RMS was always right: Adobe Tells Users They Can Get Sued for Using Old Versions of Photoshop

Let translate this for normies:

This.

It's UI is ok, it's just that since 99.9999% of people are used to photoshop their muscle memory is not adapted to the gimp.
If people don't want to re-learn then I suggest that they should put a bounty to make a new UI for gimp that matches Photoshop.

Yeah it's not like other corporations like say Microsoft sent to prison a guy who installed and activated windows OS with recycled computers.
This is how I know you don't master gimp.
Gimp only lacks two functions compared to photoshop: non destructive editing and CMYB support. Other than these two it has more features than photoshop.

inkscape

Some more alternatives outside of (((Adobe)))

Or just pirate their old software. Its not like they can sue all of us.

Attached: AltSoftware.png (900x900, 211.38K)

It's funny, because people bitching around how bad GIMP is compared to photoshop often didn't buy photoshop at all, but they just downloaded a crack. I hope this fag, who makes cracked versions of photoshop rapes users with botnet botnet, because cracking it for free is harmful - it makes nonfree software more convenient to use. If people really had to pay for it and the license would be always enforced, they would quickly invest in GIMP. Is it actually that good, when you're raped by the monthly subscription? If people gave half of what they give to Adobe to GIMP, they would have much better software respecting their freedom.

Archive: archive.is/4YaMM

This.
The worst part is that some professional abandoned adobe because of the cloud bullshit to go to another proprietary software.

Please post full archive links not shortened ones, we can't know what's behind a shortened link.
archive.today/2019.05.15-170427/https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-they-can-get-sued-for-using-old-versions-of-photoshop

arr that's messed up yer git

This post just proves Photoshop is better than Gimp in terms of features. If you weren't insecure about the trade-offs and value of sticking to Free Software you wouldn't feel the need to degrade people who still use proprietary software in an almost seething way to feel better about your own choices.
Stallman calmly informs people about why Free Software is better, and he basically gets paid to promote Free Software. Terry Davis called everybody "nigger cattle" for their choices, yet he ended up being a homeless drunk and committing suicide. I'm sure you can see one approach is better than the other.

Terry was mentally unstable and was unsupported and therefore he was not able to support his own life in the long term. Stallman is a very rational person who believes in keeping his own costs tiny i.e. he lives like a student. With these two mindsets it's obvious why one mind had a shorter lifespan than the other mind.

Dude what the fuck are you smoking?

People will use Gimp when the developers fix the fundamental problems with their program that have been in it for ages. A lot of it is about UX boogieman, Gimp is an absolute pain in the fucking ass to use in so many ways, which is why you get this type of response to it

To give you the classic example; drawing basic geometric shapes like rectangles and circles and lines is one of the most fundamental functions in any graphics program, but some incomprehensible autism prevents Gimp developers from adding this, one of the simplest tools imaginable into their program even though they don't seem to have any problem having 6 fucking separate brush tools in it.
To give you a more practical example, nobody wants to fiddle with fucking layer channels or resize the layers every 3 minutes because the program won't do it automatically, I cannot even imagine a reason why I would ever want the ability to change those things separately.

You sound like one of those zealots who think of FOSS as a religion and get angry when you see something that isn't free and open source. Nobody outside of Zig Forums gives a fuck about muh free software if the software itself is a piece of shit. People use Photoshop because it's the best tool of it's kind period. There's individual parts that some programs do better (the most obvious being painting/brush tools in painting-oriented programs), but overall there's just nothing that does the overall job even close as good as PS. That doesn't mean people love PS/Adobe or don't want it to be replaced with something less jewish, but there isn't anything.

If you want FOSS to stop being shit then tell start by kicking Gimp developers in the balls and demanding that they stop deliberately avoiding things that Photoshop did right just to be special, and then kick Krita developers in the balls and tell them to stop with the fucking "it's le painting brogram so we won't add certain common features XD" and then kick them in the balls again and tell them to stop focusing on some obscure bullshit like animation features that nobody uses, and instead fix the basics that are still half assed and/or broken.

G-d Bless the usa!

Bernie Sanders for President.
Vote Green in Australia.
Support the US Green Party.
Support the Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Yes.

Ardour should be listed under Au, and it is far, far better than Audacity.

* Laughs in illegal license and outdated versions *

My fucking work computer still runs 7.0 literally eat my ass Adobe. That's what you fucking dicks get for switching to a god damn subscription based program you fucking retards.

if you really have to use that then why would you use the cloud version of all things

The same reason people use Windows 10 instead of 7, because they're fucking retarded and think newer = better.

