On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:16:22 +0000, ERACC wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:17:40 -0500, mimus wrote:
>> I agree as I prefer The GIMP. Supposedly there are still things that a
> full version of Photoshop can do that The GIMP cannot. This has been
> hashed and re-hashed on /. ad nauseum. Also a developer for The GIMP has
> pretty much said the same thing to me in response to this article.
> Although he did say he estimates 95% of the end-user complaints about
> The GIMP vs Photoshop are due to lack of familiarity with The GIMP, not
> lack of features. As a matter of fact I have been working to resolve
> comment problems on our blog so I can entice him to come comment on the
> article. I installed a new theme today and the comment system appears to
> work now. People still have to request a blog user account at this point
> as I am picky about who I let sign up to post comments.
>
> Gene (e-mail: gene \a\t eracc \d\o\t com)

It's also true that probably 95% of users never use 90% of what is
available in either program. Why are people not content with
'sufficiency'? Does it matter if all the bells and whistles are there if
you never use them?

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:10:52 +0000, ray wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:17:40 -0500, mimus wrote:
>> Not even a mite of curiosity, eh?

Not really, no.

I wander marveling through Gimp's controls occasionally.

On 2008-03-28 14:18, ERACC wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:38:37 +0100, birre wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> birre, I am already mostly on your side in this argument and personally
> choose to use FOSS. As I said in my blog article I am a GIMP guy. As a
> matter of fact a GIMP developer has responded to me about the article and
> I am looking for permission to add his comments at the bottom.
>
> However, I believe there is room for CSS and FOSS in the Linux community.
> Users can and should be able to make the choice as to which they prefer
> to use. We do not want to be like the closed-mind CSS crowd and start
> thinking our way is the only way.
>
> Gene (e-mail: gene \a\t eracc \d\o\t com)

I was reading another article about their EULA , where Abobe claim the right to
your files:

"
you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other
remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly
perform and publicly display such Content."

I claim that CSS has nothing to do in FOSS , since it conflict with the most
important reason to use it. It's maybe accepted in the OSS camp, but not where
the F comes from.

If you use their web service you are far from free, you don't even own your
pictures you create there.

I really hope Linux users are a bit smarter then windows/mac users and
understand that Stallman has right, linux will be just another windows platform
in the future if we don't resist all CSS we can.
So we need all to think about why he will call it GNU/linux just to make us
remember what is really important for us users.

Instead of using those services, we must insist that hardware vendors stop
making drivers for hardware, and instead have all their proprietary code as
internal firmware , and ONLY use documented and open API's to the hardware,
so the kernel hackers can create drivers that work together with the other
kernel modules.
The main problem of stability for both Linux and Vista is alien drivers
from hardware vendors that only have knowledge about their own hardware,
but don't care much about all other hardware or the kernel itself.

Things should just work plug&play, and for that, we can't have secrets on both
sides of the bus with developers that have secrets for each other.

Most software companies still don't think we shall have any rights, and they
will do what they can to kill free software, and if you think that is ok,
buy a Vista box or a mac, but as a user of free software, we must really
try to avoid CSS so much we can without losing our job or something, and
not start to use new closed programs without force from someone.

When they let us use their software on the web is just a middle way to
trick us, since we never have any control over our data anyway if it's
hosted remote, but read the fine print first :-)

So in short, for hobby and your own web logos and stuff, GIMP is just all
you need, but if you make arts for a customer, the last thing you will do
is to use a web service where Adobe has royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual,
irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use your work you sell to someone.

/bb

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:39:09 +0200, birre wrote:

> On 2008-03-28 14:18, ERACC wrote:
>
> I was reading another article about their EULA , where Abobe claim the
> right to your files:
>
> "
> you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual,
> irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive
> revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish,
> translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content."
>
> I claim that CSS has nothing to do in FOSS , since it conflict with the
> most important reason to use it. It's maybe accepted in the OSS camp,
> but not where the F comes from.
[...]

birre, I invite you to state this as a comment on the blog article. Many
people reading that article are not USENET folk. I would appreciate your
input there.

Gene (e-mail: gene \a\t eracc \d\o\t com)

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
In <ft12d7$qnj$1>, on Wed, 2 Apr 2008
22:47:04 +0000 (UTC), ERACC, junkmail wrote:

> birre, I invite you to state this as a comment on the blog article. Many
> people reading that article are not USENET folk. I would appreciate your
> input there.

I would likewise invite you to post the blog article
here. Many people reading usenet are not blog folk
after all.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:34:26 +0000, ray wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:55:09 +0000, ERACC wrote:
>
>> I saw a news article stating there is now a web based version of
>> Photoshop that can be used for "free". So, I reviewed it.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> Gene (e-mail: gene \a\t eracc \d\o\t com)
>
> Interesting. How in hell did you get it to work? I installed the latest
> 'flash' on several different browsers on two different distros and it
> still would not go through the first page.

It worked for me. I'm using Firefox 3 beta5, Fedora 7 64 bit with the the
latest Flash plugin.