 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / September 2004Adobe Photoshop on Ebay.co.uk What's the scam?
Adobe PS 6, 7 and CS apear to be available on Ebay at silly prices. All the advertisers are at pains to point out that it's the CD and Serial Number only that are on offer. Some mention (in small print) that the item is being sold "as backup only" and that the buyer should already have an original copy. Why anyone with an original copy should bother buying a "backup" CD is beyond me. I presume it's all a scam and that anyone foolish enough to buy one of these CDs would not be able to use it? John. On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:18:12 +0100, "Carrigman" <carrigman@DEATHTO SPAMMERShotmail.com>'s owl flew in through the window and dropped a message on which was scribed: >I presume it's all a scam and that anyone foolish enough to buy one of these >CDs would not be able to use it? It's pirated, try reporting it to ebay and adobe. Rich  SignatureRichard Parker Branches from the nearby foliage, or geological specimens, may fracture my skeletal structure; however, inaccurate descriptions of my physical appearance, heritage or personality, cannot damage my psyche. Twas Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:18:12 +0100 when "Carrigman" <carrigman@DEATHTO SPAMMERShotmail.com> put finger to keyboard producing: > Adobe PS 6, 7 and CS apear to be available on Ebay at silly prices. All the >advertisers are at pains to point out that it's the CD and Serial Number [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >John. It's a pirate copy of the software, it'll likely work fine but it's not legal. Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) Signature___________________________________________________________ "Photography to the amateur is recreation, to the professional it is work, and hard work too, no matter how pleasurable it my be" - Edward Weston. www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/markvarleyphoto ___________________________________________________________ > Adobe PS 6, 7 and CS apear to be available on Ebay at silly prices. All the > advertisers are at pains to point out that it's the CD and Serial Number [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I presume it's all a scam and that anyone foolish enough to buy one of these > CDs would not be able to use it? It will be most likely a pirate copy. Probably work fine, but if you really must have and don't want to pay for it, it is available for download on most P2P networks. > Adobe PS 6, 7 and CS apear to be available on Ebay at silly prices. All the > advertisers are at pains to point out that it's the CD and Serial Number [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I presume it's all a scam and that anyone foolish enough to buy one of these > CDs would not be able to use it? You will be able to use it, just like the Kazaa copy. But you will not have a legal license. The right way is the pay 40-50 Euro on eBay.de for a Photoshop 5 OEM, and upgrade that to CS. That is what I did. OEM copies can legally be traded in Germany. Microsoft lost a case that went all the way to high court. SignaturePovl H. Pedersen - NoSpam@my.terminal.dk (yes - it works) Fastnet - IP telefoni: 5 kr/md Se http://www.musimi.dk I'm surprised to find that the consensus of opinion is that these pirate copies will work fine. So, why should any photographer shell out big bucks for the legal version? I am as reasonably honest as the next person but given a choice of paying an awful lot of money for the real thing and a relative pittance for a perfect working copy I don't think I'd have to wrestle with my conscience for too long. I copy music CDs without losing any sleep. Surely Adobe must have some safeguard in place? Don't you have to register online before the program will be activated or something? I've often wondered why popular mass market magazines like Digital Photo should spend so much time concentrating on full version Photoshop techniques when the bulk of their readership, one would have thought, would only have Elements (like me). Or is it a tacit acknowledgment that Photoshop is so widely pirated that most of its readers have illegal versions? Anyone here brave enough to admit to owning a pirate version, or maybe has "a friend" who has one? What's the skinny? Regards, John > I'm surprised to find that the consensus of opinion is that these pirate > copies will work fine. The majority do, some don't. > So, why should any photographer shell out big bucks for the legal version? I > am as reasonably honest as the next person but given a choice of paying an > awful lot of money for the real thing and a relative pittance for a perfect > working copy I don't think I'd have to wrestle with my conscience for too > long. I copy music CDs without losing any sleep. My opinion on this is that I could only afford this if I was using it to make money. As something to play with I could never justify the cost (but neither can I afford the cameras I would like either). As fara as music goes I download albums to see if I like them. If I don't think they are worth buying I usually delete them after a couple of listens, and buy the ones I want to keep. The ones I don't delete are the ones that I like that are no longer available. > Surely Adobe must have some safeguard in place? Don't you have to register > online before the program will be activated or something? Yes you do, but I understand that there are ways around this. > I've often wondered why popular mass market magazines like Digital Photo > should spend so much time concentrating on full version Photoshop techniques > when the bulk of their readership, one would have thought, would only have > Elements (like me). Or is it a tacit acknowledgment that Photoshop is so > widely pirated that most of its readers have illegal versions? This attitude is widely recognised in the computer music press, where some plugins can cost well over £100, let alone the software itself. This is another area where I would pay for it if I was planning on using it to make money. > Anyone here brave enough to admit to owning a pirate version, or maybe has > "a friend" who has one? I have a friend who has. Brian > Anyone here brave enough to admit to owning a pirate version, or maybe has > "a friend" who has one? I do not own a pirate version, but as a press reviewer, I have received one or more copies of all Adobe products over the last ten years. When a new version comes out, they do not send me an upgrade, they send me the full product to review. Consequently I may pass the previous unregistered version