If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
On 02/01/2019 23:33, Mayayana wrote:
"Shadow" wrote | What the heck does that mean? The entire webpage is script. | It links to several external scripts. There's no way to know | what happens from there. It probably links to external trackers | and ads once the script runs. One of the biggest malware risks | these days is from malware makers who buy ad space to get | into your browser. | | He didn't read your post. | No, he talks nonsense. But sometimes I figure it's worth explaining details, lest someone with little expertise thinks he knows what he's talking about. THIS is where you mentioned a carpenter! Mind you, in another post you state "I'm a contractor who also does web design and writes Windows software." It's no wonder I get confused! ;-) -- David B. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
On 03/01/2019 00:19, nospam wrote:
In article , David B. wrote: On 02/01/2019 20:41, Mayayana wrote: ... I'm fairly sure I read yesterday that YOU are a .... carpenter? he's related to karen. For any youngsters here! ;-) https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...-house-122684/ -- David B. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
David B. wrote:
I enjoyed exploring your website, Andy. No upcoming "bargains" from ScrewFix take your fancy? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
"Mayayana" wrote in message
... "David B." "David wrote | There are only three javascripts listed on 'wasbit's' website. | What the heck does that mean? The entire webpage is script. It links to several external scripts. There's no way to know what happens from there. It probably links to external trackers and ads once the script runs. One of the biggest malware risks these days is from malware makers who buy ad space to get into your browser. *The entire page is nothing but script, except for the warning that says the page won't work without script.* That's not exaggeration. There's actually no content in that webpage. It's just an unknown software program that will do unknown things and share your data with unknown others if you let the script run. "I'm not worried", said Private Swifty. "There are only 2 machine guns and a flamethrower aimed at me. How much harm can they do?" With that, he stepped out of the bunker. There's no reason that anyone should routinely have to enable script just to download files or read text. If you want to do online banking or buy stuff then, yes, it requires script. The Box, inc. privacy policy pretty says they'll spy on you any way they can. They'll collect your social media info if you give them a chance. The don't respect Do Not Track. They do use Flash cookies. It also mentions Google adsense. Since there are no ads evident in the original page script it has to be assumed that the page script then calls in numerous other scripts when it loads. (The privacy policy is readable without script by disabling CSS. But they do try to block that functionality. In other words, they've specifically tried to break a palin text webpage so that you can't read it unless you let them run scripts. Nice people, huh?.) That privacy policy page calls in Google, Adobe, optimizely.com, truste (the people who pretend to protect privacy online with impressive gold medallions that look like Good Housekeeping seals), as well as two new entries for my HOSTS file domain blocking: marketo.net and nr-data.net Why should anyone put up with such risks and intrusions just to download a file? There are clean hosting sites. And for anyone just arriving from 1980, they should know that they can have their own domain and web space for a very small cost. They don't need to use sleazy, spyware, web services. Perhaps you could suggest somewhere free that will host these text files. -- Regards wasbit |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Photo editor
"Shadow" wrote in message
... Not trying to be in competition with another poster in this thread ....... My freeware photo/image lists: Photo/Image 2 Convert/Edit (approx 400) Photo/Image 3 Resize, Thumbnails (approx 200) Photo/Image 4 Viewer, Album, Manage (approx 200) 1 Various 5 Colour ; 6 Exif/Tag ; 7 File Specific Photo Manipulation Over 200 lists of freeware. Yours to do with as you wish - http://www.box.net/wasbitlists I was going to recommend your lists ( bookmarked) but the host seems to be blocking various privacy protections. I remember that in the olde days you had an alternate site with a link to a zip of all your files. Can't remember where it was. Is it gone ? TIA The alternative was Google Docs. Unfortunately Google kept changing the rules then one day the hosting page disappeared so I didn't bother to reinstate it. The zip file of lists is in the files folder - http://www.box.net/wasbitlists -- Regards wasbit |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:12:56 -0000, "wasbit"
wrote: Perhaps you could suggest somewhere free that will host these text files. Sendspace will allow you to upload the zip file. You need to enable scripts to upload, but NOT to download. But unless you register an account, the file stays there for only 30 days. I suppose it depends on how often you update the zip. https://nofile.io/ used to work without scripting, but I just tried it and it appears to be malfunctioning. It says my file was uploaded, but can't find it when I use the URL they gave me. Oh, and it's working again https://nofile.io/f/tkdJZNGaf0F/OMG_IT_WORKS.txt Appears to expire after 30 days or so. https://paste.ee/ works fine for texts files, and has a "forever option" but it would be a PITA to upload all your lists individually. HTH (I'm sure there are other options out there. My favorite http://www.pastie.org/ appears to have been abandoned) []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
"wasbit" wrote
| Perhaps you could suggest somewhere free that will host these text files. | People who use those sites will know better than I do, but I do keep a list of sites where I can get files without trouble and sites where I can't. I'd also be curious to see other lists, if you keep lists for different categories of software. My list of sites, though some are probably only for images: -------------------------------- Sites that are broken: Images: photobucket.com tinypic.com flickr.com Files: Google docs box.net --------------------------------- Sites that work: Images: imgur postimg.org pictr.com uploads.im Files: fileconvoy.com ----------------------------- Special case: Dropbox. Dropbox is a unique case that I don't entirely understand. Unfortunately, most people who use it also don't understand. It seems that one needs to read detailed instructions to figure out their options. Sometimes someone sends a link to a folder and there seems to be no way to access it without joining somehow. Other times people link to dropboxusercontent and I can easily download the file. A third case is that they link to dropbox and the URL ends with "dl=0". If I change the 0 to 1 then putting the URL into my browser will give me a download dialogue. OneDrive: I've only needed to deal with OneDrive once or twice. There don't seem to be many people using it. I discovered a trick for that: OneDrive download: Enter file link. Block redirect. In resulting redirect link in address bar, repalce redir with download. Run that link. I block redirects normally, so this is easy for me. Other people would need to adjust browser settings. A list of easy, simple file hosters might be handy, if someone has such a list. But I don't know how realistic it is. If sites don't charge and can't show ads, how will they make a living? Having your own webhost, or paying for file storage space, would be the clean way to host files. But that also gets complicated. You have to know about webpage coding or, at the very least, how to upload files via FTP to your site, if you get a domain and website. And a lot of webhosting is cheapo, with strict limits on file downloads, and ads on pages. The cheapo sites don't expect you to really use the resources. I don't know about paid storage deals. But we can't really expect companies to be honest and non-sleazy when their only business model is to squeeze profit from people who refuse to pay for the service. It seems that nearly everyone has acclimated to the idea that everything should be free and easy. As a result, we've acclimated to having sleazy companies own our stuff. Facebook even owns peoples' social lives. But how many would pay for a legitimate social site? Especially when they already think their social lives belong to Facebook, tolerating Facebook and advertisers changing their posts, inserting ads, and deciding which posts they'll see from others. I once spent an afternoon with an acquaintance who does tech support for a living. He uses a gmail address and milks dropbox for all it's worth, storing his work files, like bootable repair disk ISOs, on dropbox. He sets up his customers the same way. He's training people to disregard honesty and privacy, and to join the online melee where we all try to grab a freebie from the snake oil salesman before he can pick our pocket. When I asked him about giving people options he got mad and said a tech support person has no business telling people how to use their computer. Just so. He had no idea that he was doing just that. It had never occurred to him that there was any way to operate other than using freebie, spyware email and avoiding payment for dropbox's services. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
On 03/01/2019 10:33, Andy Burns wrote:
David B. wrote: I enjoyed exploring your website, Andy. No upcoming "bargains" from ScrewFix take your fancy? No, not really, although I did have a quick look. If there's something which I *NEED* I'll buy it, regardless of special prices. -- David B. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Photo editor
On 12/31/18 9:13 AM, Mayayana wrote:
