Holla Forums's Would You Rather

yes it does

Adobe is as irrelevant as Novell thanks to years of hard work of WHATWG members and Krita devs, so option 2 is the only logical one: any 10 locked down consumer devices made by Nintendo, Apple, Sony or Microsoft.

Second option, I'd write an AES implementation :^)

Here's what annoys me about Adobe:
They have no reason to stick to only Windows/OS X, and they've had a Unix/X11 port of a number of their tools before (to IRIX), but they haven't done one for Linux.

\o/

They produce the best/only software that does what their software does. Therefore, all of the people who use it already use Windows/OSX. What's the point of wasting dev time to port all of their suite over, and then waste dev time to maintain it, when it offers them no advantage?

The amount of sales they'd gain is negligible.

Would you rather nuke javascript from existence, or poettering?

Adobe has made official commentary on this issue and they claim they backed off of their initial efforts at supporting Linux because of it's fragmentary nature a design feature btw :^).

Since there was no single 'standard' to program their applications against, they claimed it was cost-prohibitive to support Linux--and that with only a minimal userbase.

Poettering. Easy.

Take the second option
The ability to develop 100% secure and bug free software in any language
I'll just write a new secure wifi implementation
but the question is what tot do with it
it's almost like having god like power everythings perfect at the end
Post the list of projects that you would want to finish and be perfect

except it has gotten better over the years. still wouldn't use it if there was any other option but it's not as bad as it was

wood you rather have a bionic penis or be able to hear the entire electromagnetic spectrum

Would you rather have W3C and WHATWG and the whole web browser market drop xml/sgml/html, css, and javascript
and have s-expressions ecosystem(sxml, lisp, etc) be the web standards instead...

... or revert Mozilla to its former uncucked glory where it focused more on improving technologies and innovating, and resisting the regressive left religion altoghther.

The latter ofc ehh.

ok guys, this is a tough one

would you rather have hitler back and to have succeeded, or apple to be the dominant personal computing, phone, tv, etc company?

Obviously hitler, who cares about how the country boundaries in europe are laid
Whereas the American electronics economy basically is the frontier of universal freedom

my email field was ":^)" but 8ch turns it into a non email link apparently, was sarcasm m8

Inkscape is leagues better in my opinion. I haven't used Illustrator in several years, but when I last compared the two, I much preferred Inkscape. Thought, that's probably because I wasn't very familiar with Illustrator.

With Photoshop, I want to say Krita is a good competitor, but I've honestly not used either for very extensive purposes recently.

Inkscape is good, but it's kind of the same thing between photoshop and krita for example. Photoshop is designed extremely well to make your workflow fast and easy. Everything it does, it does very well.

And everything it does, it can do in a massive scale very quickly. Take Krita's new "instant preview" for example. Photoshop does not need it, because it's so damn efficient, you can use brushes up to 2500 pixels size (Krita's max is 1000) and the brush strokes render almost instantly, while Krita may take many seconds to catch up.
The move tool is designed in a way that allows you to select multiple layers and move them around very easily.
Krita's transforms (e.g. liquify) actually transform a visibly polygonal mesh, while photoshop is pixel perfect.
Warp transforming a 4000x4000 layer takes about 2 seconds, krita takes ~4 seconds, but photoshop is also pixel smooth while krita has jagged edges from the polygons(?).
Krita also cannot transform layers while preserving the actual appearance in real time.
Photoshop's filter layers cause almost no visible performance loss at all, while krita may choke and lag if you use them too much.
Photoshop has some very advanced versions of basic tools that makes your work much easier; healing brush is an advanced version of clone tool, quick selection is an advanced version of magic wand.
And you have other things like the "refine edge" function for selections, which "fixes" your selections' edge to match the nearby edges, blurry edges, and shit like hair.
Smart layers are also something I haven't seen in any other program, they're like self-contained separate canvases, you can transform and adjust that layer without affecting what's in it, so you can open it and edit the original content at any time and the layer will change accordingly with all your transforms etc still in effect.
And although Krita's brushes are very cool indeed, the benefit they provide over Photoshop is very niche, because Photoshop's brushes aren't bad either. Most digital artists (me included) use very basic brushes for most of their work.

From my experiences with Inkscape, the comparison between it and Illustrator is very similar. Inkscape seems to do most of the same things on the surface, but when you start using it heavily, it's just not as good as Illustrator for all these little (or big) reasons.
Like the layers in Illustrator for example, I can't remember finding anything like it in Inkscape. It shows every single vector shape in a hierarchy and you can move them around like photoshop layers.

You probably can use alternatives for most amateur purposes, but it's a downgrade no matter how you put it.