on to one of the freelances writing for my publications; it's quite hard for freelance journalists to actually GET review copies. It is strictly forbidden to sell them, but they may be given away to appropriate new homes. Beta testers, multiple license users who downsize and people who switch from one platform to another (PC to Mac etc) may also occasionally hand on legimitate, registerable versions. Some are resaleable, others are not. A good many programs sold on ebay fall into this category, not pirated. They have full packaging and have never been registered. David > A good many programs sold on ebay fall into this category, not pirated. > They have full packaging and have never been registered. Indeed, like the PS6 I bought on eBay at a bargain price. It's now registered to me, and I have also upgraded to CS. Prior to buying a legitimate version 6 - purely for the purpose of getting a licensed CS at an affordable price - I ran pirate versions of 5, 5.5, 6, and 7. After many years of "trying out" Photoshop at no cost to me, it seemed appropriate to pay the money and mend my ways :-) SignatureJohn Bean Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth (Lillian Hellman) Morally and legally it's wrong, but... the problem is that programmes are sold in a box and we think that it's what we need. All to often I've found some hype is just that and I've wasted my money on a programme that is useless to me. I have used full version programmes on what I term destruct test for an extensive period. Though the programmes have been copies. Once I know that it will do what I want it to do I buy my own if not I ditch it. I like my own versions of the software I use and think that it's right to pay for it. But I do object to upgrades that are just tweaks and that the costs are merely annual subscriptions. Duncan > > A good many programs sold on ebay fall into this category, not pirated. > > They have full packaging and have never been registered. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 7. After many years of "trying out" Photoshop at no cost to me, it seemed > appropriate to pay the money and mend my ways :-) > I'm surprised to find that the consensus of opinion is that these pirate > copies will work fine. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > working copy I don't think I'd have to wrestle with my conscience for too > long. I copy music CDs without losing any sleep. If you are a Photographer, you should respect copyright, or not complain when other steals your pictures. I pay for software I find that I am using. > Surely Adobe must have some safeguard in place? Don't you have to register > online before the program will be activated or something? I have a crack, since they supposedly will only activate the program twice every 6months. Works perfectly. I had the pirated version + crack before buying the real thing. > I've often wondered why popular mass market magazines like Digital Photo > should spend so much time concentrating on full version Photoshop techniques > when the bulk of their readership, one would have thought, would only have > Elements (like me). Or is it a tacit acknowledgment that Photoshop is so > widely pirated that most of its readers have illegal versions? There are many pirated versions. All the 3rd party books tells a story- > Anyone here brave enough to admit to owning a pirate version, or maybe has > "a friend" who has one? I have a pirated version for my Mac, having paid for the PC version. Don't feel bad about it since I am no pro. > What's the skinny? > > Regards, > > John SignaturePovl H. Pedersen - NoSpam@my.terminal.dk (yes - it works) Fastnet - IP telefoni: 5 kr/md Se http://www.musimi.dk Hi, I am really surprised by the overall attitude toward this. Surely as photographers of any level we'd be really ticked off if someone used one of our photos without permission (or even payment), we'd be up in arms about our copyright. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after more than 15 years working in software development, I know that, somewhat crazily, software piracy is at its worst in the software industry (though perhaps that's been surpassed by the craziness of the 'free' music download 'industry'). However I have learnt that there's nearly always a viable alternative without having to go down the open source route (not my cup of tea). In this case there is a product called Picture Window Pro that is available from www.dl-c.com for $90 (that's about ?50 at today's rates). This is not written by some kid in his bedroom, it's creator is Jonathon Sachs original author of Lotus 1-2-3 and co-founder of Lotus Corp. There's also a 'standard' version available for $50 (about ?28). This is a product conceived for and aimed at photographers, unlike Photoshop which has features and complexity that most photographers don't need and won't use. Picture Window is easier to learn, there's free stuff on their web site and other places on the internet. I doubt you'll see over 400 book titles available for it in the next few years, but that's a good thing. Why don't the magazines push this product more - I guess a combination of ignorance and commercial 'sense' (Adobe must provide a lot of revenue for photographic magazine publishers). I have no affiliation with them, but I would say do yourself a favour and try out the free 30 day trial. You may end up with a more appropriate product, at a price you can afford, and no need to worry about being 'illegal'. SignatureCheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash > Why don't the magazines push this product more - I guess a combination of > ignorance and commercial 'sense' (Adobe must provide a lot of revenue for > photographic magazine publishers). I think in the last 15 years we have seen one campaign from Adobe in the pro photo press, that's all. Companies like Extensis have been more active. Generally, you'll see hardly any software ads in the photo press. I'd day Adobe has provided my company with less revenue than the average little insurance firm, over the years. Even Matt Mifsud is worth loads more than Adobe! The photo press is probably 90 per cent Mac based. Future Publishing started out, believe it or not, using Ataris for DTP. We (Icon) received loan machines, software and stuff from Acorn to attempt to see whether that was an alternative around 1994. And we even traded a BeBox for two ads for that short-lived photo editing workhorse! We tried NeXT too. etc etc. And PCs of course, but generally they just sit there getting used to read CDs which people don't close off properly. Eventually it all comes back to Mac - and Adobe