The question of photo editors comes up often. I don't remember whether this one ever got mentioned. I came across the code awhile back. It's written in VB6. The code is freely available. The program seems to work nicely and does much of what a full editor can do, including "effects" plugins. Yet it's only 52 MB installed. Disadvantages: * No help file. * A curious oversight in terms of functionality. There's no line or shape tool! (At least I can't find them.) * A kiddie-style, Metro-esque UI that takes up too much space. But it has a full stock of filters, color adjustment, layer functionality, etc. There's not much missing that you'd get in Photoshop for a very steep price, in a spyware package, with a rental model, and a wildly bloated installation. The lack of line and shape tools is odd. I use those regularly and in terms of code they're much easier than creating effects like "oil painting" or "windblown". But for someone who only wants to work on photos without doing graphics, Photo Demon looks like a very good choice. https://photodemon.org/ I had run Photoshop almost exclusively as a "trial" for at least two years up until a year ago. By "trial", I really mean that. I had hard drives set up so that, after the 30 days and existing trial was over, I could swap hard drives with one that never had PS installed, reinstall it, and start over. This got really tiresome and I didn't use the program everyday, so I switched to Affinity Photo and GIMP as secondary. Affinity was the closest Photoshop competitor that I could find that offered functionality as close as possible to Photoshop. It still lacks some features, but the developers run a forum and are very responsive to suggestions and bug reports. That being said, it still seems to have stability problems and, from my research and experience, most of the issues happen with older computers (not enough ram or fast enough CPU, etc). I myself continue to have issues with random crashes, screen black outs and such, but getting the program during one of the sales for $35 was no issue for me. I refuse to go with Photoshop's subscription model. I think the most significant difference between Affinity and Photoshop though is that the former offers far more functionality in 32 bit mode than the latter! This can make a surprising difference in processing outcomes (32 versus 16 bit processing). GIMP is my standby. I try to use the features it has to substitute for missing Affinity functions that Photoshop had. I recently had to do content aware scaling on a photo that could benefit from it. Since Affinity lacks such a feature, I was able to find it in GIMP with one of the plug-ins (liquid rescale). So, in that case, while Affinity did most of the heavy work in processing, GIMP saved the day. I have had no crashes with GIMP, unlike with Affinity, but it's format still isn't quite what either Affinity or Photoshop offers, so it remains a standby. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Photo editor
JBI wrote:
Affinity was the closest Photoshop competitor that I could find that offered functionality as close as possible to Photoshop. It still lacks some features, but the developers run a forum and are very responsive to suggestions and bug reports. That being said, it still seems to have stability problems and, from my research and experience, most of the issues happen with older computers (not enough ram or fast enough CPU, etc). Is there any way to switch over to WARP from GPU acceleration ? The Mac version of Affinity has the ability to disable GPU acceleration, while the Windows one doesn't. To switch to WARP (a software fallback available in an SDK) would be less painful if it was supported right in the program itself. "Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform" https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ow-to-use-warp Windows has DirectX and OpenGL (or Vulkan) support, and WARP is a software method of doing the DirectX features without a fancy GPU. Programs can also have their own software fallback paths, so they don't absolutely have to use WARP. There are other ways to do it. In the same sense as Linux has MESA3D for emulation, versus a proprietary stack that comes with an NVidia or AMD hardware driver. The folks at Adobe have been doing hardware acceleration for more than 20 years, and are old hands at switching between acceleration devices. At one time, you could buy a small plugin card with a dual DSP running at 50MHz and that used to accelerate some Photoshop plugins. I don't know of any other similar efforts before Adobe tried this. Whereas there's a lot more hardware acceleration today because of CUDA and OpenCL type stuff. The only real problem with hardware acceleration, is the lack of programmers in the general population familiar with it. And as with any Windows topic like this, you will waste at least half the day triangulating "which SDK do I want" :-/ That's the part of these experiments I hate, is downloading a 2GB file, only to discover the 50KB thing I wanted from the 2GB file, isn't in there. And some discussion thread will suggest a different file, I download it... and same story. That's one of the reasons I'm not rushing off to find it. Been there... and bought the wrong Tshirt. Paul |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Photo editor
On 1/3/19 12:17 PM, Paul wrote:
JBI wrote: Affinity was the closest Photoshop competitor that I could find that offered functionality as close as possible to Photoshop.Â* It still lacks some features, but the developers run a forum and are very responsive to suggestions and bug reports.Â* That being said, it still seems to have stability problems and, from my research and experience, most of the issues happen with older computers (not enough ram or fast enough CPU, etc). Is there any way to switch over to WARP from GPU acceleration ? Yes, in Windows, one can switch to WARP as well, which I did some weeks ago. Since doing so, I haven't seen the black screening issue, but I still have occasional random crashes or slowing/ freezing of the program after long term usage. Much of the time, the recovery file created restores most or all of the work before the crash. I can work this way until maybe getting a better system. Right now, I just can't afford it. Thanks for the info link on WARP as I wasn't sure what it was. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
