Paul makes sense. I understand (from my son) that the hardware is ok. It’s the corporate management of the software and the pricing that frosts me. If I found a foundling Mac, I’d happily strip the software and try it with Linux. But there are so many castoff Windows machines that I probably won’t.
1 Like
I don’t do photos but interested as to why gimp is not good enough?
I have many artists who use it ok and refuse to pay Adobe to rent Photoshop
Many here use lightroom instead
I know nothing in this area
We do not need new licenses, we need the regulatory bodies to tell corporations which provide components or complete computers to provide source code or a developer specification on how to work with ALL hardware they ever provided.
Oh? You don’t want to provide a complete developer specification of your graphics cards? I’m sorry, then you’re not allowed to deliver them in the EU and USA.
That’s one side of the coin. The other is that software which is considered the standard in a certain sector should automatically be open sourced by law, otherwise it’d automatically be forbidden to be distributed or a MASSIVE fine would be applied.
This would automatically mean Windows would immediately become OSS, all hardware drivers and firmware would automatically become OSS, and software which is popular in certain sectors, would automatically become OSS. Microsoft would be hit hardest by this, but Adobe and Autodesk would be others. People could then actually learn, which forces these monopolies to deal with actually fair competition, and they’re all of a sudden forced to deal with the quality of their source code.
It’s not open source that’s at issue, it’s closed source. Closed source needs an extremely hostile environment to function in, simply to enforce quality, performance, and availability.
Making concessions to closed source is like making a pact with the devil. Nvidia just started doing the right thing, and started contributing GRAPHICS drivers to the Linux kernel, which is a mjaor victory.
However, forcing industry to make contributions to open source software is a noble cause, one which should be considered. Musllibs is one particular project which comes to mind which could use funding.
2 Likes
Do you really think anything like what you suggest could/would ever happen (especially in the U.S.A.)? Free Enterprise’s at the heart of corporate America, and is considered a fundamental part of what makes up the United States. No member of Congress would ever take/support such a step, regardless how advisable it may be. As much as I’d like to see Open Source become the law of the land, I don’t ever see it happening.
My2Cents,
Ernie
2 Likes
Please don’t take it otherwise, with due respect to the scientist, can you please tell me for whom they were working for? As per my understanding, they always work for either Govt. or private companies and they fund their projects. Please don’t tell me that those projects are all for public interests. Those scientists get their job done using that open source FREE software and in return they not only get their salaries but also huge recognitions. But how much those developers get paid who are actually the maker of that piece of open source free software? Can you please give me one such example where they get paid for their work… at least once? Leave the question of royalty income. But the corporations like Adobe, is forcing people to pay them on regular basis and now Microsoft and others have started their journey on that path. Not only them, Apple, Sony, Disney and every mega-corporations are using open source software for which they don’t spend a dime but profiting without limit. THIS SHOULD END. THIS MUST END. Brilliant people also need to eat… they need money. Without the fulfillment of basic needs, brilliance cannot survive. We need to understand that.
1 Like
It has always been that way… creative people need sponsors.
but
creative output has always been freely given… because creative people love what they do and they will accept any low payment just to be able to do it.
Working for a salary rather than for the love of it is an entirely different thing and it rarely leads to good software, or any other type of creative output
I worked for a government research body, yes, but most of the research was funded by wool industry research funds. Those sort of industry funds are limited, free software helped to get things done.
Most of the original free software development was done by people in my sort of position. There was an unwritten arrangement that one could spend part of ones time on creative work. The academic world is the same… most university teaching positions are part teaching, part freedom to research. A lot of free software was written in Universities.
Retired people contribute to free software. I spent 5 years after retiring writing an R package.
What you are saying is there is not much creativity sponsorship in todays commercial world. That is unfortunately true. There is creative work, but the output is nonfree . Unix was lucky to escape from AT&T, and even Berkeley Unix was originally licensed but open source. I remember a source licence costing $1000.
What I am saying does not only apply to software developers. Artists and creative writers have the same problem. They can really only survive in the academic world or as hippies.
If you were to change Linux into something produced by paid workers, it would no longer be a creative product… look what has happened to RHEL… it is like Windows.
I dont think we want that.
There is a little bit of the creative spirit in all of us, and that is why we appreciate Linux and FOSS. Using Linux is not a commercial transaction, it is like a visit to the Art Gallery.