software. I for one hate testing software. It takes ages - to test any program properly, you have to use it for months, not hours; you need to install it on many different machines and run it alongside many other programs; and apart from the inadequacy of any testing apart from long-term use, it's a pain having all the stuff to clear off (whether on Mac or PC) when removing temporarily installed packages. I can not afford lots of extra machines as test beds, I have to use my main working Mac or PC. > I have no affiliation with them, but I would say do yourself a favour and > try out the free 30 day trial. You may end up with a more appropriate > product, at a price you can afford, and no need to worry about being > 'illegal'. And if anyone, such as Phil, using a program like this over a period and able to comment constructively on its performance and value, cares to write about 500 words and two screen shots plus a couple of photo examples of results, I for one will always consider submissions of user reports on software. Regardless of whether the software company has ever advertised (in most cases we probably wouldn't even bother to ask) we pay £50-100 for such a review, but it does have to be appropriately illustrated (images should look like commercial/pro or good creative work, not family snaps, hirestudio glamour etc). It is one instance where you really do have to need, and use, the product to write a report of any value to others. Real users, also, are often the most critical yet constructive reviewers. David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk Stock images at www.alamy.com - Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick > We (Icon) received loan machines, software and stuff from Acorn to > attempt to see whether that was an alternative around 1994. It is - even in 2004! ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell editor Qercus - editor@qercus.com www.qercus.com Qercus: a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines one magazine for graphics & design - one magazine for all RISC OS users Finnybank Ltd 30 Finnybank Rd Sale M33 6LR == 0161 969 9820 >>We (Icon) received loan machines, software and stuff from Acorn to >>attempt to see whether that was an alternative around 1994. > > It is - even in 2004! ;-) We nearly took on that Acorn User mag too... at one stage. Glad to see it is still going under another guise. Richard (son and computer collector) was the impetus behind all the strange platforms, and still is, only it's mainly old BBCs and vintage Mac and Apple stuff occupying his entire house. David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk Stock images at www.alamy.com - Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick > >>We (Icon) received loan machines, software and stuff from Acorn to > >>attempt to see whether that was an alternative around 1994. > > > > It is - even in 2004! ;-) > We nearly took on that Acorn User mag too... at one stage. Glad to see > it is still going under another guise. Richard (son and computer > collector) was the impetus behind all the strange platforms, and still > is, only it's mainly old BBCs and vintage Mac and Apple stuff occupying > his entire house. We've had Acorn Publisher for nearly 2 years and took over Acorn User this year. For a such a small platform we have an incredible three independent hardware developers and three quite different new machines released over the last 2 years all running the same software on RISC OS 4 or RISC OS 5. Just that not many know about us ;-( SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines > We've had Acorn Publisher for nearly 2 years and took over Acorn User this > year. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just that not many know about us ;-( Well, in the mid-1990s we covered Acorn's equivalent for Photoshop, and a DTP package, and I even think we managed to rig up certain scanners, imagesetter, etc. My nephew had worked for ARM and made a fortune (literally) from shares, and our son has always liked the RISC architecture, so against all commercial common sense we devoted a few articles to reasons why photographers could/maybe should use Acorn. I think we had a couple of readers who actually liked what they saw and one at least who became a long-term enthusiast. My memory is that at the time, the Acorn photo editing package blew away Photoshop on Mac for things like drawing an on-screen path, but the supplied CRT was awful (no colour management then) and printer drivers, scanners drivers etc were hard to source. I am sure that has changed. We have of course also run various flavours of Linux and had completely Unix Macs. Richard's network - no longer in my office, thank heavens - at the moment has some really fun things in it like a 1993 Apple IIe (US late model, final one made) and a Colour Classic (the original Mac but with a tiny colour screen) all talking on an ethernet/wireless combination to G5, eMac etc. I'm pretty sure we managed to network the Acorn system when we had it here. David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk Stock images at www.alamy.com - Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick > > We've had Acorn Publisher for nearly 2 years and took over Acorn User > > this year. For a such a small platform we have an incredible three > > independent hardware developers and three quite different new machines > > released over the last 2 years all running the same software on RISC > > OS 4 or RISC OS 5. > > Just that not many know about us ;-( > Well, in the mid-1990s we covered Acorn's equivalent for Photoshop, and > a DTP package, and I even think we managed to rig up certain scanners, > imagesetter, etc. My nephew had worked for ARM and made a fortune > (literally) from shares, and our son has always liked the RISC > architecture, so against all commercial common sense we devoted a few > articles to reasons why photographers could/maybe should use Acorn. > I think we had a couple of readers who actually liked what they saw and > one at least who became a long-term enthusiast. > My memory is that at the time, the Acorn photo editing package blew away > Photoshop on Mac for things like drawing an on-screen path, but the > supplied CRT was awful (no colour management then) and printer drivers, > scanners drivers etc were hard to source. I am sure that has changed. Scanners are still a problem - though I'm happy with my Epson Perfection. Drivers for new printers are limited though we can use either Gimp-Print or cheat. Cheating involves getting a Windows machine on the network and using a snazzy piece of software that 'prints' your