Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 2025-01-01, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

-hh wrote:
>

(snipped, unread)

>
The -highhorse snit sees an advocate or two admitting that they have
no experience with Photoshop.  The snit sees an opportunity to attack.
He claims that advocate "haters" have been unreasonable.  They have
been "loudly critical" of a product that they have no experience with.
>
When challenged, the snit moves the goal posts to advocates talking
about prices and values, which he asserts is being "loudly critical"
of the more-expensive product.
>
The snit also positively *gloats* about the fact that one advocate,
sdb, made a stupid argument in the course of one such discussion about
value.
>
But even if one accepts the snittish claim that calling Photoshop
"expensive" or whatever constitutes being "loudly critical" of it, the
initial attack was that we were unreasonably critical of something
that we had no experience with, and thus were ignorant of.
>
But the price has always been known!  Being "critical" of the price is
*not* being critical of something we have no experience with and thus
are ignorant of!
>
So, -highhorse's attack *fails* even if one accepts his snittish claim
calling Photoshop "expensive" and comparing value is "loud" "criticism
on cost".
>
As usual, -highhorse attacked using nothing but idiocy and lies.  As
usual, -highhorse failed.
>
And let's consider sdb's brain-fart of ten (or whatever) years ago.
This is about the best that -highhorse can do, apparently.  Yes, sdb
arbitrarily assigned a one cent price to GIMP, to compare relative
values.  Yes, it was stupid.  Notice the absolute *pleasure*
-highhorse gets out of this single example.  The guy is a genuine
fscking *asshole*, folks.
>
How many *stupid* things have freedom-hating assholes, like
-highhorse, spewed in here?  I have hundreds of examples of -highhorse
and many others spewing mind-boggling stupidity.
>
And sdb's brain-fart was only that.  He wasn't being an asshole.  He
wasn't attacking anyone using idiocy and lies. 
>
-highhorse attacks people using idiocy and lies.  -highhorse has
claimed that advocates are "irrational" and "close minded", because
they "hate" Photoshop.
>
Do cola advocates really "hate" Photoshop, or did -highhorse attack
using idiocy and lies?
>
Between what sdb did, and what -highhorse did, which is worse?

Well I worked in a print shop where PhotoShop was one of the tools we needed
and I've always said that's really where it's needed, i.e., for
professionals (artists, graphic designers, printers, studios, etc.) Its
price is way out of whack for personal use (unless you're a very serious
hobbyist with more money than brains). It's even worse now than it used to
be, since Adobe has gone to renting their overpriced software instead of
selling it.

But the only reason Photoshop ever comes up in a Linux newsgroup in the
first place is because small-minded twits (take your bows, -highhorse and
DuFuS) claim that this totally unnecessary software, at least for the vast
majority of computer users, isn't available on Linux. Whoop dee do. If I
actually needed to use Photoshop (I don't) than I would install it (or rent
it, or however you use it now) on either a Mac or Windows machine.
Non-problem solved. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of
Windows users don't use Photoshop either. What does any of this "prove" when
dealing with Linux? That an expensive, niche product doesn't work on Linux?
There's a lot of bloatware that very few people use that doesn't work on
Linux. So what? It proves nothing. It's just grasping at straws by
small-minded twits in their attempt to bolster their idiot arguments.

And Photoshop IS way overpriced for personal use. Point, blank, period. I
don't apologize for stating this obvious fact.

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