Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software…

R
Posted By
Ramon
Oct 25, 2007
Views
930
Replies
22
Status
Closed
– Adobe Creative Suite 3 sales ‘on fire’

– "This shows that the CS3 launch was an absolute success and Adobe hit one out of the park," said Chris Swenson, an analyst at NPD Data.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9804379-7.html

I wonder how Microsoft’s "Acrobat Killer" is doing. Anybody using that crap?

Adobe Acrobat is the most widely used application in the world.

-Ramon

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

GO
Geppetto Olivio
Oct 25, 2007
"Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
– Adobe Creative Suite 3 sales ‘on fire’

– "This shows that the CS3 launch was an absolute success and Adobe hit one out of the park," said Chris Swenson, an analyst at NPD Data.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9804379-7.html

I wonder how Microsoft’s "Acrobat Killer" is doing. Anybody using that crap?

Adobe Acrobat is the most widely used application in the world.

Yet another software package that people are willing to spend ($1199.99 MSRP) $600 ‘street price’ instead of using those supposedly superior linux and OSS solutions for free.

Surely it must be an insult to all you linux users that people would rather pay all this money than to bother with your *free* software.


Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
C
chrisv
Oct 25, 2007
Geppetto Olivio wrote:

Yet another software package

Fsck off, twat. No one denies that there’s some proprietory apps out there which are very good and which do not run natively on Linux and therefore are a reason why many people use Windows or Macs. DUH.

*plonk*
GO
Geppetto Olivio
Oct 25, 2007
"chrisv" wrote in message
Geppetto Olivio wrote:

Yet another software package

Fsck off, twat. No one denies that there’s some proprietory apps out there which are very good and which do not run natively on Linux and therefore are a reason why many people use Windows or Macs. DUH.
*plonk*

I guess that answers my question with a resounding YES. It bothers the hell out of the ‘linux boys’ that people would rather spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on proprietary closed source software then to even try linux for free.

But I thought that gnu-cash was so damn good… so why does everyone use Quicken?
But I thought that gimp was so damn good… so why does everyone pay $600 for a single Adobe app?
But I thought that open-office is so damn good… yet everyone buys $$$$ for MS-Office.

Now I see why you’re so pissed off all the time. It must really suck to be a ‘linux advocate’ and constantly plead to give your software away for free. Only to have 99% of the world vote with their check-book and give you the finger.


Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
P
PDFrank
Oct 27, 2007
Geppetto Olivio wrote:

why does everyone use
Quicken?

I don’t.

why does everyone pay $600
for a single Adobe app?

I don’t.

yet everyone buys $$$$ for
MS-Office.

Yet I don’t.
KB
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 28, 2007

[snips]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:20:44 -0400, Geppetto Olivio wrote:

Yet another software package that people are willing to spend ($1199.99 MSRP) $600 ‘street price’ instead of using those supposedly superior linux and OSS solutions for free.

Surely it must be an insult to all you linux users that people would rather pay all this money than to bother with your *free* software.

Nope. The economy, such as it is, more or less relies on stupid people with stupid spending habits. If you want to spend $600 on a package that does the same jobs I can get done for the price of a blank CD and a download, that’s fine by me, it just keeps the money flowing through the system.

Meanwhile, I’ll do my part by using that $600 to, oh, I don’t know, let’s see, what can we do with $600? Hmm. That’d be a new set of snow tires for the car. I could use that. Now isn’t it nice I didn’t have to spend that $600 on the software, so I could spend it on something else I needed?

I wonder what piece of software I won’t need to buy next – I could use a nice weekend getaway with the little lady.
KB
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 28, 2007
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:15:13 -0400, Geppetto Olivio wrote:

"chrisv" wrote in message
Geppetto Olivio wrote:

Yet another software package

Fsck off, twat. No one denies that there’s some proprietory apps out there which are very good and which do not run natively on Linux and therefore are a reason why many people use Windows or Macs. DUH.
*plonk*

I guess that answers my question with a resounding YES.

Nope. We think it’s silly, we think someone doing so is foolish, we think there are better ways to spend money, but if you really want to spend your money to get what we get legally and legitimately free, well, feel free. It is, after all, your money.

