Comment on photopea.com now locks out users blocking ads
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 18 hours agoThank 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.
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.
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.
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.”
Or save the page if “All of that code runs in your own browser.”
Sir, this is not how the internet works. I thought people on the Fediverse are a bit more technically-versed than the average population.
When I disconnect my internet, I can still crop images, save them to my machine in various and use the tools in the left sidebar. Photopea does not use the developers’ server to do these tasks, or otherwise I wouldn’t be able to do them at all, when I go offline.
That doesn’t mean I can just save the whole website locally and run it as is. Mostly, because the developers’ code contains references to online sources or might bug out in certain places if it’s not run on the intended domain, etc.
If I disassembled the obfuscated code and replaced those online references, I’m pretty sure the whole thing would just work. Not being able to save a website locally and just run it as is does not disprove my point that the application does not technically need a server to run. It’s just that the developer coded it that way.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
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:
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 17 hours ago
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 17 hours 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.
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 16 hours ago
That definitely plays into it, but the major point for me is that it’s an alternative to Photoshop, which it literally tries to mimick as best as you can in a browser, down to the same keyboard shortcuts Photoshop uses.
Most people here would probably agree that Adobe is a very greedy company. So when there’s an alternative to their software that works fine for many years and then gets turned into a subscription model while the author actively fights uBlock, it just feels…wrong. It’s just the same playbook, but with a slightly lower cost.
I also think it’s very hypocritical to accuse me of freeloading from Photopea, because that project uses other open-source libraries under the hood. Did anyone ask the developer if he financially supported the projects that he is profiting off? He doesn’t even mention them on the website (or if he does, it’s not easy to find), but you can see them when you deobfuscate the Javascript blob.
If someone criticizes me for using this project ad-free, it’s just as valid to criticize the developer for using open-source libraries in a closed-source project (as closed-source as a web-application can be).
But to break it down to a simple point: I would’ve paid for the software if it cost 5€/month. That’s 60€ per year, which is reasonable for an image manipulation tool that can run most of its features locally. But 96€/year is too much. I’m not moving away from Adobe to pay for another big subscription. Now that ship has sailed for me completely, after this whole uBlock fiasco.
I know about ImageMagick and as I’ve said in another comment, a commandline tool is not suitable for cropping different areas of multiple images, I need a visual representation. GIMP might have improved, you’re right on that point. I haven’t used it in a long time and I will try to see if it’s better now (2.x was painful and anybody saying otherwise is simply delusional).
Not sure why this was neccessary. You started out so eloquently and then your emotions got the best of you. I believe you can do better than the typical Reddit “discussion”.