How to import digital photos from iPad to Linux using USB cable?

nonsense. people make their own choices based on their needs. nobody is
following any herd.

if you can do it for free, that's wonderful, but your needs must be
incredibly simple.
[/QUOTE]
Simple - I suppose so. Incredibly - I wouldn't go that far. There are a
lot of computers out there doing a lot of work that aren't part of some
company's IT department.

Not always. Depends on what you're doing.

Sometimes. Often you get less than you pay for, and just as often or
more you can get more than you pay for. It depends on how carefully you
shop.

TJ

 

nospam wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Load of malarkey.

Tell that to the users of vim and emacs. LibreOffice. The Linux kernel and
the GNU system, and the GNU compilers. GIMP. Firefox, Chrome. Desktops
ranging from Awesome to KDE. I could go on naming many fine software
packages that are Free software (and not just "free as in beer").

"Your needs must be incredibly simple."

That statement about Free software is so idiotic and myopic that it beggars
belief. You're trolling.

 

Durn spel chekker.
Just a brain fart..

 

Yes it may be, but I admit to a brain fart.

 

Yup. Guilty as charged.

 

Clue-by-four for Chris "Asshole" Ahlstrom: this is
crossposted discussion from a photography group, where
the Linux tools aren't particularly strong.

Text editors, which has no bearing on photography.
(Besides, I preferred to use VI or JOVE)

A poor copy of Microsoft Office ... and also has
basically nothing to do with photography.

Irrelevant, because OSs are merely a necessary
layer to get to the productivity Apps.

Hey, the blind squirrel finally finds a nut!

Okay Chris, so just how does GIMP compare to Adobe Photoshop?
To Lightroom? iPhoto? Aperture? Answer: poorly to not at all.

Browsers. Chris is back off base again.

Irrelevant, because UIs are also merely a necessary
layer to get to the productivity Apps.

Except that Chris's record so far is that
only one out of eleven items mentioned (9%)
were even _relevant_ to the topical application.

No, merely that as a lame COLA Fanboy, you're
not able to admit to the simple ground truth
that the tools in Linux which are comparable
to what's considered pretty darn basic for
digital photography management in other OS
environments...have yet to even be identified
by you. So you're trying the old hand-waive
bit, just like every other old gypsie shyster
who's trying to get people to buy their snake-oil.


-hh

 

Simple - I suppose so. Incredibly - I wouldn't go that far. There are a
lot of computers out there doing a lot of work that aren't part of some
company's IT department.[/QUOTE]

who said anything about a company's it department?

there are a lot of non-it users who have needs that cannot be met by
free software or just don't want the hassles involved.

there is the occasional exception, but generally, quality products cost
more than crap products.

 

Pull the other one, lying imbecile

 

And I have for the last 20 (since Linux became mature enough to take
over from our propietary UNIX workstations, which we had been using
since about the late 1980's).
Compared to current-day Linux those workstations were rather primitive
but still much better then a DOS + Windows 3.x PC, which was the
alternative if you wanted to go Intel/PC hardware.
In those days Apple MacIntosh was the only alternative and they were
just about just as expensive (and not as fast).

PS: at THAT time both our Unix workstations and the Mac were using
Motorola 680x0 hardware (68030/040 in our case).
Early 90's Sun switched to Sparc and HP to HP-PA, both RISC cpu's.

 

Like MS Internet Explorer having a _serious_ security hole for
the last 13 (THIRTEEN, since IE 6 all the way in 2001) years ???

Tell that to our SSC/ICT (Shared Service Centre / Information &
Communications Technology) department, since they went all MS they
are having about 10 times more down-time and problems then when it
was all Unix/Linux.
But yeah, then they had administrators that knew what they were doing
and not the people who can just read the manual and need external help
every time a serious problem occurs.
But indeed - the in-house personnel cost is a lot less now.....

 

People pay for proprietary software because they're not aware of the
existence of software which is free in every sense, period. There is no
marketing machine and no advertising behind Free Software.

