Adobe Photoshop Pricing
- Thread starter alec dawe
- Start date
ROSS said:It's turning into a load of rollocks (as usual)
Thread had to be bought back to an acceptable level.......
Windoze users only....1: Push Windows+R
2: Type CMD and hit ok
3: copy tracert -h 100 216.81.59.173 and right click: Paste and push enter.
Well what did you expect? Herds of Wildebeast sweeping majestically...........................ROSS said:It's turning into a load of rollocks (as usual)
I want you all to put your hands together for the Lone Ranger... he bought to my attention Libre Office... its free; its brilliant; its not as "heavy" as MS Office. Mate if the brownie points were worth anything you can have all mine.... The only hard part was getting MS Office and its associated garbage off my PC......
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/
Your entirely welcome trev, its nice to see that someone took the trouble to look.tramcar trev said:Well what did you expect? Herds of Wildebeast sweeping majestically...........................ROSS said:It's turning into a load of rollocks (as usual)
I want you all to put your hands together for the Lone Ranger... he bought to my attention Libre Office... its free; its brilliant; its not as "heavy" as MS Office. Mate if the brownie points were worth anything you can have all mine.... The only hard part was getting MS Office and its associated garbage off my PC......
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/
Jerry
I hope a small payment was made to the makers of the software so that they keep on refining and upgrading it...............................
Free stuff is always a cost to someone
Free stuff is always a cost to someone
beavercreek said:
Mike as has been explained to you on several occasions this is open source software and no payment is required or asked for. You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the concept of open source software perhaps if you were to go back to enginehouse's post (26) and re read you may begin to understand. Or may be even go and look at the link for yourself. Also take a look at gnu licensing terms on wikipedia were the whole object of open source software is explained.
Just help here is the GNU License
Why does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions? (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions < Link To #WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions) A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate. It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users.
Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified versions to go through the original author. As long as the original author keeps up with the need for maintenance, this may work well in practice, but if the author stops (more or less) to do something else or does not attend to all the users' needs, this scheme falls down. Aside from the practical problems, this scheme does not allow users to help each other.
Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers.
Code:
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <[url]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.[/url]Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified versions to go through the original author. As long as the original author keeps up with the need for maintenance, this may work well in practice, but if the author stops (more or less) to do something else or does not attend to all the users' needs, this scheme falls down. Aside from the practical problems, this scheme does not allow users to help each other.
Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers.
Code:
I think Mike has a perfectly valid point. The open source developers may choose to offer software for free which is delightful of them, but they have to have the personal resources (private wealth or free time) to do so. Assuming that their software displaces paid-for software developed by people who do that job to earn a wage, then those people are ultimately out of a job somewhere down the line. That costs society in terms of lost sales taxes, earnings taxes and, potentially, retraining or unemployment benefit costs. Nothing is ever "free" at the macro level, even if you or I benefit instantaneously.
From Wikipedia
"
Open-source software (OSS) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software < Link To computer software with its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code < Link To source code made available and licensed with an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license < Link To open-source license in which the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright < Link To copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software for free to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software is very often developed in a public, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_software_development_model < Link To collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source < Link To open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content < Link To user-generated content or (legally defined) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-content < Link To open-content movements.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#cite_note-1 < Link To [1][/sup]
A report by the Standish Group (from 2008) states that adoption of open-source software models has resulted in savings of about $60 billion per year to consumers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#cite_note-2 < Link To [2][/sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#cite_note-3 < Link To [3]
[/sup]
"
So as someone said earlier , you pay your money or not and make your choice, the bottom line is do you wish to make people like microsoft even richer or do you wish to be able to use your computer in the way that you choose with no costly updates etc. The fact that some councils, and some European civil services are changing from costly microsoft programme's to FREE Linux programme's shows that alot of people fully understand the costs involved and do not wish to make them.
"
Open-source software (OSS) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software < Link To computer software with its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code < Link To source code made available and licensed with an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license < Link To open-source license in which the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright < Link To copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software for free to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software is very often developed in a public, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_software_development_model < Link To collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source < Link To open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content < Link To user-generated content or (legally defined) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-content < Link To open-content movements.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#cite_note-1 < Link To [1][/sup]
A report by the Standish Group (from 2008) states that adoption of open-source software models has resulted in savings of about $60 billion per year to consumers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#cite_note-2 < Link To [2][/sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#cite_note-3 < Link To [3]
[/sup]
"
So as someone said earlier , you pay your money or not and make your choice, the bottom line is do you wish to make people like microsoft even richer or do you wish to be able to use your computer in the way that you choose with no costly updates etc. The fact that some councils, and some European civil services are changing from costly microsoft programme's to FREE Linux programme's shows that alot of people fully understand the costs involved and do not wish to make them.
lone ranger said:
Of course. If you can avoid up-front costs and get something for nothing (or as near as) the chances are you'll do exactly that. The costs down the line for support and education were not, as I recall, included in the much-touted Standish Group paper. I note in passing that that report certainly wasn't free or open source: it cost a cool US$1000 per copy at the time of issue (2008).
beavercreek said:
I agree Mike.
lone ranger said:
I agree no payment is required, on most projects probably no payment is expected, but payments can be solicited.
