Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar They may look superficially similar, and at a high level have the same tools, but from a fundamental workflow point of view there are too many things that are just very different (non-destructive editing, smart objects etc). the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone" And that would be fine and if they'd do…
> they're stuck looking kind of like a half-baked Photoshop clone So does the GIMP look like Photoshop, or does it not?
Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop
251–254 of 254 posts
Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree with you. I would just use Linux if I could run Illustrator with out any special setup on Linux. Instead I have a MacBook Pro.
I think you two are a minority, that is why Adobe doesn't care. Most programmers aren't artists/designers.
Artists/designers have two choices today to use Photoshop - windows or mac. In third world countries, buying either is quite expensive. You get a whole range of laptops/desktops in Asia with Ubuntu installed (including Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.). It would be really cool to open it up to the Adobe ecosystem.
Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you two are a minority, that is why Adobe doesn't care. Most programmers aren't artists/designers.
This has nothing to do about programmers. Artists/designers have two choices today to use Photoshop - windows or mac. In third world countries, buying either is quite expensive. You get a whole range of laptops/desktops in Asia with Ubuntu installed (including Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.). It would be really cool to open it up to the Adobe ecosystem.
Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free can also be Free/Libre/Open. You don't pay for Wikipedia and you're not a serf as a reader / user, you're not the product.
That only works for a subset of things, namely those things that can be effectively crowdsourced at small increments. I'd also argue that Wikipedia is heavily indirectly subsidized by academia and government. Large coherent software products and great works of art are by definition the products of individuals or small teams focusing intensely for long periods of time. That is inherently expensive. Only the independen…
Wikipedia indeed requires a smaller dedicated team to keep the system running. But they are not subsidized in any pathological way. They are funded by large quantity of small donations. There's nothing wrong with that.
We don't need to reach a true post-scarcity world in order to better allocate the scarce resources we have. It's completely feasible to provide a basic income or other basic resources just like we do with clean water. We can have mechanisms to charge for use beyond the basic level. And we can have the community fund people to make the resources we want.
The "pirate economy" you talk about is the "freerider economy" (pirate is a stupid term here). Freeriding is a REAL problem. We can't live on a freeriding economy. But we can still have Free/Libre/Open resources if we can get people to fund them without compelling them through artificial restrictions. Wikipedia works because the scale is SO large that they get adequate support despite freeriding. There's also lots of ways to discourage freeriding / encourage donation better than we do now. The first step is to get everyone to STOP wasting their limited funds on proprietary products so that they actually can afford to better support Free/Libre/Open ones.