Never mind relearning the UI, GIMP can't even open some PSD files properly. Unless you convince everyone to throw away large chunks of their previous work PS will remain dominant.

Topkek. That's a fallacious reasoning.
Why do I even need to degrade people who uses proprietary software when they are getting degrade by the proprietary software they use ?

How do you not want to offense how users work with proprietary software when they already don't know how their tools work even tho they think they know ? You can approach this by all possible angles, their is just too much shit that needs to be changed for people to not take it badly.
Explain and show proof to someone that all phones are backdoored and recording them.
Will they stop using their phone even tho it has a negative impact on them and the group of users? Most of them won't.
Explain and show proof to someone that all proprietary software is backdoored, has anti-features, DRM and snoops on them.
Will they stop using the proprietary software even tho it has a negative impact on them and the group of users?
Most of them won't.
People do not realize the consequences of their actions because it's digital. Because their were never taught correctly how to interpret digital tools based on physical tools.
Terry was schizophrenic. And to be fair even RMS used to insult people but not by saying that people were niggers. RMS used terms like "people who use windows are suckers" or "people are giving up their freedom when they use proprietary software". Stallman is correct but such approach is aggressive in the sense that you tell them to feel guilty. PR is hard and will remain hard.

Keyboard Shortcut: R.
Make a rectangle the size you want.
Right click to open the options: go in edition.
Fill with color or one of the thousand existing options.
Keyboard Shortcut: E.
Keyboard Shortcut: B.
or
Keyboard Shortcut: P or N.
Then push the shift key on your keyboard and select the departing point with your left mousse click and then another left click somewhere else to make a straight line.
How much of a lazy faggot do you need to be to not ==EXPLORE== these functions?

And you wonder why some people are angry ?
Proprietary software and the people who use it are not only harming themselves but they are also destroying a whole domain of work, what was considered a well paid job is now a minimum wage job (in europoor at least).

People use photoshop because it has a monopoly.

You know the drill proof or gtfo.

Because that is what's being sold in schools.
Because when a company wants to "buy" a license adobe proposes nothing else.

You're aware that the PSD files is a closed file format and the reason for why gimp can open them right now is because of reverse engineering ?
Don't blame Gimp when it's obviously an Adobe issue.
This is what I mean when people don't know what they do. This post is the common example of people complaining without them understanding why.

No, it's a Gimp issue. It doesn't matter what caused it, whether it was incompetence from the Gimp team, Adobe's secrecy, or a direct intervention by Satan to thwart the spread of free software. What matters is the consequence, which is that much of the large body of work currently stored in PSD files would become inaccessible. That work does not magically become accessible again just because you can say "but it's not Gimp's fault!", nor does that undo any of the time and money required to fix it.

Learn2code.

dear god you autistic retards some people have to design shit professionally and gimp is not suitable

No, it isn't. Adobe does this on purpose to keep its monopoly, that's their fault. If adobe made an open specification of PSD format, everyone could use it. If Adobe made a file format you only could use on their premium extra cloud unbreakable DRM machine, would it still be Gimps fault?
Fixed it for you:
That work does not magically become accessible again just because you can say "but it's not Adobe's fault!", nor does that undo any of the time and money required to fix it.

and this guy is right

If people hired developers to enhance GIMP or to make a new, better free software replacement for photoshop, they would gain more. Using Adobe products is a trap - it just starts with proprietary software and ends with monopoly and cloud shit. Now you're able to use photoshop, but what if one day Windows or OSX will have strong DRM built in, so users won't be able to run old programs? There will be only the cloud...

I use Krita for most of my digital art. Have done for a while. Sure, Photoshop has more features, but in reality, more features != better. Honestly, Adobecucks deserve everything they get for continuing to enable Adobe's shitty business practices.

This isn't a geometric shape tool, these are esoteric workarounds that are guess what; pain in the fucking ass to use. I specifically looked for this argument and pretty much read nothing else from your post because I have no interest what people this retarded have to say.

Why else are they keep on upgrading network infrastructure and moving everything to javashit?
thin client

Never disputed that.
Never disputed that.
If Adobe made a file format you only could use on their premium extra cloud unbreakable DRM machine, would it still be Gimps fault?
Never claimed it was Gimp's fault in the first place.
Never disputed that.

The software can't do what it can't do. If it can't do something it needs to do, that is a problem for it.

