"Why is GIMP so much worse than Photoshop"

[DFS]

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-GIMP-so-much-worse-than-Photoshop-while-Wireshark-is-open-source-and-there-is-no-better-commercial-tool-for-that-purpose

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best answer I saw is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Veaux, Professional Writer
Upvoted by Tom Nelson, Photoshop user since 1996

Nov 5 2023

Because a computer programmer cannot write a program like Photoshop.
It’s not possible.

In fact, a team of computer programmers cannot write a program like
Photoshop.

Computer programmers can write Wireshark. It’s a packet analyzer. If you
know and understand networking and network protocols on a deep level,
it’s not hard. It’s tedious, but it’s not hard.

Photoshop is a collaborative effort of computer programmers, printing
press operators, and experts in color theory, color modeling, color
separation, Fourier analysis, digital signal processing, halftoning,
color management and profiling, and a whole bunch of other stuff. You
cannot create anything remotely like Photoshop without that level of
expertise in a wide range of different fields.

In fact, Photoshop is so far ahead of the pack with regards to core
functionality that just getting to 50% of Photoshop’s basic
functionality is an outstanding accomplishment, and apps like GIMP
barely reach maybe 10–15%. And now that Adobe is investing unbelievable
buckets of cash in machine learning, the gap between “photoshop” and
“everything else” is only getting wider.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

GuhNoo/FOSS will be playing catchup until the Big Freeze.

Adobe is doomed by the Gimp juggernaut.

[Joel]

Nothing that GIMP doesn't do was something I ever figured out in
Photoshop, either. It was just another editor, from my point of view,
but interesting (and bloated).

--
Joel W. Crump

[RabidPedagog]

GIMP does way more than I would ever need it to do, either way. Its
interface is shit, but I can live with it.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
3 out of 4 Communists agree: using Linux is preferable to being murdered

[Borax Man]

Excellent summary of the problem of developers thinking they can
change the world. This also helps explain the "Linux is by
developers, for developers" mantra, one I've *always* hated.
Developers are developing for themselves, and often don't really
understand the target market. I've seen this in programs which are
needlessly complicated and technical, to do something where the
subject is not technical at all.

One great program I've used recently was Trenchbroom, a level edit for
Quake engine games. It was clearly made with one goal in mind, to
allow people to make levels. It does that very well. It doesn't try
to introduce new scripting languages, and pointless extensibility
which are for the dev to masturbate over, its for designers.

[Farley Flud]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:57:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:

>
> Excellent summary ...
>

No, it's not. It's pure drivel spewed by an untutored amateur.

I am an imaging professional that does contract work in all
of the above mentioned areas and I exclusively use GNU/Linux
tools, including GIMP.

The results are *better* than Photocrap. My clients could
certainly never tell the difference.

So who is to be believed? This dunce, or a highly skilled
professional like me?

Furthermore, I challenge anyone and everyone to present
an image processing task. Let them do the work in Photocrap
while I do it with GNU/Linux. I shall triumph.

Printed words by an amateurish dunce are useless. Only
actual real work counts.

Bring it on or else shut the fuck up.

[RonB]

I was never crazy about Photoshop's interface either. But I just chalked it
up to the fact that these applications can do so much that I just don't
understand. Basically all I do with GIMP is crop or re-scale, and I have
trouble finding what I need to run those commands every two or three times a
year I use GIMP. (Maybe a little more often.)

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

[DFS]

On 11/27/2023 5:58 PM, Joel wrote:


> Nothing that GIMP doesn't do was something I ever figured out in
> Photoshop, either. It was just another editor, from my point of view,
> but interesting (and bloated).

Check out Google Images of digital art made with Photoshop. Amazing stuff.

There are some decent art images done with Gimp, too, but they're just
not on the same level.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2023-11-28, RabidPedagog <ra...@pedag.og> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-27 5:58 p.m., Joel wrote:
>>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-GIMP-so-much-worse-than-Photoshop-while-Wireshark-is-open-source-and-there-is-no-better-commercial-tool-for-that-purpose
>>>>

>>>> Photoshop is a collaborative effort of computer programmers, printing
>>>> press operators, and experts in color theory, color modeling, color
>>>> separation, Fourier analysis, digital signal processing, halftoning,
>>>> color management and profiling, and a whole bunch of other stuff. You
>>>> cannot create anything remotely like Photoshop without that level of
>>>> expertise in a wide range of different fields.

https://www.gimp.org/about/authors.html

>>> Nothing that GIMP doesn't do was something I ever figured out in
>>> Photoshop, either. It was just another editor, from my point of view,
>>> but interesting (and bloated).
>>
>> GIMP does way more than I would ever need it to do, either way. Its
>> interface is shit, but I can live with it.
>
> I was never crazy about Photoshop's interface either. But I just chalked it
> up to the fact that these applications can do so much that I just don't
> understand. Basically all I do with GIMP is crop or re-scale, and I have
> trouble finding what I need to run those commands every two or three times a
> year I use GIMP. (Maybe a little more often.)