But I thought that gnu-cash was so damn good… so why does everyone use Quicken?

Not everyone does. I don’t.

But I thought that gimp was so damn good… so why does everyone pay $600 for a single Adobe app?

Not everyone does. I don’t.

But I thought that open-office is so damn good… yet everyone buys $$$$ for MS-Office.

Not everyone does. I don’t.

Now I see why you’re so pissed off all the time. It must really suck to be a ‘linux advocate’ and constantly plead to give your software away for free.

Nobody’s pleading. The software is there if you want it. If you don’t, that’s your choice. We use it because we like it; if you don’t, go ahead, use something else.
C
chicks
Oct 29, 2007
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.
DK
David Kastrup
Oct 29, 2007
chicks writes:

Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
KB
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 29, 2007
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:16:09 +0000, chicks wrote:

Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Well, it’s possible they’ve redeveloped their own, but yeah, it is amusing to see this sort of thing when it happens.
J
jjq
Oct 29, 2007
On Oct 29, 11:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

The "Patent and Legal Notices" for AR8.1.1, obtained using the "About" menu item, are indeed shorter than those for AR7.0.9 . But there is no attempt to deceive. The version for AR8.1.1 (dated 8/20/2007) ends with:

Portions (c) 1997-2005 1999 2001 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Portions are licensed under the GNU Library General Public License, a
copy of which is included with this software.

and the LGPL license is given by the files:

Acrobat8.1.1/Adobe/Reader8/Reader/Legal/en_US/LGPL.{txt,html }

which end with:

Under the terms of the GNU LIbrary General Public License, you are permitted to make changes to the libgnomespeech.so, libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so, libORBit-2.so,
liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries for your own use, and
Adobe delivers with the installed Adobe software
the object code that links with the libgnomespeech.so,
libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so, libORBit-2.so,
liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries, as required by the GNU LGPL. You are also permitted to reverse engineer only those portions of the Adobe software that link with and utilize the
libgnomespeech.so, libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so, libORBit-2.so, liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries, and only to the extent necessary to debug your changes to the libgnomespeech.so, libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so, libORBit-2.so,
liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries. Any other reverse engineering, decompiling or use of utilities or tools to trace, probe, or reveal Adobe software and trade secrets embodied therein, is expressly prohibited. Adobe software contains valuable trade secrets and employs methods protected by patents
of Adobe Software Incorporated.

James Quirk
C
chicks
Oct 29, 2007
On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.
DK
David Kastrup
Oct 29, 2007
chicks writes:

On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.

The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you claiming that it does?


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
J
jjq
Oct 29, 2007
David,

On Oct 29, 5:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.

The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you claiming that it does?
The list I gave does include GPL’ed code (e.g. gnomespeech amd CUPS). Interestingly, however, the one acknowledgment I’d expect to see, but didn’t, was for GTK, which is used for the Linux-AR GUI.

James


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
DK
David Kastrup
Oct 29, 2007
writes:

On Oct 29, 5:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.

The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you claiming that it does?
The list I gave does include GPL’ed code (e.g. gnomespeech amd CUPS).

Both of which are licensed under the LGPL. Are you spreading misinformation on purpose?

Interestingly, however, the one acknowledgment I’d expect to see, but didn’t, was for GTK, which is used for the Linux-AR GUI.

Again, LGPL.


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
C
chicks
Oct 29, 2007
On Oct 29, 1:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.

The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you claiming that it does?


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum- Hide quoted text –
– Show quoted text –

LGPL Libraries

LIBMCRYPT version 2.5.7 is licensed under the GNU Library General Public License, a copy of which along with the source code for the LIBMCRYPT library is available here.

ICONV version 1.9.2 is licensed under the GNU Library General Public License, a copy of which along with the source code for the ICONV library is available here.
DK
David Kastrup
Oct 29, 2007
chicks writes:

On Oct 29, 1:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.

The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you claiming that it does?

LGPL Libraries

LIBMCRYPT version 2.5.7 is licensed under the GNU Library General Public License, a copy of which along with the source code for the LIBMCRYPT library is available here.

