Gimp’s UX is a trainwreck. “Approachable tools” is the key bit there.
I don’t use photoshop. Fuck subscription horseshit. I use affinity. But Gimp having capability is fine, but it has a super high barrier to entry because the design is so bad.
Discussing piracy is most definitely not illegal in the US. It’s protected by the first amendment, and there aren’t laws that even try to restrict it.
The only part of the DMCA that really has any complexity is the anti-circumvention bit, and that has no relevance anywhere to discussing piracy or tools that can be used for piracy.
He’s talking about user generated content from other users.
lol I want some of them served publicly. And at some point I want to do other processing of the contents of photos.
I have absolutely no opposition to the existence of an end to end encrypted photo service. If the process of adding new devices is easy enough, it’s what I’d want from someone else hosting. But it’s not what I need for personal hosting.
Which, again, is fine. There’s absolutely a place for it. But the dude we’re responding to is acting like not doing it is a liability when there’s very good reason not to. (I think it’s because of platforms trying to muddy the water of what end to end encryption means to pretend they do it and confusing him.)
Their model is that the server doesn’t know what the pictures are.
Which is fine. It’s cool that it exists as an option, especially with someone else hosting your pictures. But it’s not for me. I want my server to see my pictures so it can play with them.
I guess that’s fine for some. Not a compromise I’m willing to make though.