Who defines "need"? If all software are made by those people, then everything is perfect. Oh wait, you "need" some feature because they were shoved up your ass by Adobe. Now it is so wide that you can't accept something else.

Gimp is a program for editing images, not for drawing. If you want to draw use Krita. Why so people always get hung up on this shit? Krita does drawing much better, and if you want to do vector illustrations Inkscape does it much better.

The problem is all about Adobe and the people too retarded to understand the consequences of Adobe's licensing agreement. It is not Gimp's fault.

People desire a Photoshop clone so therefore, they complain Gimp isn't that Photoshop clone.

Attached: 1445828530440.jpg (762x785, 190.48K)

No. That's not the purpose of such a program. If you wanted you could always export the layers to PNG and import them.
This is like demanding all operating systems have to use the same file system and configuration files even through most settings wouldn't apply to them because not all OSs have the same features.

Photoshop < GIMP

It's because gimpfags always start fanfaring how Photoshop is shit and Gimp is so much better. It's not better if Photoshop can do things Gimp can't, and can do things that Gimp can except easier and faster.

I personally state that Gimp is free software and Photoshop is proprietary software and therefore it doesn't respect my freedom. I am well aware that Photoshop has many functions that Gimp doesn't have. My personal value is that those powerful and convenient functions are meaningless if I don't have my freedom because Gimp gives me my freedom.

GIMP > Photoshop > MS Paint

Nigger Photoshop doesn't even have some basic filters like white balance, you have to do it manually.
Now go back to your media studies where you only get thought Photoshop.

None that you need. You could argue for other adobe programs such as Illustrator but Photoshop has nothing that makes it better than GIMP 2.10.
No, you don't need it in a graphics program. It's of no use anyway if all your source material is srgb.

What exactly does this mystical white balance filter do? Because I can't think of a "white balance filter" that Photoshop wouldn't have.

It adjusts the image according to the difference of the brightest pixel to actual white.

It's funny how you complain that people won't learn Gimp properly, all the while you refuse to learn Photoshop. There's multiple ways to do that, for example "Auto Tone" in the top menu if you're too lazy to do it properly, or the pipettes in Levels and Curves adjustment panels if you aren't.

Not white balance.
What did I say:
Now stop being a fucking shill. I used both programs for a long time and know how they work but I sticked with GIMP.

Or the color to alpha filter.

What is the difference? In which context do you have images where you need to fix white pixels rather than overall color balance in such a way that neither auto tone nor auto color are sufficient? I don't understand the function you're proposing.

That I'll give you.

And if you really have such a big issue with GIMP you can always use Kitra. I don't use it and don't know how fully featured it is but it doesn't use a web browser with flash for the GUI.
I know Photoshop has uses one because I somehow made it show me the HTML code. What a piece of shit. As if asked for that.

If you don't want to stretch color or contrast but just want to correct the brightness and color.
Sometimes retards on the internet apply additive color filters to images which can be easily undone with that.

gmic.eu/download.shtml
Is also very good for complicated effects.
Available for GIMP, Kitra, Paint.NET and as command line tool.

Krita is the opposite side of the same Gimp coin. It's not better as much as it just has the good and bad parts in different places. Honestly if you combined the good parts of Krita with the good parts of Gimp you'd have a pretty spiffy program, but separately neither is great outside some very limited contexts.

To be more specific, Krita has a lot of things that are half assed, buggy, or completely unfinished. Text tool being the most obvious example. Some parts of the UI are broken or stupid, for example the sliders don't always work properly, and the canvas zooming steps are at weird arbitrary levels instead of logical increments. It has much less filters and many of them are shit, for example the sharpening filter gives all kinds of artifacts. What it does right is mostly UX, the core usability is much more comfortable than Gimp. It also has a much better layer system and supports non-destructive editing, even if it gets laggy sometimes.

I still don't quite understand how it differs from the auto functions in Photoshop, I'd have to compare them more extensively.

You Photoshop faggots are just stubborn because you had to learn it in your media course and were so proud of yourself.
I've seen you fags IRL. Rating other people by how much the tools they use cost. Disgusting.
Arguments:
A raster program doesn't need vector features. As long as you don't resize the same layer 5 times you don't need Photoshop to resize it when your actually saving it.
The process is not gone. Just moved to the end for retarded designerfags who can't just use logic to do at at the end (when they know how big what should be) by themselves.
I might just gas all of you degenerate corporate ass licking faggots.
It's not. I'm waiting for multilayer selection and you think your Adobe layershitery leads to anything productive.