ICONV version 1.9.2 is licensed under the GNU Library General Public License, a copy of which along with the source code for the ICONV library is available here.

Are you really this clueless? The LGPL is not the same as the GPL.


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
TS
Tim Smith
Oct 29, 2007
In article ,
chicks wrote:
Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.

I saw a few LGPL in there, but no GPL. Did I just miss it?
J
jjq
Oct 30, 2007
On Oct 29, 7:10 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
writes:
On Oct 29, 5:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
chicks writes:
Ironic, isn’t it, that Adobe’s (and many other companies’) products couldn’t exist without a large number of open-source libraries for things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many of them written by those ‘linux boys’. Adobe Reader used to display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they’ve somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.

Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

Here’s the complete list for the Acrobat family:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as well as many third-party commercial companies.

The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you claiming that it does?

The list I gave does include GPL’ed code (e.g. gnomespeech amd CUPS).

Both of which are licensed under the LGPL. Are you spreading misinformation on purpose?
Sorry, I meant to say LGPL’ed, which of course, as you point out it, is quite different from GPL’ed. In fact, the text in my earlier posting made it clear that Adobe are using the GNU Library General Public License, which as I understand it has now been superceded by the Lesser General Public License.

James

Interestingly, however, the one acknowledgment I’d expect to see, but didn’t, was for GTK, which is used for the Linux-AR GUI.

Again, LGPL.


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
J
jjq
Oct 30, 2007
Sorry, I meant to say LGPL’ed, which of course, as you point out it, is quite different from GPL’ed. In fact, the text in my earlier posting made it clear that Adobe are using the GNU Library General Public License, which as I understand
Before I get chewed out again, I meant: Adobe are making use of software that employs LGPL, and I did not mean to imply that they use LGPL for their own work.

James
OR
Owen Ransen
Oct 30, 2007
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:47:53 -0400, PDFrank wrote:

Geppetto Olivio wrote:

why does everyone use
Quicken?

I don’t.

why does everyone pay $600
for a single Adobe app?

I don’t.

yet everyone buys $$$$ for
MS-Office.

Yet I don’t.

I really really wanted to use InkScape as a replacement
for Xara and CorelDraw, but it is simply not good enough.

When it saves the files as DXF AutoCAD’s voloview and other DXF compatible applications cannot read it because it is a "bad format".

When you use "save as…" the name of the file does not change (for example) from SVG to EMF autoamtically, whether or not you click on the "change extension automatically" checkbox. So unless you are really careful you save a EMF file with the SVG extension.

The core functionality seems to work, but these initial
bugs, which must be simple to sort out, will put off
many users.

I’ve had similar problems with OpenOffice’s spreadsheet, the experience is discouraging and the normal non technical user probably begins to wonder "should I put my professional data into programs like this?"

I’ve found this with a lot of free open source software, tiny irritating things never put right.

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/
C
chicks
Oct 30, 2007
On Oct 29, 3:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
Are you really this clueless? The LGPL is not the same as the GPL.

Are you really this clueless, that you have missed the entire point of the thread?

Some idiot was claiming that open source software is garbage, I merely pointed out that commercial software, in many cases, depends on open source software, whether LGPL, GPL, other otherwise.

Get a life, a**hole.
T
toby
Nov 5, 2007
On Oct 25, 5:20 pm, "Geppetto Olivio" wrote:
"Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
– Adobe Creative Suite 3 sales ‘on fire’

– "This shows that the CS3 launch was an absolute success and Adobe hit one out of the park," said Chris Swenson, an analyst at NPD Data.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9804379-7.html

I wonder how Microsoft’s "Acrobat Killer" is doing. Anybody using that crap?

Adobe Acrobat is the most widely used application in the world.

Yet another software package that people are willing to spend ($1199.99 MSRP) $600 ‘street price’ instead of using those supposedly superior linux and OSS solutions for free.

Surely it must be an insult to all you linux users that people would rather pay all this money than to bother with your *free* software.

Stupidity springs eternal. Or Bill Gates would be a street beggar or better yet, incarcerated as he richly deserves.


Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections