Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: This FOSS Thang :-)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 21:30:20 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <uuaebc$1apkg$2@dont-email.me>
References: <utcpgl$10gjc$1@dont-email.me>
 <65fe0bac$0$2988$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <utn78o$3pu1f$1@dont-email.me>
 <66000fa7$0$2559$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
 <mre10jh3901253ot6l78drtrvqumdvvt6g@4ax.com> <utuigi$1qkgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <utut5t$1trsr$1@dont-email.me> <utvhmj$2caii$1@dont-email.me>
 <l6hjlhF5qo1U4@mid.individual.net> <uu1c9r$2tf3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <l6k1b5FhatiU8@mid.individual.net> <uu3qvi$3jftr$3@dont-email.me>
 <0kjb0j9a025qtkrdrlk48gl55ft8rj6i1r@4ax.com>
 <m5kb0jlahf685qe015il87ciovqjqof39j@4ax.com> <uu7h74$ibt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <uu7m3d$jhjt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:30:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1ef41b42d8b5715ef9ef421d28b20453";
	logging-data="1402512"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oMQWEJ4tc5Sqa1vX07AwPTiDUatsCrnA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AgqvnU73xDDGxUKO4r1lEQ9Mi98=
In-Reply-To: <uu7m3d$jhjt$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3794

On 3/29/24 8:24 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 7:00 PM, -hh wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> 'What -hh said about Photoshop - expensive, waste, Gimp does the same
>>>> for free - is exactly the written position of most if not all
>>>> "advocates" on cola.'  -  DumFSck, lying shamelessly
>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't assert that GIMP is in every respect equal to Photoshop,
>>
>> I'd also like to see the original statement made, because the above 
>> kinda looks like a misquote or misstatement:  I've never claimed that 
>> Adobe Photoshop was an expensive waste.  Sure, its expensive and it is 
>> overkill for a lot of people (usually the ones who complain about its 
>> cost), but it has been the industry's premier digital graphics tool 
>> for the better part of two decades.
> 
> 
> Your original quote:
> "Specifically, they whine about how Photoshop costs £600 and is a
> waste, while claiming that the same capabilities can be accomplished
> for free."
> 
> I unintentionally made it sound like you felt that way about Photoshop, 
> when you were just recapping the position of the "advocates":

Ah, got it; no worries.

The irony is that you wrote that back in Aug 2012, yet chrisv is still 
trying to dry-hump it...while never actually properly addressing the 
original point.


> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom: "Yeah, everyone who wants to manipulate images 
> needs to pay $600 for Photoshop and then use only a 16th of its 
> functionality.  <rolls eyes>"
> 
> JED: "As far as not wanting to spend $600 on a professional tool when I 
> am not a professional... that just makes me a normal person."
> 
> Homer: "AFAICT the only substantial difference [between gimp and 
> Photoshop] is about £600 that could be put to far better use, and a 
> whole lotta hype."
> 
> Homer: "I'd never, ever waste my money on Photoshop."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's 4 for 4 whining on money, yet we're somehow supposed to believe 
that no Linux fanboy considers cost a factor on Linux 'superiority'; 
seems more that they know of their wallet's personal inadequacies!  /s


-hh