file hosting (was: [OT]Photo editor)
In message , Mayayana
writes: "wasbit" wrote | Perhaps you could suggest somewhere free that will host these text files. | People who use those sites will know better than I do, but I do keep a list of sites where I can get files without trouble and sites where I can't. I'd also be curious to see other lists, if you keep lists for different categories of software. My list of sites, though some are probably only for images: -------------------------------- Sites that are broken: Images: photobucket.com tinypic.com flickr.com Files: Google docs box.net --------------------------------- Sites that work: Images: imgur postimg.org pictr.com uploads.im Files: fileconvoy.com ----------------------------- Thanks for those lists again. [] Having your own webhost, or paying for file storage space, would be the clean way to host files. But that also gets complicated. You have to know about webpage coding or, at the very least, how to upload files via FTP to your site, if you get a domain and website. And a lot of webhosting is cheapo, with strict limits on file downloads, and ads on pages. The cheapo sites don't expect you to really use the resources. I'd say learning to use an FTP client isn't _that_ much more onerous than learning to use some of the third-party hosting sites (especially if you include the user experience), but I accept that some's MMV. I don't know about paid storage deals. Well, mine is probably what you mean by webhosting rather than paid storage - it costs me twentysomething pounds a year for registration and service. I'm aware I could be liable for DOS attacks, but so far I've found it a lot easier to, say, upload a screenshot of something we're discussing and then post a URL like http://255soft.uk/temp/Clipboard02.jpg than inflict something like flickr on people. No ad.s are involved, and so far no DOS. I don't store/share ISOs or movies, or anything of that sort of size. But we can't really expect companies to be honest and non-sleazy when their only business model is to squeeze profit from people who refuse to pay for the service. Indeed. [] When I asked him about giving people options he got mad and said a tech support person has no business telling people how to use their computer. Just so. He had no idea that he was doing just that. It had never occurred to him Yes, "giving people options" is the _opposite_ of "telling people how to use their computer"! that there was any way to operate other than using freebie, spyware email and avoiding payment for dropbox's services. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Enjoy life now - it has an expiration date |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
"Mayayana" wrote in message
... "wasbit" wrote | Perhaps you could suggest somewhere free that will host these text files. | -------------------------------- Sites that work: Images: imgur postimg.org pictr.com uploads.im Files: fileconvoy.com ----------------------------- Tried fileconvoy. Can only upload 10 files at a time & they are hosted for a maximum of 21 days. -- Regards wasbit |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
[OT]Photo editor
wasbit wrote:
"Mayayana" wrote in message ... "wasbit" wrote | Perhaps you could suggest somewhere free that will host these text files. | -------------------------------- Sites that work: Images: imgur postimg.org pictr.com uploads.im Files: fileconvoy.com ----------------------------- Tried fileconvoy. Can only upload 10 files at a time & they are hosted for a maximum of 21 days. Pastebin can be used for text. 512KB limit per file. Can be set for unlimited retention. At one time, pastebin didn't have that sort of limit, but it's run more like a business now. I don't know whether pastebin is all jazzed up with script or not - it's been a while since I used it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastebin.com For each uploaded file, you keep a URL around for future reference. Paul |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
file hosting (was: [OT]Photo editor)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| I'd say learning to use an FTP client isn't _that_ much more onerous | than learning to use some of the third-party hosting sites (especially | if you include the user experience), but I accept that some's MMV. | I don't think it's difficult or complicated to have a website, but as with a lot of tech, it's hard to find the information and put it all together. The engineers give you unreadable RFC files. The marketers speak in gibberish, going on about leveraging cutting edge solutions across the enterprise. And the tech support people dumb it down to the point of uselessness. It's easy to use an FTP program, but before you get to that point you have to have a grasp of http, explorer-style interfaces, website server file layout, domain name buying, owning and registration, HTML, and TCP-IP. Most people have no idea how a website shows up in a browser window, and no part of that process is self-evident. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|