page as a graphic file then tells the Windows machine to print the graphics file. Even better is that the Windows printer I use has RISC OS running as a program 'on top' so I simply have an extra RISC OS computer with a Windows machine hiding behind it. We have four different RISC OS machines permanently on the network all quite different in design and each produced by a different manufacturer (like having four different Mac computers). ;-) [Snip] SignatureJohn Cartmell editor Qercus - editor@qercus.com www.qercus.com Qercus: a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines one magazine for graphics & design - one magazine for all RISC OS users Finnybank Ltd 30 Finnybank Rd Sale M33 6LR == 0161 969 9820 > I think in the last 15 years we have seen one campaign from Adobe in the > <snip> The photo press is probably 90 per cent Mac based. Future > Publishing <> > I for one hate testing software. It takes ages - to test any program > <snip> Point taken.:-) I've just reviewed my recent photo mag purchases and not one Adobe advert. But pages and pages of 'how to ...' and all based around Photoshop. I wouldn't mind if it was good value. (It may be in some marketplaces, but surely not in the amateur/enthusiast photography marketplace). There is always Elements, I guess, but it seems (from opinion that I read) that it is missing some elements that are useful to the photographer, rather than being a cheaper, simpler tool for photographers to use. Which is what I wanted, and **hope** I have found in Picture Window. Generally, it seems from this thread, that people say no to Elements and then decide the only way forward is to steal a copy of the full Photoshop. Somehow people don't see this as theft though. I take all your points about the difficulty of producing reviews and so on (if I had the experience I would certainly do a review, but I don't), but I still believe that photo magazine publishers could take the view that most of their sales come from the high street, and thus their features should reflect this. A single page listing of Photoshop competitors would be a good start (maybe this has been done though). Another good one would be to be pro-active about it and write to the publishers of software products to see if they can supply articles. This is probably anti-competitive or favouritism in some way, but I would of thought it was certainly in the readerships best interests - especially as it seems many of them may be using software illegally, because they think they have no choice. Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash A single page listing of Photoshop competitors would be a good > start (maybe this has been done though). I don't believe it has and you are right on the ball with this - a guide similar to the ones issued about DSLRs etc would be a very good idea. Thanks for that! I may see what can be done in one of my magazines with the help of a freelance able to research it. My mags don't sell to the public, but most of the other photo mag editors get them, so if I do something like that, they all follow. You could have started a trend. I imagine a big table covering a page or even a spread. David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk Stock images at www.alamy.com - Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick > A single page listing of Photoshop competitors would be a good >> start (maybe this has been done though). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I imagine a big table covering a page or even a spread. Sounds good! Woops I forgot to copyright it :-) How about free subscriptions to the two mags as a good will gesture? Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash >>A single page listing of Photoshop competitors would be a good >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sounds good! Woops I forgot to copyright it :-) > How about free subscriptions to the two mags as a good will gesture? You send me a comprehensive list of programs you think should be covered, and web addresses I can visit for tech info, and you're on. Now we have broadband my dear other half would be quite happy sitting down with a laptop carefully finding out all the facts and filling in a table. David If you're using Photoshop work profit then you should pay for a copy. Otherwise it is just like stealing any other tool. If you need a photo editing program for your own use. Rather than use an illegal copy of Photoshop you could use a free product such as GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation Program). In fact, switching to GNU/Linux instead of Windows is a good way to go. When I was at school I ran Windows 3.1 at home with pirate copies of Office, Publisher, CorelDraw, Photoshop and Pagemaker. We had to use these programs at school and I needed to learn to use them. Now, as a scientist, I spend a lot of time using a computer. I run GNU/Linux, and have no problem doing all (and more) things than are capable on Windows. My computer is much faster than it would be running windows, specifically the render time for producing panoramas using the Hugin program are much quicker than on windows. You have the choice of running illegal software on a buggy operating system which might just report you without you even knowing, or free software on an open source well maintained operating system. > If you're using Photoshop work profit then you should pay for a copy. > Otherwise it is just like stealing any other tool. > > If you need a photo editing program for your own use. Rather than use an > illegal copy of Photoshop you could use a free product such as GIMP (Gnu > Image Manipulation Program). OK, I'll bite :-) There is another choice. Buy an affordable solution. (see my other posting about Picture Window Pro). > In fact, switching to GNU/Linux instead of Windows is a good way to go. > When I was at school I ran Windows 3.1 at home with pirate copies of > Office, Publisher, CorelDraw, Photoshop and Pagemaker. We had to use these > programs at school and I needed to learn to use them. Whilst I sympathise with the plight of school children trying to find affordable solutions to home PC usage, theft shouldn't really be the answer. I'm guessing that most people reading this NG are 'probably'/'mostly' able to have afforded a PC which will almost certainly have come with a recent version of Windows or MAC OS pre-installed. They will be of an age where they weren't taught 'computers' at scholl. And they may well already have invested time and/or money in learning how to use a Windows/Mac PC. GNU/Linux just isn't a viable option in terms of ease of installation/use/support. For example if you are a non-technical user looking for help with a PC problem there are a massive number of web sites that will help you without sinking into geek speak. The same cannot be said of Linux web sites - they may be friendly and they may be knowledgeable, but the tendancy for Linux advocates to drop into talk of kernels and drivers and other black arts is too strong to be helpful to the average user. Thus the learning curve for these systems becomes very steep and therefore the cost is too high (time is after all money). The myth that open source software is free is just riduclous. You can also ignore Windows 3.1, I'd like to see the capabilities (in the same context) of a 15 year old Linux system. Pretty abismal from what I remember. > Now, as a scientist, I spend a lot of time using a computer. I run > GNU/Linux, and have no problem doing all (and more) things than are > capable on Windows. My computer is much faster than it would be running > windows, specifically the render time for producing panoramas using the > Hugin program are much quicker than on windows. I'd really like to understand what it is that GNU/Linux is capable of that Windows (or Mac OS) isn't. They all provide support for reading and writing data to a hard disk, they draw on a monitor, they provide support for other peripherals. Your computer is the same speed whatever software/OS you are running. GNU/Linux just might be faster at some operations than the Windows or Mac OS's, but it'll be swings and roundabouts. For instance, in the example you give: The download page for Hugin clearly demonstrates that the Windows/Mac support is somewhat behind the Linux support, the software has obviously been developed against Linux with cross platform in mind. Of course it will be slower on other platforms. It's guaranteed to be slower. The same would happen the other way round. When developing software you always have to make performance choices that are largely influenced by the operating system. > You have the choice of running illegal software on a buggy operating > system which might just report you without you even knowing, or free > software on an open source well maintained operating system. Or sensibly priced software on a OS that you already know how to use. Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash > OK, I'll bite :-) > There is another choice. Buy an affordable solution. (see my other posting > about Picture Window Pro). There is a myriad of other windows software. However, the main argument used by the photoshop "gang" is that nothing compares. Therefore people are driven to theft. Under Windows I have used Irfanview - free and perfect for general photo maintenance (crop, simple filter, convert) eg. for amateur web publishing. > Whilst I sympathise with the plight of school children trying to find > affordable solutions to home PC usage, theft shouldn't really be the answer. > I'm guessing that most people reading this NG are 'probably'/'mostly' able [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > same context) of a 15 year old Linux system. Pretty abismal from what I > remember. My example of using illegal copies for educational purpose (whilst under 16) was not a justification. Whilst it is important to learn WIMP (windows, icons, mouse and pointer) interfaces and therefore be able to adapt to any modern software it is pointless to require a child of 11 to learn Pagemaker, by the time I reached and age where I wanted to produce a book (my first thesis) I used LaTeX and most people now DTP in a word processor. As for Linux on old hardware. You are very much mistaken. Linux is perfect on old hardware. There are many projects for running Linux on both old hardware and current embedded devices. > I'd really like to understand what it is that GNU/Linux is capable of that > Windows (or Mac OS) isn't. They all provide support for reading and writing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > happen the other way round. When developing software you always have to make > performance choices that are largely influenced by the operating system. Mac and Windows are not comparable. Mac OS X is Mac Hardware, Unix type (BSD) Operating system. You can run Linux on a Mac. Mac OS X is also new and will improve. It is better than Windows due to much of it's underlying code coming from the established BSD. For me, I find GNU/Linux faster on any given machine that the correct Windows version (ie the latest when the hardware was current). I get more access to system resources. If you try cropping 20000 PNG images in Windows it will take forever. The desktop is using memory. Internet Explorer is permanently loaded in memory as is Office if you install it (this is so that Microsoft programs appear to load quicker when you click on them). GNU/Linux is not "hard to learn". When you are first introduced to a computer it takes a while to learn but you learn slowly. When you switch windows->Linux you want to learn word-processing, file management, e-mail, installing, customising at once. Things that with windows you learnt with time. You have to give Linux a time. You can learn with a Live CD. Boot the CD, play around in Linux without having to install it. Once you get the hang of things, do a dual boot. As for Linux discussions always ending in Kernel discussions, this is rubbish. Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux the operating system. If you google for this you will find out about Kernel issues. Same as if you google for "Windows XP system.ini". However, if you find the homepage for the application you're trying to use, you will usually find the help you require. I'm not on a mission to convert the world to GNU/Linux, I'm just letting you know there's another way. The only advantage for me if others convert is that they'll be less viruses and spam mail, more companies will produce Linux versions or at least improve interoperability. Philip >> OK, I'll bite :-) >> There is another choice. Buy an affordable solution. (see my other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > perfect for general photo maintenance (crop, simple filter, convert) eg. > for amateur web publishing. We seem to be agreeing here :-) Whether the solution is 'free' software (often at the cost of a new OS, or quality in terms of product and on going product support), or affordable software is a matter of individual choice. Accept that I will never agree with the phrase 'driven to theft'. This is an argument often used to support 'free' software, but it just seems like twaddle to me. Theft is theft. <snip> >> the learning curve for these systems becomes very steep and therefore the >> cost is too high (time is after all money). The myth that open source >> software is free is just riduclous. You didn't seem to address this - I don't see how you can really. >> You can also ignore Windows 3.1, I'd like to see the capabilities (in the >> same context) of a 15 year old Linux system. Pretty abismal from what I >> remember. <snip> > As for Linux on old hardware. You are very much mistaken. Linux is perfect > on old hardware. There are many projects for running Linux on both old > hardware and current embedded devices. I understand that Linux on old hardware is an undeniable argument in its favour (for the geeky types who have the patience), Linux hardware requirements are indeed lower than a modern Windows OS, but performance and useability are down graded at the same time. However that isn't a 15 year old Linux system. A fifteen year old Linux system didn't exist (maybe it existed in 1992 :-)); minix and posix were only of use in the hands of the knowledgeable. Linux is a modern operating system. Even comparing the current version with Windows '98 is still not an even playing field. When compared with XP, for new users, it has little to offer. Most new users can make a somewhat informed choice between Mac and PC in PC World (for instance), but why would they pay the extra ?25 to ?65 for a box containing Linux. What would they do with it. When they switch on their new machine they'll get a Windows or Mac intro screen, lots of beginers help on offer. If they put the Linux CD in the drive, they'll be prompted to make technical choices, how would they know what they want to do and why. The understanding of these choices takes time and money and that isn't free. >> I'd really like to understand what it is that GNU/Linux is capable of >> that Windows (or Mac OS) isn't. They all provide support for reading and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and will improve. It is better than Windows due to much of it's underlying > code coming from the established BSD. Why does this make it better? You still don't say what it is they can do that Windows XP, for instance, can't do. Something that would be useful to a amateur/enthusiast photographer? Someone with only a little PC experience. Going up a level, this is my disappointment with Photoshop. If it cost several hundred pounds and could automatically prepare my photos for web use or printing then it might be worth the money. I can pay a lot less and get a product that is easier to learn to use for the features I will use, a product that is designed for me as an amateur/enthusiast photographer, not for a print shop. You say I can get this software for free, which is great. But your follow up to that is to encourage me to switch to GNU/Linux, which will cost me far more than Photoshop, in time/money learning an OS I dont need. > For me, I find GNU/Linux faster on any given machine that the correct > Windows version (ie the latest when the hardware was current). I get more > access to system resources. But I bet you don't use the version of Linux that was current when that hardware was current. > If you try cropping 20000 PNG images in Windows it will take forever. The > desktop is using memory. So GNU/Linux has a desktop (comparable with the Windows one) that doesn't use any memory? Of course not. But as a knowledgeable user you can turn it off or optimise it to use less memory, probably at a cost in useability that rules out most non-expert users. > Internet Explorer is permanently loaded in memory No it isn't. Explorer.exe is loaded. Does GNU/Linux have a shell that isn't loaded in memory? > as is Office if you install it (this is so that Microsoft programs appear > to load quicker when you click on them). Only if you choose to turn on the features which require it. > GNU/Linux is not "hard to learn". When you are first introduced to a > computer it takes a while to learn but you learn slowly. When you switch [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the CD, play around in Linux without having to install it. Once you get > the hang of things, do a dual boot. So a user with a small amount of experience 'playing around with a live CD' can turn an XP box into a stable dual boot box with no problems? That equally applies to a machine that has NTFS drives does it? That's how a modern PC will be when the average new user walks out of PC World with it. > As for Linux discussions always ending in Kernel discussions, this is > rubbish. Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux the operating system. If you > google for this you will find out about Kernel issues. Same as if you > google for "Windows XP system.ini". Top google.co.uk hit for GNU/Linux - www.linux.org. Follow the 'more' link on the first paragraph, and there you have the page that introduces my 60 year old father in law (who's just bought his first PC to do some photo printing) to improving his life by changing to GNU/Linux. This is a joke. If the GNU/Linux really wants their software to be free, then we'd see it pre-installed on PCs in PC World. The reason we don't is that the likes of SUSE/Red Hat want as much money from the hardware manufacturers, per install, as Microsoft get. Which is fine. But its not free. And then what is there, apart from guff and geek speak, that makes a GNU/Linux desktop a better option to a Mac or PC desktop, for the average home user. > However, if you find the homepage for the application you're trying to > use, you will usually find the help you require. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is that they'll be less viruses and spam mail, more companies will produce > Linux versions or at least improve interoperability. This is twaddle. The only reason that Windows is more exposed is because there are more Windows boxes out there - it just gives the appearance that its worse than Linux. Of course you will know that Linux has had its own major security problems discovered in the open (even with its tiny number of users), and problems with late delivery of the next version. But no one hears about it and no one cares because no one is really using it. Apart from the geaks that is (beware of geaks bearing gifts:-) ). And if GNU/Linux users don't receive spam then good luck to them. Do they all use different mail servers then. I was under the impression that most (or nearly all, if you beleive the hype) web and mail servers are Linux - so why is it letting through all that spam? It isn't, spam is nothing to do with the OS you use. Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash > This is twaddle. The only reason that Windows is more exposed is because > there are more Windows boxes out there - it just gives the appearance > that its worse than Linux. That's one reason. Others are the design of the OS - built-in holes, user expectations, hidden filing, &c SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines >> This is twaddle. The only reason that Windows is more exposed is because >> there are more Windows boxes out there - it just gives the appearance >> that its worse than Linux. > > That's one reason. Others are the design of the OS - built-in holes, user > expectations, hidden filing, &c You're talking about Linux, right? Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash > >> This is twaddle. The only reason that Windows is more exposed is > >> because there are more Windows boxes out there - it just gives the > >> appearance that its worse than Linux. > > > > That's one reason. Others are the design of the OS - built-in holes, > > user expectations, hidden filing, &c > You're talking about Linux, right? I'm talking about Windows and other PC OSs as compared to RISC OS. ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines >> >> This is twaddle. The only reason that Windows is more exposed is >> >> because there are more Windows boxes out there - it just gives the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm talking about Windows and other PC OSs as compared to RISC OS. ;-) I like Windows, I like MS, I think they provide good value. They provide excellent support for developers. I've made a good career by writing software to run on Windows. I've used their development tools and others, and seriously considered the move to open source. MS get a bad press which is often 'politically driven' and sometimes fair comment. They should be questioned and held accountable by their customers. But, I find most of the Linux and open source talk to be smoke and mirrors, backed by big business like IBM and Oracle who compete every bit as strongly as MS. For all that, if I could wind my career back, I would follow the path from my old Electron and BBC-B to todays RISC OS. It's good to see RISC OS surviving, and I wish I'd realised (and many more besides me), that it was a path worth following, not only on sentimental, patriotic grounds but also on the grounds of it being a superb technology. I wonder, if it had had a larger take up and achieved more success, would it now be within the control of some US corporation. Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash > For all that, if I could wind my career back, I would follow the path > from my old Electron and BBC-B to todays RISC OS. It's good to see RISC [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wonder, if it had had a larger take up and achieved more success, would > it now be within the control of some US corporation. Quite probably. Others that have been a threat to MS have been killed or gobbled up. You do know that if you want the RISC OS experience on your Windows machine you can get Virtual RiscPC software? www.virtualacorn.co.uk SignatureJohn Cartmell editor Qercus - editor@qercus.com www.qercus.com Qercus: a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines one magazine for graphics & design - one magazine for all RISC OS users Finnybank Ltd 30 Finnybank Rd Sale M33 6LR == 0161 969 9820 >We seem to be agreeing here :-) Whether the solution is 'free' software >(often at the cost of a new OS, or quality in terms of product and on going >product support), or affordable software is a matter of individual choice. >Accept that I will never agree with the phrase 'driven to theft'. This is an >argument often used to support 'free' software, but it just seems like >twaddle to me. Theft is theft. I don't think you'll find many serious supporters of Free software (in the GNU sense) using the 'driven to piracy' argument (even leaving aside the fundamental point that they're really concerned with 'free as in freedom' rather than 'free of charge'). >I understand that Linux on old hardware is an undeniable argument in its >favour (for the geeky types who have the patience), Linux hardware >requirements are indeed lower than a modern Windows OS, but performance and >useability are down graded at the same time. Usability can be argued (and is often subjective - I wouldn't consider a Windows system to be 'usable' without installing Perl and a bunch of GNU utilities!), but I don't see much evidence that performance is degraded (e.g. when performing similar tasks on a dual-boot system) - rather the reverse, if anything. >Linux is a modern operating >system. Even comparing the current version with Windows '98 is still not an >even playing field. It certainly isn't even - for one thing, Linux is enormously more stable... >When compared with XP, for new users, it has little to >offer. Most new users can make a somewhat informed choice between Mac and PC [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and why. The understanding of these choices takes time and money and that >isn't free. But this is simply an argument in favour of a pre-installed, rather than a replacement, operating system. A naive user would have just as much 'fun' installing XP on a pre-configured Linux system (even Dell sells these now) as they would putting Linux on an existing XP system. >Why does this make it better? You still don't say what it is they can do >that Windows XP, for instance, can't do. Something that would be useful to a >amateur/enthusiast photographer? Someone with only a little PC experience. I wouldn't disagree that XP is currently preferable to many photographers, as it gives them access to a large number of excellent applications that don't exist for Linux (from PS downwards), while anyone interested enough can run GIMP etc. as well. >Going up a level, this is my disappointment with Photoshop. If it cost >several hundred pounds and could automatically prepare my photos for web use >or printing then it might be worth the money. I can pay a lot less and get a >product that is easier to learn to use for the features I will use, a >product that is designed for me as an amateur/enthusiast photographer, not >for a print shop. Choice is good! Usability also depends on experience, though. High end SLRs lack 'scene' modes, but a typical professional photographer will find an F5 or whatever much easier to use than the 'friendliest' entry level camera. >If the GNU/Linux really wants their software to be free, then we'd see it >pre-installed on PCs in PC World. The reason we don't is that the likes of >SUSE/Red Hat want as much money from the hardware manufacturers, per >install, as Microsoft get. Which is fine. But its not free. And then what is >there, apart from guff and geek speak, that makes a GNU/Linux desktop a >better option to a Mac or PC desktop, for the average home user. 