Inkscape has both regular layers (which are just an SVG group with a tag), and an XML editor, which lets you move the paths around in the hierarchy (and lets you modify all aspects of the file if you're competent in SVG). Though, probably not as helpful if you're not somewhat familiar with SVG already, and its interface isn't as smooth.

Besides that, you can just use Up/Down Page to reorder paths and groups, but like you point out, there's no clear division of layers.

What's with the FOSS community, and making mediocre GUIs?

I would rather have good video editing software

This is something I've been wondering for a long time. It's as if FOSS devs want to reinvent the wheel no matter what. There's no shame in taking notes from a program that's designed with a million dollar budget, they usually do very extensive R&D to make sure it's effective and easy to read.

I like apollo on f-droid a lot

God this posts reads like a shill post and look so out of place here - my friend, have you heard of the Mozilla Foundation and FireFox?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but yeah, I've heard of google chrome 2.0, funded by google™.

How is one piece of FOSS software having shit design, an argument against FOSS software having shit design?

WEW

Mozilla made their UI shit on their own.
Even if you absolutely loved FireFox's old design, it doesn't change the fact that the majority of FOSS GUIs are complete shit.

The difference is that browsers are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, media production software is designed to be effective in the hands of a professional.

I would rather have GNU/GimpSuite on Windows 10 and a microsoft dragon dildo in my rectum

don't really care about adobe CS, but neither about the other option, almost anything can run linux and if it can't, there is always netBSD.
I pick the first one just for >muh Photoshop posters

secure software, NSA can already crack RSA, so some defence would be better

oh shit, this is a hard one, I can't seriously tell what is worse... can one of the choices be shooting myself in head? because than I could pick that one

oh shit, another hard one, you guys are good. Nuking javascript would be more usefull worldwide, but nuking Poettering would make me feel better.
Still I pick javascript, I am sure Red Hat could find even worse looser

what can bionic penis do?

Oh I have a good too.
'''What you rather have bionically engineered catgirls that would be as loyal as cats so sometimes they are nice kitties, sometimes they are sluts that fuck around or sexbots that don't pass turing test and are souless if anything like that exists?

what the fuck is hard about that?

Would you rather remove all SJWs from the mainstream tech industry persistently, or have on-par alternatives to every SJW-maintained project with its own advantages and disadvantages (think Gitgud vs Github)?

The cats, bots already exist or wouldn't be a big step technology wise.

Would you rather have to use systemd every install or build Linux From Scratch every install?

would you rather have sex or program

You know, with appimages there now is a single standard anyone can package their programs to.

You can have someone release a new mobile-based DE complete with flawless touch screen and SIM card support that can be installed onto the ARM port of any free *nix. But the only working and stable port is to the Alcatel One Touch Fire, with Nexus ports always "in progress" but never actually being finished.

Or you can someone take on the mantle of Commodore, make a comeback, release a modern successor to the C64's operating system, and knock M$ out of the industry's top spot forever. But they keep everything completely and totally proprietary, releasing source code to nothing.

Or you can have Jamie Zawinski rise up out of his screensaver-fueled retirement to make a new browser based on Netscape's original Mozilla suite. It will maintain a repository of XUL add-ons, will never copy Chrome's UI, will never have the ability to spy on you, it will not follow Firefox development and will fork off in a different direction, and it will always retain its power-user features. But it'll take about ten years of development for it to catch up with modern browsers in terms of security bugfixes, and its add-on repository will be fairly small due to Jamie's refusal to support wankblows.

Or you can have all three of the above, with all of the mentioned downsides erased. But SJWs will declare free software to be oppressive and triggering, will launch a hostile takeover of the FSF, and will sell all GNU software to Microsoft, and all future official versions of all GNU software will be proprietary.

but user, that's not a hypothetical question. With the exception of gentoo and void, that pretty much is the choice that people have to make

devuan does not count as a real distro

The former.

Alpine, Slackware, Guix, Debian (with a bit of fiddling if you want to get rid of more than the init part).

Manjaro and Arch can both use OpenRC instead of systemd and there are isos available of either one with OpenRC by default. There's also temporary solutions with *buntu 14.04, and some distros like Mint which have LTS versions based on 14.04.

without-systemd.org has a list of distros that don't use systemd by default or which are available without systemd. Most of them have either been mentioned already or are based on one which has.

Is it just me or does this sound familiar? 🌕

Neither.

It's пики точены или хуи дрочены.

Fuck left, marry right, kill self

windows ME or the latest OSX?

The latest OS X, easily. I might choose it over the latest Windows, too.

Large parts of it are FOSS and you can try to ignore all the Apple parts and use it like a generic Unix system.

Of course it's still crap.