I use GIMP quite a bit.

I find these comparisons of proprietary software and software libre a bit
tedious. I use the former only when the workplace crams it down my throat.

If I needed to go beyond GIMP I would use Krita. No need to buy or rent either
of these apps.

--
A vivid and creative mind characterizes you.

[chrisv]

Borax Man wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> (Idiocy snipped)
>
>Excellent summary

Not at all.

>of the problem of developers thinking they can
>change the world.

They can. Stallman has. Torvalds has.

Most have no such ambitions, of course, making your "problem"
statement false and dishonest.

>This also helps explain the "Linux is by
>developers, for developers" mantra, one I've *always* hated.

Well, it's not true.

>Developers are developing for themselves, and often don't really
>understand the target market. I've seen this in programs which are
>needlessly complicated and technical, to do something where the
>subject is not technical at all.

They're doing the best they can, with the resources that they have.
We can live without sneering aholes who run them down because they
can't always compete with huge and wealthy software firms.

--
'What amazes me is the "zealots" continually harp on about the "number
of apps". The fact that more than half are incomplete, forgotten,
buggy and plain rubbish doesn't seem to matter.' - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark

[DFS]

On 11/28/2023 8:09 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> If I needed to go beyond GIMP I would use Krita. No need to buy or rent either
> of these apps.

Adobe revenue has soared since they changed to subscription plans.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266399/revenue-of-adobe-systems-worldwide-since-2004/


Clearly a lot of people feel the need to rent their superb, proprietary,
Mac- and Windows-only software.

[DFS]

On 11/28/2023 4:27 AM, Larry "Farley Flud" Pietraskiewicz wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:57:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>
>>
>> Excellent summary ...
>>
>
> No, it's not. It's pure drivel spewed by an untutored amateur.
>
> I am an imaging professional that does contract work in all
> of the above mentioned areas and I exclusively use GNU/Linux
> tools, including GIMP.

You're a professional bash scripter that can only use the tools
developed by real imaging pros.

Absent Gimp, gmic, ImageMagick, Fred Winehaus, et al you're completely
dead in the water.

> The results are *better* than Photocrap. My clients could
> certainly never tell the difference.

They're your Mom's clients.

> So who is to be believed? This dunce, or a highly skilled
> professional like me?

"Dunces" should ALWAYS be believed over a braggadocious creep like you,
who's also made many uninformed and idiotic claims about Photoshop.

> Furthermore, I challenge anyone and everyone to present
> an image processing task. Let them do the work in Photocrap
> while I do it with GNU/Linux. I shall triumph.

The comparison is Photoshop vs Gimp.

> Printed words by an amateurish dunce are useless. Only
> actual real work counts.

uh huh... which is why you spew useless, written brags all over cola for
years on end, but fail to provide ANY actual evidence of your
outlandish, loudmouth claims.

> Bring it on or else shut the fuck up.

I choose for you to stfu.

[RabidPedagog]

Same here. In the end, you can figure it out and there is a chance that
you won't mind the extra time you spent doing so because there was no
cost to it other than time. I'd rather use the free GIMP for the rare
time I need to manipulate an image than pay whatever Adobe wants and
realize that I wasted my money because I barely ever use it. By the time
I'd use Adobe a second or third time, four or five versions upgrades
will have happened, each costing me something. With GIMP, I can update
the software four or five times and might end up being surprised that a
feature I want is actually there.

Open-source is brilliant for people who don't use every piece of
software professionally. However, there is no way I'm ever installing
Linux itself again.

[Joel]

Photoshop was the only significant app I gave up to switch to Linux,
and even it is replaced by GIMP. I still have the ability to run some
Windows apps, and I'm happy with native Unix apps overall. No "need
to" run what I'd *already* paid for, it's not about how much it costs.

--
Joel W. Crump

[%]

and if you paint racing stripes ,
on the sides of your computer it will go faster

[RonB]

Choice is good. I'm currently using my Mac Mini (booted to Monterrey, not
Linux Mint 20), to connect to my main Linux Mint computer with NoMachine. I
hadn't started the Mini in a while, just wanted to see if it was still
working.

[candycanearter07]

On 11/28/23 07:09, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>> I was never crazy about Photoshop's interface either. But I just chalked it
>> up to the fact that these applications can do so much that I just don't
>> understand. Basically all I do with GIMP is crop or re-scale, and I have
>> trouble finding what I need to run those commands every two or three times a
>> year I use GIMP. (Maybe a little more often.)
>
> I use GIMP quite a bit.
>
> I find these comparisons of proprietary software and software libre a bit
> tedious. I use the former only when the workplace crams it down my throat.
>
> If I needed to go beyond GIMP I would use Krita. No need to buy or rent either
> of these apps.
>

I use Krita quite a lot and enjoy it, though I mostly use it for drawing
instead of image editing.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[candycanearter07]

On 11/28/23 03:27, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:57:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>
>>
>> Excellent summary ...
>>
>
> No, it's not. It's pure drivel spewed by an untutored amateur.
>
> I am an imaging professional that does contract work in all
> of the above mentioned areas and I exclusively use GNU/Linux
> tools, including GIMP.
>
> The results are *better* than Photocrap. My clients could
> certainly never tell the difference.
>
> So who is to be believed? This dunce, or a highly skilled
> professional like me?

<snip>

Can I see your portfolio?

[Joel]

I don't doubt it. But GIMP is just fine, for image editing.

--
Joel W. Crump

[rbowman]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:24:41 -0500, Joel wrote:

> I don't doubt it. But GIMP is just fine, for image editing.

All I've used GIMP for is editing icons. I don't particularly like the
interface but it works. I've never used Photoshop so I have no comparison.

I did use something a long time ago and found it painful -- literally. All
that precision mousing around suggested I might be a carpal tunnel
candidate if I kept it up. My initial take on windows was 'Oh shit, we're
going to have to do pretty and I'm as artistic as a hedgehog.'

[%]

so is photo hut

[Borax Man]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:19:02 -0600
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Borax Man wrote:
>
> > some dumb fsck wrote:
> >>
> >> (Idiocy snipped)
> >
> >Excellent summary
>
> Not at all.
>
> >of the problem of developers thinking they can
> >change the world.
>
> They can. Stallman has. Torvalds has.
>
> Most have no such ambitions, of course, making your "problem"
> statement false and dishonest.
>

Torvalds wasn't trying to change the world. Stallman wrote programs for what the program does.

I was talking about developers who think their program is going to change the world. That does not describe either Stallman or Torvalds.

Stallman's contribution to change is the GPL licence.

> >This also helps explain the "Linux is by
> >developers, for developers" mantra, one I've *always* hated.
>
> Well, it's not true.
>

It's been repeated, a lot.

> >Developers are developing for themselves, and often don't really
> >understand the target market. I've seen this in programs which are
> >needlessly complicated and technical, to do something where the
> >subject is not technical at all.
>
> They're doing the best they can, with the resources that they have.
> We can live without sneering aholes who run them down because they
> can't always compete with huge and wealthy software firms.
>

I'm not sneering anyone, I use Linux myself and have been for well
over 20 years. Nevertheless, there is a more notable trend, or
prevalance of programs where the target user is a developer.

Now I can write code, so its not as much an issue for me.



--

[Borax Man]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 07:19:02 -0600
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Borax Man wrote:
>
> > some dumb fsck wrote:
> >>
> >> (Idiocy snipped)
> >
> >Excellent summary
>
> Not at all.
>
> >of the problem of developers thinking they can
> >change the world.
>
> They can. Stallman has. Torvalds has.
>
> Most have no such ambitions, of course, making your "problem"
> statement false and dishonest.
>

Torvalds wasn't trying to change the world. Stallman wrote programs for what the program does.

I was talking about developers who think their program is going to change the world. That does not describe either Stallman or Torvalds.

Stallman's contribution to change is the GPL licence.

> >This also helps explain the "Linux is by
> >developers, for developers" mantra, one I've *always* hated.
>
> Well, it's not true.
>

It's been repeated, a lot.

> >Developers are developing for themselves, and often don't really
> >understand the target market. I've seen this in programs which are
> >needlessly complicated and technical, to do something where the
> >subject is not technical at all.
>
> They're doing the best they can, with the resources that they have.
> We can live without sneering aholes who run them down because they
> can't always compete with huge and wealthy software firms.
>

[DFS]

On 11/29/2023 6:10 AM, Borax Man wrote:


> Stallman's contribution to change is the GPL licence.

A very sordid document.

Did you know one of the past cola "advocates", Rex Ballard, helped draft
the words of the GPL? That was his claim, anyway.

