Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotationefficiently?

Wolfgang, you remind me of the kid in my junior high school who was
convinced that steel was harder than diamonds because nobody would
present him with a diamond that he could hit with a hammer.

In other words, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, you're a
loon of the sort that gives Linux users and by extesion Linux a bad
name. Nobody likes a proselyte except another proselyte of the same
faith.

I'm not wasting any more time on this discussion since it is not a
discussion, it is you launching harangues that have little relation to
objective reality.

| I'm also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion
| of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that
| there's no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1]
| and free (libre) software[2].

There's no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.
One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available.
Beyond that? There's lots of free software that is arguably the
best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were
originally written independently by one person before Microsoft
bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there's lots of OSS that will never be ready
for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or
more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,
but that's because he's a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code
is free. But for the vast majority of people that's not a
relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not
necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

Mayayana wrote:
| I'm also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion
| of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that
| there's no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1]
| and free (libre) software[2].

There's no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.

Then there's also no consistent distinction between eating at
a soup kitchen and being in jail: you don't need to pay for
your food.

One is produced cooperatively

Sometimes, but not necessarily. I point you to Argyllcms.
One-man show *and* restrictions as to what patches he'll take
(outside the usual 'good code', 'correctly formatted', 'makes
sense to have', etc.) since the creator wants to be able to
license the code commercially, too.


and the source code is available.
Beyond that?

You make it sound as if being in jail wasn't a big deal:
you never wanted to go out of your cell anyways.


On the other hand, there's lots of OSS that will never be ready
for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or
more geeks.

The same is true for commercial closed source software.
Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from being sold!


Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,
but that's because he's a programmer.

Next time you buy a car, consider if a welded down engine
hood would be acceptabe. You'd have to drive to your car
maker's garages for any work. Even for checking oil outside an
"oil alert" lamp. Now, I am not a car mechanic. I probably
never will change spark plugs. I don't mind going to garages
cooperating with my car maker. But I can, and have, checked
oil, refilled oil, giving stater help through tapping my car's
battery contacts.

I've been on the receiving end of roadside assistance which
would not have been possible with a welded down engine hood.


Another example: You might know that (some) games have a vibrant
modding community, fixing oversights and adding features and
in the case of sims, correcting stats to historically correct
values. Some games are only still alife and going strong in
their respective circles because there are modders that still
work on them --- the publisher has abandoned them. While the
source code to the engine is not available (and it's a pity,
as this makes it much harder or impossible to fix some bugs ---
sometimes an exceptional modder manages to decode small parts
of the binary and add a few important features through trial
and error). Now, you don't need to be a programmer to enjoy
the works of these modders and you don't need to be a
programmer to grasp what could have been if there had been
sourcecode (and the necessary rights to change and pass on)
available.


Yet another example: Google for "Magic Lantern". Imagine
Nikon opened their firmware sources a bit --- just offering
an API, just offering hooks for such a mod to hook into the
right places ... now what could happen if there was full
access to the hardware via the firmware.


For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code
is free. But for the vast majority of people that's not a
relevant distinction,

.... because noone except programmers use programs altered
by programmers. Nobody uses Magic Lantern, for example. Or
Firefox. Or the Apache webserver, for example.


As to 'not a relevant distinction':
For the vast majority of people whether a camera can do RAW
is not a relevant distinction. So basically we all should
shoot JPEGs, all the time.
For the vast majority of people whether a camera can have a
lens changed is not a relevant distinction. So basically we
all should use compact cameras.
For the vast majority of people whether the higher the megapixel
count and the larger the mm-number in the tele end, the better
the camera --- that's therefore a relevant distinction.

so quality and usability issues do not
necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

Lemmings always run in circles, so so quality and usability
issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That's just as correct a logic and claim.

-Wolfgang

J. Clarke wrote:
[a personal attack on me]

Well, if that's the only argument you are willing to present ...

-Wolfgang

"Mayayana" wrote:
| I'm also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion
| of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that
| there's no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1]
| and free (libre) software[2].

There's no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.

That is the only consistent *similarity*. The
distinctions are huge.

One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available.

That may or may not be true. It is not a distinction,
and is also insignificant.

Beyond that? There's lots of free software that is arguably the
best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were
originally written independently by one person before Microsoft
bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there's lots of OSS that will never be ready
for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or
more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,

Lets not throw rocks at someone with the genius that
Stallman has. He might not be the nicest socialite in
the world, but his contributions to society have been
huge.

but that's because he's a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code
is free. But for the vast majority of people that's not a
relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not
necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That is a broken view, because it misses the most
significant point: *somebody* certainly can alter and
recompile it, and that benefits everyone who is not a
programmer.

I certainly am not qualified to add to the Linux kernel,
to the GNU C Compiler, to GNUEMACS, or many many other
really fantastic programs; but I don't have to mostly
because people like Richard Stallman can, and do. Not
just a few of them either, but hundreds of them do.

You simply cannot tell what is in a Freeware program,
because we are not all allowed to muck with the code.
But FOSS programs are guaranteed to have been reviewed
by at least someone with priorities other than those of
the original author.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)