I don’t really understand why you’re using ad-supported proprietary software that you’ve never paid a dime for (or given a dime to, since you use uBO), claiming that you don’t use GIMP or Krita instead because the former “is terrible” and the latter isn’t meant for cropping (a trivial, fundamental feature of the software), and then acting entitled to use the Photopea author’s own personal work with zero compensation. So you have free alternatives (as in beer and as in freedom), refuse to do even the bare minimum to learn how to use them, and then go full “you took my only food; now I’m gonna starve” when Photopea’s author stops you from using their own site/web app for free that they run and maintain at their own expense.
If anything, you seem entitled and willfully ignorant, and I say that from the perspective of someone who resents digital advertising and proprietary software.
then acting entitled to use the Photopea author’s own personal work with zero compensation.
Running batch tasks on the Photopea author’s own infrastructure because Photopea is a website. Lichtmetzger wrote in a reply that he’s not using Photopea to edit a photo once in a while and now he’s bummed out (I would kinda understand that) but that he’s actually processing a big number of images on someone else’s resources.
The images get processed in your own browser. The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML I am loading when accessing the site, the rest is handled by my own machine.
This won’t work because there is actual server-side code running
That is not true! You can figure that out for yourself - open up the site, disconnect your internet and resize/crop some images. It will do it just fine, because all of that code runs in your own browser.
The image processing happens locally in the web browser.
Not to imply that hosting the static assets to power that (JS and WebAssembly binaries) is free, but it’s definitely much cheaper than the compute resources that would be required to do the heavy lifting server-side.
(Still worth paying for or allowing ads though. Photopea clearly took a lot of work to build)
The completely insane claim was “The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML”, meaning one could just save the page and run it fully locally.
If anything, you seem entitled and willfully ignorant
I understand why people might think that. As I’ve said in another comment, it’s the attitude of the developer that mildly infuriates me. I am not against paying money for a good product and I would’ve even paid the subscription, if 1. it wasn’t so high (96€/year for a tool processing images in your own browser) and 2. he wasn’t such a dick on Github to people.
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.
Also, some people don’t seem to grasp that I’m not actually processing images for free on the developers’ infrastructure. The image processing is done via Javascript on my own machine. So all I’m doing is loading the website initially, it’s not like I’m taking money out of the devs’ pocket by blocking his ads. Added to that, the site worked fine for many years, why do you need to put an aggressive Adblock detection in now? It’s a cat and mouse game against uBlock and he must know he will never win this game.
Of course, it’s his own tool and he can do whatever he wants with it, but it’s still shitty to do it.
After all, you’re right, I’ve decided to give tools like GIMP another chance. The problem for me is that I used Photoshop for many years (that’s what I learned when I was attending art school, blame the system) and moving away to another tool like GIMP is a lot of work, because it works very differently. I learned there are plugins for easing the transition and I’ll find another tool.
I don’t really understand why you’re using ad-supported proprietary software that you’ve never paid a dime for (or given a dime to, since you use uBO), claiming that you don’t use GIMP or Krita instead because the former “is terrible” and the latter isn’t meant for cropping (a trivial, fundamental feature of the software), and then acting entitled to use the Photopea author’s own personal work with zero compensation. So you have free alternatives (as in beer and as in freedom), refuse to do even the bare minimum to learn how to use them, and then go full “you took my only food; now I’m gonna starve” when Photopea’s author stops you from using their own site/web app for free that they run and maintain at their own expense.
If anything, you seem entitled and willfully ignorant, and I say that from the perspective of someone who resents digital advertising and proprietary software.
Running batch tasks on the Photopea author’s own infrastructure because Photopea is a website. Lichtmetzger wrote in a reply that he’s not using Photopea to edit a photo once in a while and now he’s bummed out (I would kinda understand that) but that he’s actually processing a big number of images on someone else’s resources.
The images get processed in your own browser. The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML I am loading when accessing the site, the rest is handled by my own machine.
If Photopea was so simple, you could just download the necessary parts and self-host.
This won’t work because there is actual server-side code running, meaning you’re hogging someone else’s resources to do your commercial-grade tasks.
That is not true! You can figure that out for yourself - open up the site, disconnect your internet and resize/crop some images. It will do it just fine, because all of that code runs in your own browser.
The image processing happens locally in the web browser.
Not to imply that hosting the static assets to power that (JS and WebAssembly binaries) is free, but it’s definitely much cheaper than the compute resources that would be required to do the heavy lifting server-side.
(Still worth paying for or allowing ads though. Photopea clearly took a lot of work to build)
The completely insane claim was “The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML”, meaning one could just save the page and run it fully locally.
This is of course BS.
There was a repo that did just that for self hosting photopea. But it got shut down
I understand why people might think that. As I’ve said in another comment, it’s the attitude of the developer that mildly infuriates me. I am not against paying money for a good product and I would’ve even paid the subscription, if 1. it wasn’t so high (96€/year for a tool processing images in your own browser) and 2. he wasn’t such a dick on Github to people.
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.
Also, some people don’t seem to grasp that I’m not actually processing images for free on the developers’ infrastructure. The image processing is done via Javascript on my own machine. So all I’m doing is loading the website initially, it’s not like I’m taking money out of the devs’ pocket by blocking his ads. Added to that, the site worked fine for many years, why do you need to put an aggressive Adblock detection in now? It’s a cat and mouse game against uBlock and he must know he will never win this game.
Of course, it’s his own tool and he can do whatever he wants with it, but it’s still shitty to do it.
After all, you’re right, I’ve decided to give tools like GIMP another chance. The problem for me is that I used Photoshop for many years (that’s what I learned when I was attending art school, blame the system) and moving away to another tool like GIMP is a lot of work, because it works very differently. I learned there are plugins for easing the transition and I’ll find another tool.