Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Ramon F Herrera, Oct 25, 2007.

  1. - 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
     
    Ramon F Herrera, Oct 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements


  2. 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.
     
    Geppetto Olivio, Oct 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ramon F Herrera

    chrisv Guest

    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*
     
    chrisv, Oct 25, 2007
    #3

  4. 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.
     
    Geppetto Olivio, Oct 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Ramon F Herrera

    PDFrank Guest

    Geppetto Olivio wrote:

    I don't.
    I don't.
    Yet I don't.
     
    PDFrank, Oct 27, 2007
    #5
  6. [snips]

    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.
     
    Kelsey Bjarnason, Oct 28, 2007
    #6
  7. 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.
    Not everyone does. I don't.
    Not everyone does. I don't.
    Not everyone does. I don't.
    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.
     
    Kelsey Bjarnason, Oct 28, 2007
    #7
  8. Ramon F Herrera

    chicks Guest

    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.
     
    chicks, Oct 29, 2007
    #8
  9. Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?
     
    David Kastrup, Oct 29, 2007
    #9
  10. Well, it's possible they've redeveloped their own, but yeah, it is amusing
    to see this sort of thing when it happens.
     
    Kelsey Bjarnason, Oct 29, 2007
    #10
  11. Ramon F Herrera

    jjq Guest

    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
     
    jjq, Oct 29, 2007
    #11
  12. Ramon F Herrera

    chicks Guest

    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.
     
    chicks, Oct 29, 2007
    #12
  13. The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you
    claiming that it does?
     
    David Kastrup, Oct 29, 2007
    #13
  14. Ramon F Herrera

    jjq Guest

    David,

    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
     
    jjq, Oct 29, 2007
    #14
  15. Both of which are licensed under the LGPL. Are you spreading
    misinformation on purpose?
    Again, LGPL.
     
    David Kastrup, Oct 29, 2007
    #15
  16. Ramon F Herrera

    chicks Guest

    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.
     
    chicks, Oct 29, 2007
    #16
  17. Are you really this clueless? The LGPL is not the same as the GPL.
     
    David Kastrup, Oct 29, 2007
    #17
  18. Ramon F Herrera

    Tim Smith Guest

    I saw a few LGPL in there, but no GPL. Did I just miss it?
     
    Tim Smith, Oct 29, 2007
    #18
  19. Ramon F Herrera

    jjq Guest

    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
     
    jjq, Oct 30, 2007
    #19
  20. Ramon F Herrera

    jjq Guest

    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
     
    jjq, Oct 30, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.