2 Likes
There are other linux packages like Krita, RawTherapee, and Darktable that might bridge the gap.
Gimp was not intended for doctoring photos, it is more a general purpose image processing tool.
Ha e you seen PhotoGimp?
3 Likes
I found all of these before even installing Linux for the first time because you know, I want to use this amazing OS for work purpose, not for gaming, not for distro-hoping, not for research. I am not a programmer who is thinking of making apps for Linux. I have to earn my bread and butter using this OS and the apps I need. I am a very small freelancer, nothing more.
Now let me ask you a question, imagine you have got a project which would require processing of 500 photos. You know every project is time-bound. Now, in Windows you can process each photo in a single app, be it’s RAW processing, be it colour correction, be it anything else… you just need one single app. I am leaving the batch processing aside. Now, if you have to use 2 to 3 apps to process a single photo, would it be very convenient? For me, it is not and there are more issues for which I still have to use Windows as another OS. I don’t know if I would be able to find all my solutions, mostly usable software related, before September 2025 or I have to swap between these 2 OS like I am doing now and it would be very inconvenient and disappointing. 
1 Like
So you have admitted that the FREE software developers can only survive in the academic world… I am leaving the 2nd option. Now every free software developer cannot be in the academic world. It is unrealistic. So those who are such nonacademic developers, who are probably working in various corporate entities, they have to work in their spare time to make these free softwares. Do you know for how many hours a software engineer has to work for his company in India and Bangladesh? Recently Indian Govt. has passed a bill for 12 hours of MANDATORY work with NO OVERTIME PAYMENT but in reality more than 16 hours. Actually there is no fixed working time. Your boss can call you at 2AM and ask you to get the job done within 7AM because he has to show the work-in-progress report to the CEO at 8AM. 8 hour work movement go to hell. Now tell me, a person, who has to work for 16 to 18 hours a day for his/her employer, how on earth he/she can think of making a FREE software which will not give him/her a dime??!! NEVER EVER and that’s why the all over condition of Linux is at 4% of market share, which also caused by the greediness of Microsoft. Otherwise it was much lower.
Now if, that same developer could earn his/her livelihood, could pay his/her bills from funding for the FREE software he/she is making, I am 100% sure that, many developer would not work for that bloodsucker corporation and work full time for creating free softwares.
I am not saying to sell a FREE software. In that case it would not a be FREE whether it is open source or not. What I am trying to say that there should be a system through which these developers would get paid. It may be a marketplace, it may be a licensing system. The source code will be given with the software but the client has to pay each time they use that piece of code. They would get the software with source code without spending a single penny and they would make a software with that code and make profit from it and give nothing but an one line mention… NO, THAT’S NOT ACCEPTABLE.
To those blood sucking corporations, YOU HAVE TO PAY EACH TIME YOU USE THAT FREE CODE, YOU PIECE OF S***. YOU HAVE SUCKED ENOUGH BLOOD OF THESE FREE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. NO MORE.
Sorry, for my language🙏🏽 but this should be the attitude of FOSS initiative otherwise it will die and this is also the cause of its not being so successful till date.
God… I hate these corporations so much.
Note: All opinions are mine and mine only. If I hurt someone, I am apologising. Please be sure that it was not intentional.
3 Likes
What I am saying is, there is a system now.
Individuals have to demonstrate their merit by academic achievement… then they have a chance of gaining a funded position in which there are some teaching or research obligations and some free time. That is how most creative work is supported.
There are also funding grants for specific types of work… theatre comes to mind. I have never seen this for software but it probably happens.
There is also postgraduate work. People doing PhD’s often develop software and it stays in the public domain because it was created under the academic “freedom to publish” ethic.
You cant take someone with no skills or training and pay them to develop software. That is what the corporate world tries to do and you can see the result. There is no pool of talented developers out there, they have to be nurtured. Money is not the problem, trained talented people is the problem. They only grow in certain types of environment.
I dont want to disagree with you. People do need to be paid and to have reasonable work conditions.
Most of FOSS did not come from people who were exploited, it came from people who made sacrifices to do what they liked doing and believed in.
2 Likes
I don’t know about other countries but in my country, there are too many criteria, too many red tapes to get funding for research. Moreover there are people who have prodigical skills but are still studying or stopped going to school/college. Merit, brilliance doesn’t depend on educational qualification. Albert Einstein never completed his so called ‘education’. He left his school whatever the reason be. In today’s world also, there are people who may be develop open source software and distribute for FREE and they haven’t feel themselves ‘fit’ for so called ‘schooling’. How these people get paid? I have mentioned earlier that a revolution cannot be done with empty stomach. FOSS IS A REVOLUTION and this revolution needs funding which can be fulfilled by applying a ‘Licensing structure’ for using open source codes and softwares and that funding will help to fund those people who are helping this revolution by creating open source software and codes and this will ultimately benefit Linux to be the proper alternative of Windows. Windows would not be able to dominate the market, if there would not much compatible software (including hardware drivers) and this is the only obstacle Linux currently has. Without this constraint Linux has the ability to be the market leader. Microsoft, Adobe and other big corporations are acting like a ‘MAFIA’ and this is the chance for Linux to show the world the way out from the vicious grip of these corporations and this can be done only through FOSS licensing which will help these brilliant developers to engage themselves more dedicatedly not only to develop more robust FREE software but also give software support to make Linux more robust OS which would be able to fulfill the needs of every type of work. I dream of that day, when there will be no need for Adobe, Corel, Sony, Cyberlink and others. Linux will be able to replace all of them with its free repository.
1 Like
I am afraid they do not fit the current system. To get into a position where you can access funding you need to demonstrate ability first. That is the way our education systems work.
You want to set up a funding avenue that is outside the current system . How are you going to judge the merit of applicants?
1 Like
One possible way is to have government and market entities contribute to a fund which supports various open sauce projects. People could apply for money through that fund, but the fund first has their project tested through various criteria and then assigns funds accordingly. This way “they” can be sure the projects their money goes to are legit and not some fraud.
3 Likes
Some of the creative Arts are supported that way, but book writers tend to have to produce the manuscript first and be given royalties afterwards.
Royalties would not work with open source software.
1 Like
I remember buying borlands terbo pascal (long time ago)
It said this software is like a book, you have bought a cooy so you can read it, but if you lend or give it to someone else then you cannot use or read it. (Perhaps slightly different wording)
The software we use and linux should be paid for, how I am not sure. But a nominal fee
As a remedy, Perens proposes that licenses should be replaced by contracts. He envisions that companies pay for the benefits they receive from using FOSS. Compliance for each contract would be checked, renewed, and paid for yearly, and the payments would go towards funding FOSS development. Individuals and nonprofits would continue to use FOSS for free.
And sure, I trust big corporations, they always have my interests at heart above profits, right?! Let’s do away with big government and let the multinational Software Giants duke it out for the rights to protect my privacy they’ve already stripped away! 34 counts of Fraud, people! That’s who’s running for the highest office in my country, funded by a number of those friendly multinational corporations that don’t want to pay taxes, let alone licensing fees.
1 Like
In Maine USA the governor wants to tax large corporations that ship via cardboard and plastic containers to help pay for their recycling/reuse, rather than the end consumer. Yes, we’re talking Amazon, Ebay, Walmart, etc. that so far have paid nothing to clean up the Texas-sized islands of plastic post-consumer glop floating in the Pacific, let alone helped me with my $45-70/month garbage and recycling fees. I guess proving they use that GNU/Linux distro will be the hard part: Will there be a Legal Team at Linux Mint HQ? Canonical? Already exists at RHEL, one imagines. GitHub AutoPilot has been silently sucking intellectual property from the FOSS movement for quite some time, who’s monitoring that?
1 Like
We pay by contributing something ourselves wherever possible.
It is not just software, it is a holistic thing… you can contribute by discussion or helping just as much as by writing code.
1 Like
I am afraid, I can’t agree with you. There is a way. To fund the FOSS initiative and also the developers, a marketplace can be created and there, the developers would submit their projects. A team would be there to check those projects and all the eligible projects will get a common licensing option. Now if a company needs any open source software which they would get for free, has to buy that software or code from there and will pay as per the licensing fee of their choice and they would be able to modify that code as per their choice as the code / software will be open source but that also under separate license. Now, a portion of that fee will go to FOSS fund and rest to the developer. The ratio could be 40:60… 40% to FOSS and 60% to the developer. In this way FOSS and the developers, both would be benefitted and the companies will never be able to get those codes for free and make billions.
1 Like
Do you think Governments are ‘priests’? Governments of every country in the world are corrupted. If they put their hands on FOSS initiative, they will corrupt it and it will die.
1 Like