Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop for OS X
MolGOLD writes: "Well, finally OS X users are getting their wish: Adobe has finally made good on their promise to bring native OS X support to their graphical applications. C|Net is running a story on the upcoming version of Photoshop, which will feature native OS X support. Now that Photoshop 7 will run natively under OS X, will we see companies like Macromedia (who also promised native OS X support) hurry along to follow suit?"
Sure, I could configure it myself. Hell, I could download Slashcode, set it up to use the RSS provided by Slashdot and then tweak the Perl code to my heart's content.
That's not what it's about. It's all about the defaults. Have you noticed how the Apache news, the BSD news only rarely makes it to the front page? What I'm saying is that both of these topics are more geeky than Apple, which is just a company producing consumer hardware and software, and Adobe which seems not to have any interests in the geek community whatsoever.
This kind off news should be restricted to the OS X pages by default. Sure, I have no vendetta against proprietary systems and software, but it looks rather silly when Slashdot, most famous for its popularity in the Linux community, posts on its front page an article that has no bearing on its target audience -- programmers, Linux users, geeks.
This is some photo editing software for an OS designed for the computer-illiterate. Just think about it: What would the response be if an article about Microsoft Photo Editor being released for Microsoft Windows XP made it to the front page? Double standards and hypocracy, I say!
I can't imagine that software companys that sell to the wintel world are in a hurry to release more products for Apple users. The people who use Apple products will wait. They're used to it.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
There is nothing wrong with content protection. Really. There is something wrong with the way some orgazinations/companies use it, but there's really nothing wrong with the concept. Do you think it's wrong that artists should get paid for their work and have some way to help ensure they get paid?
This isn't about artists getting paid, you idiot. This is about huge, monopolistic corporations protecting their best interests at the expense of these artists you claim to care so much about. Adobe impliments file protecting schemes, like eBook encryption, to better their position at the expense of the producers and the consumers. Putting a password on a PSD/PS/PDF/whatever doesn't help pay anybody... except Adobe. Think about what Adobe can do with this. Deny you access to your own content if you don't make them happy (think subscription service to Photoshop, for example - using an unlicensed copy, and suddenly all your protected/encrypted Photoshop files are unreadable).
This doesn't give the artists more control... it gives a big ugly corporation who has already SHOWN they are willing to manhandle people who cross them on these grounds.
Proprietary software is not acceptable. Closing off access to software and information is not acceptable. Giving up your rights to those with more money in their pockets is not acceptable. HELLO!?
Why bother.