[DFS]

On 11/27/2023 5:41 PM, DFS wrote:
> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-GIMP-so-much-worse-than-Photoshop-while-Wireshark-is-open-source-and-there-is-no-better-commercial-tool-for-that-purpose
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Best answer I saw is:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Franklin Veaux, Professional Writer
> Upvoted by Tom Nelson, Photoshop user since 1996
>
> Nov 5 2023
>
> Because a computer programmer cannot write a program like Photoshop.
> It’s not possible.
>
> In fact, a team of computer programmers cannot write a program like
> Photoshop.
>
> Computer programmers can write Wireshark. It’s a packet analyzer. If you
> know and understand networking and network protocols on a deep level,
> it’s not hard. It’s tedious, but it’s not hard.

The Wireshark AUTHORS file lists 2209 contributors. Looking at their
skillsets, it's seems programmers by themselves also couldn't have
written Wireshark as it stands today.

[rbowman]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:28:37 -0500, DFS wrote:

> The Wireshark AUTHORS file lists 2209 contributors. Looking at their
> skillsets, it's seems programmers by themselves also couldn't have
> written Wireshark as it stands today.

DevOps is the current buzzword but any successful software project needs
more than programmers even if it's organized more informally. UX is
another buzzword but if the user experience sucks, the project fails.
Without a project manager working with the stakeholders to set goals
you've got a herd of cats fighting over the litter box.

This doesn't only apply to FOSS. Some large companies have screwed the
pooch pretty badly too.

[DFS]

On 11/28/2023 10:33 AM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2023 8:09 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> If I needed to go beyond GIMP I would use Krita. No need to buy or rent either
>>> of these apps.
>>
>> Adobe revenue has soared since they changed to subscription plans.
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/266399/revenue-of-adobe-systems-worldwide-since-2004/
>>
>>
>> Clearly a lot of people feel the need to rent their superb, proprietary,
>> Mac- and Windows-only software.
>
>
> Photoshop was the only significant app I gave up to switch to Linux,
> and even it is replaced by GIMP.

Pirated Photoshop? It's pretty costly per month.

> I still have the ability to run some
> Windows apps, and I'm happy with native Unix apps overall. No "need
> to" run what I'd *already* paid for, it's not about how much it costs.

I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's minimum
$460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named user' expense.
I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
software subscriptions.

They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of that's
on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside cola.

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>>> Adobe revenue has soared since they changed to subscription plans.
>>>
>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/266399/revenue-of-adobe-systems-worldwide-since-2004/
>>>
>>>
>>> Clearly a lot of people feel the need to rent their superb, proprietary,
>>> Mac- and Windows-only software.
>>
>> Photoshop was the only significant app I gave up to switch to Linux,
>> and even it is replaced by GIMP.
>
>Pirated Photoshop? It's pretty costly per month.

??? You know I wouldn't pirate it. I paid for one year of it, I
wanted to look at it.

--
Joel W. Crump

[vallor]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
<j5maN.22219$_z86....@fx46.iad>:

Why not just use MariaDB?

You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service
like Digital Ocean.

Or find an old piece of iron, put Linux on it, and install MariaDB
there.

Or if you want turnkey: buy a Synology Diskstation w/disks of
your choice, then go into the package center
and install MariaDB 10.

No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.

--
-v

[rbowman]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS wrote:

> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's minimum
> $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named user' expense.
> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
> software subscriptions.

It helps to be a government agency if you want to use Oracle :)

[Chris Ahlstrom]

vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
>>

>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's minimum
>> $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named user' expense.
>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>> software subscriptions.
>>
>> They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
>> size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of that's
>> on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside cola.
>
> Why not just use MariaDB?
>
> You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service
> like Digital Ocean.
>
> Or find an old piece of iron, put Linux on it, and install MariaDB
> there.

MariaDB, like MySQL, also runs on Windows.

> Or if you want turnkey: buy a Synology Diskstation w/disks of
> your choice, then go into the package center
> and install MariaDB 10.
>
> No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.

<chuckle>

--
Delores breezed along the surface of her life like a flat stone forever
skipping along smooth water, rippling reality sporadically but oblivious
to it consistently, until she finally lost momentum, sank, and due to an
overdose of flouride as a child which caused her to suffer from chronic
apathy, doomed herself to lie forever on the floor of her life as useless
as an appendix and as lonely as a five-hundred pound barbell in a
steroid-free fitness center.
-- Winning sentence, 1990 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Oracle provides MySQL "for free", afaik.

--
Of course you have a purpose -- to find a purpose.

[rbowman]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:01:33 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's
>>> minimum $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named
>>> user' expense.
>>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>>> software subscriptions.
>>
>> It helps to be a government agency if you want to use Oracle :)
>
> Oracle provides MySQL "for free", afaik.

