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.

http://blog.eracc.com/2008/03/27/rev...oshop-express/

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

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.

On 28 Mar 2008 04:34:26 GMT, 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.

Hmmm, I happen to be running Mandriva Linux 2008.1 rc2 but flash
plugin is
Shockwave Flash

File name: libflashplayer.so
Shockwave Flash 9.0 r115

snippet from my admin diary follows:
#********** start Shockwaveflash playser install *********
#*
#* Shockwaveflash player 9 install
#*
#*
#* http://adobe.com
#* click get Adobe Flash player
#* Pick tar, not rpm
#*
#************************************************* **********
exit 0 # just in case some newbie tries to run this as a script


# close/exit all email & browser accounts and/or apps
# click up a terminal

su - root

mkdir -p /root/tmp
cd /root/tmp
/bin/rm -rf *flash_player*
tar -xvzf /accounts/downloads/install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz
cd *flash_player*


/bin/rm -f /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so

../flashplayer-installer
/usr/lib/mozilla
y
n

cd
/bin/rm -rf /root/tmp/*flash_player*

exit

# to test flash

click up a browser in your user account and click red button to roll
dice at http://sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca/help/flash_test.htm

firefox http://sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca/help/flash_test.htm

#**************** end Shockwaveflash playser install ***************

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)

Here's one review..."putting the "Photoshop" name on it is really
misleading. This has basically no semblance of Photoshop. It's just an
online photo gallery with very simple image correction tools (hue,
contrast, rotate, etc.). Basically, it's about as advanced as Vista's
Photo Gallery, just online. It's a slick Web 2.0 app and could be really
useful to novice users, but "free version of Photoshop," it isn't."
Frank

On 2008-03-27 23:55, 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)

Try to think a bit deeper, will you have linux as a open system in the future?
Or even free (as in freedom GNU/Linux) where you have full control over your
system and data?

Or will you let non free applications (free of charge in the beginning)
find their way into the linux users life,
so we miss the chance to be liberated from proprietary software?

If all users that has any interest of making nice graphics just donate a few $
each to the gimp project, I'm sure it should be the killer app that both
beginners and advanced users can use, and prefer over Photoshop.

We must watch out, if you are FOSS user, stay away from proprietary
programs even if they are free of charge as the first injection of a drug.

If you are a windows refugee, that just try something different, why help to
make it the same.

/bb

Bit Twister <BitTwister> writes:

[..]
> exit
>
> # to test flash
>
> click up a browser in your user account and click red button to roll
> dice at [..]
>
> firefox [..]
>
> #**************** end Shockwaveflash playser install ***************

Why would you post that if its shipped with the product? Dont you think
it just leads to google mess and the chance of someone using that when
its out of date and useless? exit 0 not withstanding.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:15:00 -0700, Frank wrote:

> ERACC wrote:
>
> Here's one review..."putting the "Photoshop" name on it is really
> misleading. This has basically no semblance of Photoshop. It's just an
> online photo gallery with very simple image correction tools (hue,
> contrast, rotate, etc.). Basically, it's about as advanced as Vista's
> Photo Gallery, just online. It's a slick Web 2.0 app and could be really
> useful to novice users, but "free version of Photoshop," it isn't."
> Frank

Heh, sour grapes Frank? If you have problems with the naming then talk to
your Windows pals at Adobe. I'm not the one claiming it is a version of
Photoshop, they are. I'm just going along with their claim. If you mean
something else then I missed your point. If you are citing someone else a
URL would be appropriate.

Of course CSS shops like Adobe and Microsoft have been misleading folks
for years about what a computer is and how it should be used. Heck
Microsoft has even tried to stop FOSS by pressing for legislation at the
federal level in the USA and in the EU using its' shadow puppet Initiative
for Software Choice:

http://www.techworld.com/application...09&pagtype=all.

That this current naming of a web application by a CSS shop is misleading
is no real surprise to me. Regardless, it is an obvious way for Adobe to
quickly and easily have an "application" that is available cross-platform.

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

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:38:37 +0100, birre wrote:

> On 2008-03-27 23:55, ERACC wrote:
>
> Try to think a bit deeper, will you have linux as a open system in the
> future? Or even free (as in freedom GNU/Linux) where you have full
> control over your system and data?
>
> Or will you let non free applications (free of charge in the beginning)
> find their way into the linux users life, so we miss the chance to be
> liberated from proprietary software?
[...]

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)

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.

I'm not sure what you installed but obviously it does work for me. I
think Bit Twister has your answer though.

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

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:19:49 +0000, ERACC wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:34:26 +0000, ray wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you installed but obviously it does work for me. I
> think Bit Twister has your answer though.
>
> Gene (e-mail: gene \a\t eracc \d\o\t com)

Yes - I tried again and it worked properly. Not very impressive, though,
is it?

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:00:16 +0000, ray wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:19:49 +0000, ERACC wrote:
>> Yes - I tried again and it worked properly. Not very impressive, though,
> is it?

No, not really. But my idea was to see if the "application" will work on
Linux, and it does. Plus the fact that it has "Photoshop" in the name is
just priceless IMO. :)

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

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:17:40 -0500, mimus 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.
>>
>> [..]
>
> Why?
>
> Let them use, extend and script Gimp!
>
> (I have it in for Adobe a bit, wot with their horrible bloaty PDF files
> and their buying of-- why was I not surprised?-- Macromedia/Flash.)

Not even a mite of curiosity, eh?

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:17:40 -0500, mimus 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.
>>
>> [..]
>
> Why? Let them use, extend and script Gimp!
>
> (I have it in for Adobe a bit, wot with their horrible bloaty PDF files
> and their buying of-- why was I not surprised?-- Macromedia/Flash.)

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)

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.
>
> [..]

Why?

Let them use, extend and script Gimp!

(I have it in for Adobe a bit, wot with their horrible bloaty PDF files
and their buying of-- why was I not surprised?-- Macromedia/Flash.)

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?