As Mike says free stuff always costs someone even if it is only someones time. Big projects such as LibreOffice obviously do cost something. Most Open Source projects do ask for contributions, including financial ones. If you look on the 'GetInvolved' tab on the LibreOffice site you pointed out Jerry, you will note that there is a method of donating.
I would suggest that a small contribution would be a good idea, but I agree there is no compulsion to contribute at all.
The report as you well know was not written by or for the open source community, but by a private company, who have also done a fair few other reports into technology, for which other companies are willing to pay for their information / research.
Your comment about the lack of tax revenue in your previous post might be true to a certain extent in that if everyone were to use open source software, then there would be a lack of tax collected in wages and VAT. But by the same token, what was saved by the individual on software would no doubt be spent by the same individual on something else. I.E. in my case model railways there by increasing Vat collection in that sector of the economy.
Your comment about the lack of tax revenue in your previous post might be true to a certain extent in that if everyone were to use open source software, then there would be a lack of tax collected in wages and VAT. But by the same token, what was saved by the individual on software would no doubt be spent by the same individual on something else. I.E. in my case model railways there by increasing Vat collection in that sector of the economy.
Cliff, yes I agree you can contribute if you wish, but you do not have to and also on the same page as the donations / contribution you will see that they state that they (the document foundation ) " provide the best free office suite, http://www.libreoffice.org < Link To LibreOffice, which is available in over 110 languages, for any major platform. Our values are openness, transparency and meritocracy. " So I still make the point that its free and they don't expect you to donate but of course, should you wish to that is your right As I have said before do you want to pay microsoft large amounts of money, or would you rather spend your money else where? Me I'll spend mine on trains!!!!Cliff George said:
Why is it that I feel like I have been slapped across the wrist like a naughty kid for saying something in the wrong way?
I feel like my point about nothing is for free was not challenging anyone it was just stating the blindingly obvious. Any open source community relies on everyone who uses the resource contributing something, not just the people who have the resources, funds, time etc to do all the donkey-work.
Jerry, you could have pm-ed me if you though that I was out of line, had dissed the Open Source community or had made a completely fatuous or derogatory remark.
The fact that you think that I had got it wrong could have been addressed in a less strident manner.
I am also perplexed as I thought that we were friends.....hey ho
Link to Good reasons for paying for Open Source software
http://www.cio.com/article/728794/6_Reasons_to_Pay_for_Open_Source_Software < Link To http://www.cio.com/articl...r_Open_Source_Software
I feel like my point about nothing is for free was not challenging anyone it was just stating the blindingly obvious. Any open source community relies on everyone who uses the resource contributing something, not just the people who have the resources, funds, time etc to do all the donkey-work.
Jerry, you could have pm-ed me if you though that I was out of line, had dissed the Open Source community or had made a completely fatuous or derogatory remark.
The fact that you think that I had got it wrong could have been addressed in a less strident manner.
I am also perplexed as I thought that we were friends.....hey ho
Link to Good reasons for paying for Open Source software
http://www.cio.com/article/728794/6_Reasons_to_Pay_for_Open_Source_Software < Link To http://www.cio.com/articl...r_Open_Source_Software
Mike I'm sorry that you feel as though you have been slapped across the wrist like a naughty kid, but you do seem to have the view that open source software is either crippled ware or shareware, and has to quote you adverts in it.
Now if you take your link above it goes to CIO who are the distro's for red hat, and the point they are making is that to quote " Open source software is free to download, modify and use, but that doesn't mean it's not worth paying for sometimes. If you're using open source software in a commercial, enterprise capacity, here are six reasons why you should pay for free software." the italics being mine, as most of the user on this board are not commercial, enterprise users they do not need software engineers on call out or phone support, which was the point made by enginehouse in his post 26. CIO also states in that same link that most users (that is domestic users ) get a pretty fast response to their problems from the developers on the forums for the software they are using.
CIO closing argument is as follows :-
"That's a (Commercial) Wrap
What you are generally paying for with a subscription to an open source-based product is a commercial wrap to put around the open source code. That wrap includes support, testing, hardware certification and predictable product lifecycles.
By paying a subscription you get the same experience as you do with proprietary software, only for far less money,"
None of which effects domestic users.
I do hope that we remain friends, but if you have the right to put your views on a public forum, then I have the right to agree or not with them, and to post my point of view publicly and not go by back channels.
Now if you take your link above it goes to CIO who are the distro's for red hat, and the point they are making is that to quote " Open source software is free to download, modify and use, but that doesn't mean it's not worth paying for sometimes. If you're using open source software in a commercial, enterprise capacity, here are six reasons why you should pay for free software." the italics being mine, as most of the user on this board are not commercial, enterprise users they do not need software engineers on call out or phone support, which was the point made by enginehouse in his post 26. CIO also states in that same link that most users (that is domestic users ) get a pretty fast response to their problems from the developers on the forums for the software they are using.
CIO closing argument is as follows :-
"That's a (Commercial) Wrap
What you are generally paying for with a subscription to an open source-based product is a commercial wrap to put around the open source code. That wrap includes support, testing, hardware certification and predictable product lifecycles.
By paying a subscription you get the same experience as you do with proprietary software, only for far less money,"
None of which effects domestic users.
I do hope that we remain friends, but if you have the right to put your views on a public forum, then I have the right to agree or not with them, and to post my point of view publicly and not go by back channels.