldn't mind an old R75/5 but I've got too many bikes already.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Joel
There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.

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.

Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
that good. Maybe commercial software is better, dunno. It doesn't matter
to me, it covers way more than my needs.

[TJ]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Joel
There's no doubt that running Windows or macOS allows one to access
commercial software that would best GIMP, but that doesn't mean GIMP
is without a lot of use, it's good enough for me to get by, as LO or
WPS Office suites for me are fine, I'm not married to M$ or Adobe. But
we have to understand the people who are married to them, and feel
lucky that our burdens are so much lighter.

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.

Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
that good. Maybe commercial software is better, dunno. It doesn't matter
to me, it covers way more than my needs.

+1

TJ

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Carlos E.R.
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?

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

[D]

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

[rbowman]

Post by Andrzej Matuch
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.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by rbowman

Post by Andrzej Matuch
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.

[rbowman]

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by rbowman

Post by Andrzej Matuch
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.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

Post by D
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.

[[e-mail]]

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

[pH]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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

[[e-mail]]

Post by pH

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

At least a physical address ! Best to send some
kind of 'money-order' or equiv ... you might lose
THAT much money to fraud but at least they won't
get an account routing-number or anything !

Yea, net-pay IS easy ... but these days it's also
too easy to SCAM. Hard to trust a Chase-Manhattan
site now, much less some obscure developer cadre
in Germany or wherever.

And no, I don't even know how to buy a BitCoin ...
and those are doomed to CRASH hard pretty soon
anyway.

[Richard Kettlewell]

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.

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by Richard Kettlewell

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.

[D]

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Richard Kettlewell

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.

Yes! It seems their biggest project the past 3-4 years was to build out a
surveillance state to catch people who did not want the corona vaccine.
That's when I decided they will never get a penny from me.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Richard Kettlewell

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

I see, I went to their members page before, but there's more to see
in a Web browser with Javascript support.

But memberships don't seem to add up to much of the $125,120,830
recorded as received from "membership & donations" in the annual
report.

Silver
1366 * $20,000 (best case, if all members had >5,000 employees)
$27,320,000

Gold
12 * $100,000
1,200,000

Platinum
12 * $500,000
$6,000,000

Total
$34,520,000 max. from memberships.

So most of that money must come from, seemingly-anonymous,
donations.

[D]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by D
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.

[pH]

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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

[TJ]

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

Indeed. My discretionary funds are very limited, so I can not afford to
contribute with money. But Mageia, as my distro of choice, is
community-based, meaning it is maintained by volunteers who contribute
their free time to make it as good as we can.

I have no coding skills to speak of, so development isn't my forte. But,
as the current Leader of the Mageia Quality Assurance (QA) Team, I
contribute in other, equally valuable ways.

We are the layer between the developers and the public, tasked with
testing updates before they are released to be as sure as possible that
they won't break Mageia systems. Developers are only human, and
sometimes mistakes creep in - a missing dependency, or maybe the package
won't work on hardware the developer doesn't have. Our job is to catch
that stuff.

We also test the install ISOs before they are released.

We are always looking for new members, and users of all skill levels are
welcome. One of the great things about Mageia is that the opinions of
new contributors are received with as much respect as those of our "old
hands."

But those aren't the only ways to contribute. If something in Mageia
doesn't work for you, please file a bug report. We also need
translators, documentation writers, bug triaging, website designers, the
list goes on.

https://www.mageia.org/en/contribute/ is a good place to start if you
wish to contribute to our project.

TJ

[Andrzej Matuch]

Post by TJ

Post by D

Post by Andrzej Matuch

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

Indeed. My discretionary funds are very limited, so I can not afford to
contribute with money. But Mageia, as my distro of choice, is community-
based, meaning it is maintained by volunteers who contribute their free
time to make it as good as we can.
I have no coding skills to speak of, so development isn't my forte. But,
as the current Leader of the Mageia Quality Assurance (QA) Team, I
contribute in other, equally valuable ways.
We are the layer between the developers and the public, tasked with
testing updates before they are released to be as sure as possible that
they won't break Mageia systems. Developers are only human, and
sometimes mistakes creep in - a missing dependency, or maybe the package
won't work on hardware the developer doesn't have. Our job is to catch
that stuff.
We also test the install ISOs before they are released.
We are always looking for new members, and users of all skill levels are
welcome. One of the great things about Mageia is that the opinions of
new contributors are received with as much respect as those of our "old
hands."
But those aren't the only ways to contribute. If something in Mageia
doesn't work for you, please file a bug report. We also need
translators, documentation writers, bug triaging, website designers, the
list goes on.
https://www.mageia.org/en/contribute/ is a good place to start if you
wish to contribute to our project.

I would have liked to try out your distribution before I settled for
Fedora. Your approach is pretty neat.

[rbowman]

Post by Andrzej Matuch
I would have liked to try out your distribution before I settled for
Fedora. Your approach is pretty neat.

I had not heard of it. The genealogy is interesting. I used Mandrake years
ago and Liked it. It begat Mandriva which seems to have begotten Mageia.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
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?

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
How long has version 3 been in the works? Seems like years.

Too long for you? Well, then why don't you contribute to its
development?
GIMP offers many channels for contributors.
Otherwise stop complaining. This is FOSS, and FOSS does
not magically grow on trees.

I wasn't complaining, dumbass.

Post by Farley Flud
GIMP is one of the great wonders of the FOSS world.
GIMP outshines commercial competitors in many areas but
commercial software is oriented towards idiots. GIMP,
for the most part, is not.
Like LibreOffice, GIMP is GIMP and it does not attempt
any emulation.