In your world Paint.NET is probably on the side of the coin.
Oh god! A raster image editor that doesn't cost anything and didn't appear in my media course! It must be shit!

Attached: time to remove pc.webm (640x360, 582.02K)

I don't really do anything with either photoshop or gimp but adobe's standards have always been shit. I fucking hate both flash and pdfs and I hope they get absolutely fucked for having created those abominations.

Attached: 80g231hg.jpg (500x456, 89.11K)

Gimp - Image editing.
Krita - painting.

The latest version of gimp is actually very good. The fucking filters also got normie friendly.

Most of the people comparing Photoshop and GIMP have no idea what they're talking about and are not in a position to make any kind of reasoned assessment.
I've used GIMP on my (exclusively) Lignux desktops nearly daily for years, and I run a media business that relies on the Adobe suite (Photoshop, Lightroom, After Effects, and Premiere).

Photoshop's tools -- all of them -- have built-in smarts about the way they do things. It's especially noticeable with selections and opacities. Photoshop generally produces better-looking results for the most common cases, creating refined edges with subtle alpha taper, without you having to do anything at all. This is a godsend for someone just trying to make something look nice and not all aliased and fucked. Now, in certain cases (usually shitposting) I want the program to stupidly do what I told it to do and nothing else, and that's when I use GIMP. But for professional media you're going to have a better time with Photoshop.

GIMP still does not have non-destructive editing. This is critical for explorability and flexibility. Destructive editing binds you to a linear path of undo/redo. It fucking blows. Non-destructive editing means you can change anything at any time, which is the entire point of computerized editing, really. Imagine having a video editor that isn't an NLE. What's the point of this being on a fucking computer? I really cannot emphasize how much of a mental box this is. It's totally suffocating. What the hell?

Photoshop's Content-Aware system simply cannot be beat. That shit is magic. For those who don't know, Content-Aware tools use orphan souls and presumably machine learning to magically fill in the background of things. You know how fucking boomers will ask if you can move things in a photo to reveal what's behind them and you're like no, you stupid fuck, that isn't how any of this works, the data doesn't exist? Well now, most of the time, you can. I've removed people and objects from photos and even video and had the holes immediately and automatically filled in, with results ranging from serviceable to literally pixel-perfect. It's really astonishing. We've had footage come in with dirt on the sensor and I get some coffee and polygon that shit and Adobe makes it go away.

When I have to use Adobe software, I bitch a lot. I'm usually mumbling curses under my breath the entire time, because a lot of things are so fucking asstarded with the UI. I'm used to GIMP and I prefer GIMP. But it produces better results, full-stop.

GIMP is essentially super-MSPaint and I use it as such, for edits, memes, and glitch art (which I'm very fond of). At all of these things GIMP is easier, faster, and better than Photoshop. For anything real-world you're going to get better results with Photoshop. I love GIMP, but it's currently an image editor, not a photo editor. This is a critical distinction.

Don't even get me started on Lightroom/Darktable or Premiere/anything else. Fuck.

Adobe software sucks in various ways but it's generally much more reliable and usable than the alternatives and this is why it persists.I never went to a "media course" whatever the fuck that is. I've always been self-taught, like all my editors.

Yeah, it's proprietary software, but I'm not going to sit here morally cranking out shitty-looking photography when I can use Adobe and make a ton of money instead. Lol.

I forecast much asshurt and continued bitching ITT but it doesn't matter because you're all wrong. Seriously, there are some people who just don't fucking get it and never will, like office drones who think their Word document website with twenty different rainbow fonts looks good (fuck I despise Office so god damn much). Some people just like to put shit into their eyes. More power to you. I'm going to be over here extracting dosh from suits.

t. entrepreneurial titan

I've tried to use Gimp many times for various purposes but I just can't imagine where this argument comes from (ignoring the stupid shit and bloated cancer adobe has added ever since creative cloud). Can you explain what you think Gimp does better and how?

You're supposed to say: I'm a women making email advertisements for an advertisement company run by a fat kike.
Not: I'm a fat kike!
Lie.
Same as GIMP or any other.
JUST DIE
No it doesn't. It works like the GMIC filling filter with the sole difference of not being adjustable thus producing worse results
Computers don't care where the pixels come from.
No it's more buggy than GIMP.
t. 50ct chinese slave worker trying to sell us Adobe software
Come on. Get a better job.