'This is twaddle'. Any system builder is perfectly free to download a fully-featured Linux distribution for the cost of the bandwidth, or buy the installation CDs for 2.50 GBP a disk from www.linuxemporium.co.uk. Red Hat et al. would of course _like_ you to pay for support and (in some cases) extra proprietary software, but nobody is forcing you to. All the popular Linux distributions have free versions, and of course the licensing of the core software ensures that it will continue to be available freely. >This is twaddle. The only reason that Windows is more exposed is because >there are more Windows boxes out there - it just gives the appearance that >its worse than Linux. I think it's a combination of exposure and some poor design decisions on the part of MS - security simply hasn't been given enough priority vs 'features' historically. >spam is nothing to do with the OS you use. Indeed, though Linux users tend to be more technically savvy than average, and therefore more likely to set up a decent spam filter. Richard. [Phil Hobgen wrote in uk.rec.photo.misc] > You can also ignore Windows 3.1, I'd like to see the capabilities (in the > same context) of a 15 year old Linux system. Pretty abismal from what I > remember. You could say that (Linux turned 13 years old this month.) > I'd really like to understand what it is that GNU/Linux is capable of that > Windows (or Mac OS) isn't. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Mac OS fanatic. But it'd not be half as useful an OS without all of the open source software it comes with. Some of the internet's most frequently used services are built around open standards and software. http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html (in particular the 'Apple goes open source' section.) SignatureRegards, Andy Davidson http://www.fotoserve.com/shop/gifts.html <-- New products. > [Phil Hobgen wrote in uk.rec.photo.misc] >> You can also ignore Windows 3.1, I'd like to see the capabilities (in the >> same context) of a 15 year old Linux system. Pretty abismal from what I >> remember. > > You could say that (Linux turned 13 years old this month.) Which was my point, comparing the capabilities of Windows 3.1 and a modern Linux OS is silly. >> I'd really like to understand what it is that GNU/Linux is capable of >> that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an > OS without all of the open source software it comes with. I can see that there is a lot of useful open source software. This doesn't make it a sensible option for someone with a Windows (or Mac) PC to change to Linux or GNU/Linux. Which was the conclusion drawn. There is also a lot of very affordable software. The choice isn't and shouldn't be between stealing software or changing your PC into a Linux box. > Some of the internet's most frequently used services are built around open > standards and software. Agreed. In fact I'd say nearly all of them (the only significant exception I can think of is instant messaging - which the ietf are trying to standardise). But of course open standards are nothing to do with open source. This 'slip' is often put forward by open source proponents. MS software is equally based on many open standards, sometimes their software is more compliant, sometimes less so than software from others. I'm not anti-open source but so often it seems that people see it as the answer to all the evils of 'commercial software' and MS in particular. The other poster even said that if everyone used Linux there wouldn't be any viruses or spam! Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK (Climbing off my high horse :-) ) ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash [Phil Hobgen wrote in uk.rec.photo.misc] > The other poster even said that if everyone used Linux there > wouldn't be any viruses or spam! This is offtopic, so a number of the points you made which I would normally jump on should be left for another day and another place. I do think you're making a terribly unfair point above though. Systems that are built to the Principal of Least Privilege are harder to attack - this is the reason that Linux desktops are less prone to viruses. Why does Windows XP come with exploitable RPC services *enabled* by default ? It was a recipe for disaster. The Blaster worm was an inevitable consequence of poor system design by Microsoft. The software bundled with Windows is shocking too - a lot of the spam I get is caused by people I have associated with falling foul of an Outlook Express vulnerability - again this would not be an issue if folk simply didn't use it. The theory passed around by MS advocates that MS systems wouldn't be attacked if they were in the minority is flawed. If the systems were not so vulnerable they wouldn't be such a target. Furthermore, Open Source software often gets more thorough testing. The code is open to scrutiny to thousands of people before it enters common production use, and tested by sometimes millions of users before being considered stable. SignatureRegards, Andy Davidson http://fotoserve.com/shop/gifts.html <-- New products. > [Phil Hobgen wrote in uk.rec.photo.misc] >> The other poster even said that if everyone used Linux there [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > common production use, and tested by sometimes millions of users > before being considered stable. I agree this is OT - so my last response - please come back if you like. I can accept to an extent the arguments you put forward regarding viruses - though it's easy to have proof that this is the case all the time that Linux is the minority desktop :-) If the situation were reversed then there would be a lot more flaky and vunerable software out there that would be in use on your associates systems. Open Source software has had its own disasters, unacceptable lateness, compatability issues, etc. These things are equally unaceptable from any source. However, please please please explain how moving to Linux will rid me of the evils of spam. Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- phil-trash@barbari.co.uk for email please delete the dash and take out the trash [Phil Hobgen wrote in uk.rec.photo.misc] > However, please please please explain how moving to Linux will rid me of the > evils of spam. It wont, my personal point was that if fewer people used MS MUAs, there'd be fewer viruses perpetuated by email in my opinion. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.