vapeloki @ vapeloki @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

100

Joined

2 yr. ago

Windows is an industry standard. And so is office. As long as we treat it as such. If we want things to change we have to go against such standards.

The big difference between Office and Photoshop is: Microsoft opened their file format. And has support for open standards.

Adobe locked their eco system down to build a monopoly. This is not gimps fault. It is 100% on Adobe.

While the outcome is the same, I would love to see a different wording: nothing is an alternative to Photoshop, because Adobe has a monopoly.

Oh no! Don't do stonks! Look how bad they are for you!

So, if you are in a company that uses Gimp, and you want to use PS, it is still gimp's fault that this will not work?

I think some parts are just a question of perspective. I am not a GFX person. But I have friends that work in this field. One of them starter learning with gimp. And he constantly is ranting about photoshop at work. He claims the interface of PS is garbage, support for some obscure file format is not even there and so on.

So, I think it depends on what your are used to.

For the documentation: yes! And raw image support is an issue to. Mostly because of proprietary bullshit standards, but yes. This is missing.

Does this make gimp to a shit software? No

You see, I answered your question. Now, where is the answer you promised? Let me guess, you don't have any?

The answer is simple, Gimp is the only "full featured" photoshop replacement. And the os doesn't matter for this. There is no alternative in windows besides gimp. Apples products also fall short.

And now, why is gimp shit?

You started with "gimp is shit", so why not provide reasons for it?

Or is this the apple vs android, coffee vs tea, stick vs automatic kind of subjective argument?

What other products on windows compete with photoshop in your opinion? I don't get your reason>!!<

This is a reason, but it has nothing to do with alternatives. It would still hold true if you have 8 gimp and one photoshop users

Factual reasons for this please. Besides the horrible, privacy braking, AI stuff, what can photoshop do that gimp can not?

Didn't even see this part. Sure. Scp, a native Linux tool, has no gui. A sysadmin that can not use a console is no sysadmin. What a piece of bullshit

There us so much wrong with this article. From installing a fucking browser via flatpack, over ignoring the fact that office 365 is a thing to the fact that there are alternatives to Adobe.

Sure, not everything is perfect right now, and people have to learn new stuff.

I have migrated multiple people to fedora in the last two years. And guess what, regardless of type or age of user, they had no troubles with it to this day. They use gimp, play, have browsers with password managers, and write office documents. Yes. MS office.

Articles like this are one reason why people hesitate to make the switch. Doompainting, that's all it is.

And what the hell are you talking about vrr? Kde, sway and hyperland support it for years now under wayland. Gnome still does not have it, but that is gnome.

And if more distributions would not per default use gnome, such misconceptions wouldn't exist in the first place.

*american people

There, fixed it

I get your point. But to be fair: for landlords where massive subventions in place. This program ended amd was not renewed because of lack of interest.

But at least for new buildings, a policy to force charging stations at every parking lot would be a good idea

I totally forgot one essential fact: the reason for DNS over HTTPS itself was perfectly valid: ISP's in the US are using DNS lookups of their customers for advertising. The idea is to prevent this kind of privacy breach. And it is very effective against it.

Just rye ideological driven implementation was bs

Sure, Firefox introduced a security feature: DNS over HTTPs. So instead if asking some DNS server that is configured on the local system, for the IP that belongs to a Domain name, am external service is asked via HTTPs.

While this is in theory a good idea, and has some benefits, the Firefox implementation was bad:

• the external partner was cloudflare. There where no additional informations out at that time.
• there where no opt out option

Users, that where forced into DNS over HTTPS could no longer resolve internal hostnames. This was a killer in office environments. And after the fix for that, everything was first submitted to cloudflare and only if cloudflare could not resolve the hostname, the local DNS server was asked, leading to potential information leaks. Also a no go for companies.

Firefox has fixed these issues by providing privacy policies, the option to choose other DNS over HTTPS providers and the option to define what domains should never be resolved externally.

But they lost trust in many professional environments because of that move.

Another answer: Netflix

While the Mozilla foundation had designed browser DRM that worked on Linux, Chrome has the first implementation. And that enabled Linux users to watch Netflix.

Next one: forced fucking cloudflare DNS over HTTPS. I dipped Firefox because of that.

As shitty as google behaved, that was a nono

At least here in Germany it is opt in. As the algorithm runs locally, I don't see a big issue with this.

I didn't opt in to this feature to be clear, and ghostery should help for tracking.

But if I wouldn't have this option, I would be more willing to have my history evaluated locally, instead of having my history evaluated for 90% of the sides on some third party advertisers owned system.

Let me get this straight:

Until now, Google and other advertisers stored cookies on your device and tracked your browsing history on their servers.

Know, everything happens locally and this is somewhat worse then the old way to do it?

How?

Laughs in german labor laws.

Tuya requires cloud access and the API's are on their way to be paid only.

Only use tuya zigbee. Keep away from wifi devices at all costs!