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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pat Wilson, May 9, 2014.

  1. Pat Wilson

    TJ Guest

    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
     
    TJ, May 13, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
     
    Chris Ahlstrom, May 13, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pat Wilson

    PeterN Guest

    Durn spel chekker.
    Just a brain fart..
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2014
    #63
  4. Pat Wilson

    PeterN Guest

    Yes it may be, but I admit to a brain fart.
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2014
    #64
  5. Pat Wilson

    PeterN Guest

    Yup. Guilty as charged.
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2014
    #65
  6. Pat Wilson

    -hh Guest

    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
     
    -hh, May 13, 2014
    #66
  7. Pat Wilson

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, May 13, 2014
    #67
  8. Pull the other one, lying imbecile
     
    Peter Köhlmann, May 13, 2014
    #68
  9. Pat Wilson

    Eef Hartman Guest

    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.
     
    Eef Hartman, May 13, 2014
    #69
  10. Pat Wilson

    Eef Hartman Guest

    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.....
     
    Eef Hartman, May 13, 2014
    #70
  11. Pat Wilson

    Aragorn Guest

    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.
     
    Aragorn, May 13, 2014
    #71
  12. 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.
     
    Chris Ahlstrom, May 14, 2014
    #72
  13. 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"
     
    Chris Ahlstrom, May 14, 2014
    #73
  14. Pat Wilson

    Aragorn Guest

    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?
     
    Aragorn, May 14, 2014
    #74
  15. Pat Wilson

    -hh Guest

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


    -hh
     
    -hh, May 14, 2014
    #75
  16. Pat Wilson

    -hh Guest

    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
     
    -hh, May 14, 2014
    #76
  17. Pat Wilson

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, May 14, 2014
    #77
  18. Pat Wilson

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, May 14, 2014
    #78
  19. Pat Wilson

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, May 14, 2014
    #79
  20. Pat Wilson

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, May 14, 2014
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.