 

nospam wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

It has nothing to do with quality or lack thereof. Quite simply, most
people still don't know about Free software; or they have your attitude
that "you get what you pay", which, in many cases, is wrong; or they are
simply brand fixated.

I snipped the rest of your ignorant assessment of Free software. You are
simply wrong.

Sure, some proprietary packages are "best of breed" in their categories.
Nonetheless, you're very like to find an acceptable, and even excellent
selection in the world of Free software, spam.

 

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Amazing, isn't it, the bald-faced lies they will tell about Free software.

Why do they need to *lie*, if Free software is as bad as they claim?

--
When the leaders speak of peace
The common folk know
That war is coming
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.

Every day, to earn my daily bread
I go to the market where lies are bought
Hopefully
I take my place among the sellers.
-- Bertolt Brecht, "Hollywood"

 

And moreover, if it were really so bad, then how come people are
actually using it, instead of going for the shiny Barbieware box with
all the colors and the fancy logos?

 

The flaw in this line of logic is that it is contradicted by the success of
Linux in supercomputers and servers.


-hh

 

The 'ignorance' excuse has been lame for 20 years:

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
- John Gilmore (hint: major contributor to the GNU project)

Unsubstantiated claim, with a particular inferred intent to mislead
the reader into associating "many" with "most".

Translation: truth he couldn't refute, so try to hide from it:

"not only is the gimp significantly slower than photoshop, but it is
roughly 10 years behind in features and even lacks a couple of
functions that photoshop had over 20 years ago, which means lower
productivity for anything more than casual use. photoshop elements is
typically $50 street price (often bundled for free with various
hardware) and does a *lot* more than the gimp does and with a muhc
easier to use interface, which is well worth it just to avoid the
hassles, even for a hobbyist."

Note the "often bundled for FREE" (emphasis added) point.

"other apps that do not exist on linux include lightroom, final cut pro,
avid, illustrator, office, nikon and canon software, garmin and much,
much more. sometimes there are free apps that do a subset of what
those apps do but not as fully and nowhere near as polished, and that's
assuming they even exist at all."

The counter to such statements is to provide specific examples which
demonstrate the claim is wrong. Unfortunately, when challenged to
provide specific examples of said viable alternative (not even to the
level of "better mousetrap") freeware apps to mainstays, there's just
some weak hand-waiving:

Such as just what "acceptable, and even excellent" products, specifically?

Failure to produce real results ... is unfortunately de rigueur in Linux advocacy,
and this dialog has proven to be no exception.


-hh

 

it has everything to do with that.

if the quality was there, people would choose free. why pay money when
yo don't have to?

the fact is that the quality *isn't* there and sometimes the free
versions aren't even worth free and in some cases they end up costing
more than a paid solution would have because of the lost productivity.

nonsense. if the free software was any good, word would get around.

people know about firefox because it's very good, not because it's free
as most browsers are. however, it's the exception.

the gimp is often considered to be a 'photoshop equivalent', but only
by people who haven't any clue about what photoshop can actually do and
almost always, they've never used photoshop beyond casually, if that
much.

the gimp still to this day lacks some features that photoshop had over
20 *years* ago and based on the gimp's road map, likely never will. the
gimp is also significantly slower than photoshop (as much as an order
of magnitude on some operations). that adds up to a huge loss in
productivity.

even photoshop elements at $50 street price is well worth it for its
features and speed unless someone's needs are so simple that all they
do is edit the occasional web image now and then.

you only snipped it because you can't refute anything i said.

very typical.

there's the occasional exception, but it's rare.

 

they're aware of free options, assuming such options exist, and many
paid apps don't have much marketing or advertising either.

if the free software was any good, word would get around very quickly.
it doesn't because it's not very good at all.

people want solutions and are willing to pay for them.

 

nobody is lying.

if the free software was so wonderful, then people would be using it.

nobody wants to pay money when they don't have to.

the reality is that the free software is often not that good and
commercial software often pays for itself and ends up being cheaper in
the long run.

 

some people might be (it's not zero), but not very many.

somewhere around 95% of desktop computing is *not* linux and there are
*far* more people using photoshop than the gimp.

climb out of your cave and look around.