Thank you, that’s my opinion as well. I know developers need to put food on the table, but then they should at least be honest about that. Going into the uBlock Github and trolling people there while claiming you “always supported ad blockers” isn’t the right way and I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
Comment on photopea.com now locks out users blocking ads
radix@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoIf something was previously the right tool for the job, then, despite no apparent changes in the behavior of the user, is intentionally broken by the creator of the tool and is no longer suitable - that is absolutely, 100% worth complaining about.
IMHO.
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
Are you financially supporting literally any developers at all? You made it clear you were not paying for a Photopea subscription and were using uBO, so there’s not a carrot or a stick here for the maintainer of Photopea (I guess there’s a very tiny carrot for losing you as a user in that you’re not using their resources). I mean that as a genuine question, by the way:
- What software that you use have you paid for and/or donated to?
- Was it because you had to, or because you felt strongly that they deserved compensation for their work?
- Did you ever at any point stop giving said software maintainer money when you felt they were no longer acting in a way that comports with your standards?
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Are you financially supporting literally any developers at all?
Yes, I’ve donated to the digikam project in the past, just to name one example. I also donated to Slackware when it’s creator was in financial trouble. And I am actively donating to the Fediverse instance that allows me to post this comment.
You think you got me here, but you didn’t.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I didn’t “think I got you”; I was leading into something: what was it about Photopea prior to this that made them fundamentally different from Digikam, Slackware, and discuss.tchncs? I’ve donated to Lemmy too and various other FOSS projects, so I authentically appreciate that your donations strengthened that interconnected ecosystem.
You clearly got plenty of use out of them, indicating how integral this apparently was into your workflow. You don’t show any indication you had problems with the Photopea maintainer’s actions or attitude before this. Was it the fact that Photopea isn’t FOSS? I’d agree it’s a huge difference, but at the same time, they’re basically free as in beer, and you weren’t just idly not paying them; you were actively using their finite resources. Wouldn’t you agree that, even if you don’t want to give money to proprietary software (assuming again that’s the reason), they at least deserve to break even? If so, you could’ve just whitelisted them on uBO. But I also resent digital advertising for ethical reasons and because it’s a vector for malware, so I’d understand not wanting to turn off uBO and not wanting to give €5/month in compensation. But then it looks like, despite being plenty familiar with the FOSS ecosystem, you never gave it a fair shake. You just called GIMP icky and didn’t do the bare minimum level of searching that’d tell you ImageMagick exists for batch edits.
So realistically, it sounds like you were never going to support the Photopea maintainer regardless of what they did or how they acted, and now that they’ve cut you off from using their service for free, you’re acting like this is some kind of principled stance rather than being a lazy, entitled cheapskate.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
You were not financially supporting the developers before either. You admitted that you do frequent batch processing of many images on their infrastructure. If anything, losing you as a user is saving them money.
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
You admitted that you do frequent batch processing of many images on their infrastructure.
I’m not sure why you keep commenting this as a fact, when it’s literally not true. As I’ve said in another thread, you can open up the site, disconnect your internet and process all of the images just fine.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
As I’ve said in another thread, you can open up the site, disconnect your internet and process all of the images just fine. All of that code runs in your own browser.
Then disconnect your internet when ads load. Or save the page if “All of that code runs in your own browser.”
woelkchen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So commercial-grade batch processing of images on other people’s infrastructure and dodging any form of compensation is 100% worth complaining about? OK.
Feyd@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Doesn’t photopea run locally?
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
You can’t just save the webpage as HTML and run it (which is what woelkchen doesn’t seem to grasp, even though I tried to explain it to him in another thread). But technically, all of the image processing code for cropping, saving, painting on the image etc. runs locally.
You can see that easily for yourself, just disconnect your internet after opening the site and it continues to work just fine.
That’s why all of the accusations that I’m freeloading and straining the developers’ server while not paying a dime are unfunded.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
*whoosh*
I fully grasp it, I was just pointing out how insane your claim is that you don’t use their server resources by making an equally insane counter point.
Yes, exactly this insane claim.