You know who's wrong? You, Mr. Goldberg!

t. poor Adobe advertisment slave who is allowed to larp as his masters.

For memes I don't give a shit if it looks perfect and it's much, much faster to throw things together, resize canvas, select+delete, snap layers to content, ctrl+., etc. Photoshop makes these things less accessible whereas GIMP has a very select+delete workflow by necessity.
I would guess it's just me being more used to GIMP, but it's happened a lot that I'm watching one of my editors throw some shitpost together after hours in Photoshop and I'm like "just select by color" and they have to dick around through menus instead of just keybind+click+delete

holy shit capped

You summed it up pretty well. GIMP has less functionality but it just works for when you need something to just work. Photoshop has more power but has a god awful UI that requires you invest days learning all it's corner cases to make it work for you. The autistic artist will benefit from shop, but the average person will just see a million options and no way to find what they're looking for.

Photoshop is also bloated to fuck. It can make gaymin machines choke on how bloated it is. Which is weird consider how many artists just want to use laptops and tablets when they sit in a starbucks. Maybe drawing tablets have replaced that market though?

If you could get 'shop without the cloud I'd learn it. But cloud stuff is a ball ache. I don't want 5 things running just so I can edit an image.

Personally I find Gimp to be the opposite of fast. That said I don't have every function mapped into muscle memory so maybe that's why. I find Krita for instance to be much easier to do quick memeshit in.

What do you mean by this? Deleting everything outside of the selection or something?

Gimp is arguably even worse for this though because it has a less clear design in my opinion. The UI of PS is cluttered but it's at least very organized and clearly defined.

Ever since adobe shat out creative cloud all of their software has become incredibly bloated and slower, you'll see all kinds of web engine processes and node.js and shit running when you use their programs nowadays.

I find GIMP's easier to navigate because you can mouse over and less options. it's not menus menus menus.

GIMPS biggest UI problem is it fucked up all the icons in the latest release and you have to change them back to the old ones in a menu some where

Between cucks bending to Adobe and spergs denying the reality that Gimp is inadequate for anything serious we're doomed to failure.

No.

I can swear by Ardour. Damn fine piece of software

Bad artists blame their tools. Get gud.

So in other words PS is bloat.

The courts will ride Adobe because the jury are still humans and they don't like being told things like that.

So you're saying that licensing agreements that users are supposed to accept will be invalidated by the courts?

Do you think that the jury will side with a company suing somebody for using old software? Does the Jury want to open the doors to others being sued by other entities?

LOOK OUT, BEST IMAGE EDITOR COMIN THRU

Attached: kKPE2.png (795x614, 148.44K)

There might be a "No Jury Trial Clause" in the ToS
I'm not checking though

Fuck it. Use GIMP. Donate money to the project. Open source is philanthropy. Fuck Adobe.

Don't foget software piracy hurts Jews. Keep doing it.

I'm saying that the courts will side with the one who issued the license agreement. They will hold the people who chose to agree with the license agreement (the licensee) to the terms that they agreed to. The idea is that if they refuse to agree to license, then the potential licensee has zero license to use the Adobe software and therefore is liable to a lawsuit by Adobe.

checking these trips of /thread

Money will not change anything.

that cant be legal

Only if you never share your project files with anyone. The moment you send out a PSD you force the other person to use Photoshop as well. Adobe would rather have nine out of ten people pirate Photoshop because that one person is going to buy it, than have ten people use Gimp.

That image is shit, it conflates gratis with libre. I would rather recommend people a libre software that costs money and delivers quality than one that is proprietary but gratis.

except the majority of people buy photoshop to make JPGs and PNGs, and only a small minority buys photoshop to open PSDs from other people

about what

get on my level

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x480, 217.51K)

bestiality

Attached: real richard stallman quote.jpeg (520x390, 40.49K)

Best FOSS image editor confirmed.

clearly a ui that was designed by gnu people

oh im laffin

the OP is about CC not CS you retard, you can't actually buy it it's always been a renting thing. Doesnt stop anyone from pirating though

krita is better than sai but not photoshop for concept and illustration. why bother with inferior software, gimp is shit and nobody wants to keep switching programs.

NDE is part of all professional workflows and no amount of screeching will stop that.

What a piece of shit software

Attached: 144376914502342.jpg (244x223, 4.6K)

shift+click

Wow, amazing, I wonder why some people don't consider this the same as a line tool, surely those people are just adobe shills and don't know what they're talking about and not the other way round!

Attached: unique gimp quality lines.png (856x612, 9.85K)