True although there is an enterprise version. However

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Database

"Oracle Database (commonly referred to as Oracle DBMS, Oracle Autonomous
Database, or simply as Oracle) is a proprietary multi-model[4] database
management system produced and marketed by Oracle Corporation."

In my world when someone says 'Oracle' they mean Oracle Database not any
of the other products offered by the Oracle Corporation.

[DFS]

On 12/1/2023 2:01 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's minimum
>>> $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named user' expense.
>>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>>> software subscriptions.
>>
>> It helps to be a government agency if you want to use Oracle :)
>
> Oracle provides MySQL "for free", afaik.

They charge a small fortune for it.

US $2,140 - US $64,200

https://shop.oracle.com/apex/f?p=DSTORE:2::::RIR,2:PROD_HIER_ID:58095029061520477171389



You can only get MySQL Community Edition free from mysql.com.

[DFS]

On 12/1/2023 11:31 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in

>>

>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's minimum
>> $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named user' expense.
>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>> software subscriptions.
>>
>> They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
>> size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of that's
>> on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside cola.
>
> Why not just use MariaDB?
>
> You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service
> like Digital Ocean.

https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/managed-databases

Looks like it would cost $60/month for MySQL or PostgreSQL, for the
capacities I need.

> Or find an old piece of iron, put Linux on it, and install MariaDB
> there.

Linux is unnecessary at ALL times.

I'm a one-Windows-machine, local DB man.

> Or if you want turnkey: buy a Synology Diskstation w/disks of
> your choice, then go into the package center
> and install MariaDB 10.
>
> No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.

I like Oracle. I like my hobby. I like my hobby running on Oracle.

I also like SQLite, which is a lot easier to setup, use and administer.

[vallor]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:20:50 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
<23HaN.149244$BbXa....@fx16.iad>:

> On 12/1/2023 11:31 AM, vallor wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
>
>
>>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's
>>> minimum $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named
>>> user' expense.
>>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>>> software subscriptions.
>>>
>>> They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
>>> size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of
>>> that's on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside cola.
>>
>> Why not just use MariaDB?
>>
>> You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service like
>> Digital Ocean.
>
> https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/managed-databases
>
> Looks like it would cost $60/month for MySQL or PostgreSQL, for the
> capacities I need.

Did you misread the table? That's the pricing for 60GiB of storage.
Are you really using that much?

>
>
>> Or find an old piece of iron, put Linux on it, and install MariaDB
>> there.
>
> Linux is unnecessary at ALL times.
>
> I'm a one-Windows-machine, local DB man.
>
>
>> Or if you want turnkey: buy a Synology Diskstation w/disks of your
>> choice, then go into the package center and install MariaDB 10.
>>
>> No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.
>
> I like Oracle. I like my hobby. I like my hobby running on Oracle.
>
> I also like SQLite, which is a lot easier to setup, use and administer.

Yes, but up to 60GiB in SQLite? How does that even work?

--
-v

[rbowman]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:20:50 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 12/1/2023 11:31 AM, vallor wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
>
>
>>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's
>>> minimum $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named
>>> user' expense.
>>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>>> software subscriptions.
>>>
>>> They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
>>> size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of
>>> that's on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside cola.
>>
>> Why not just use MariaDB?
>>
>> You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service like
>> Digital Ocean.
>
> https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/managed-databases
>
> Looks like it would cost $60/month for MySQL or PostgreSQL, for the
> capacities I need.

???? You want your database in the cloud? I'm not familiar with Digital
Cloud but I do know you can lose your shirt with Amazon RDS if you're not
careful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Relational_Database_Service


It's very convenient. You can BYOD but then you have to administer it. One
advantage is you are in control. The Postgres on my Linux box gets
frequent updates. With RDS you are locked in to whatever version/patch
level AWS uses. The last time I looked if you wanted DB2 you had to bring
your own.

> Linux is unnecessary at ALL times.
>
> I'm a one-Windows-machine, local DB man.

That's no fun... It was a test of the feasibility but I was able to
replicate a PostGres DB on Linux to the one on Windows successfully.

No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.

> I like Oracle. I like my hobby. I like my hobby running on Oracle.
>
> I also like SQLite, which is a lot easier to setup, use and administer.

Each to their own... I didn't qork on the project but about 10 years ago
a RFP required Oracle and another programmer was tasked with making a
couple of core applications Oracle capable. The apps used embedded SQL and
it wasn't difficult. Later I did the same updates for MSSQL and Postgres.
The biggest PITA was the different text formats for timestamps.

I like SQLite. I use it to store data from a one time query of ArcGIS
Server data when I needed a directed graph ofr shortest path and later
stashed some other useful information. I haven't played around with
SpatiaLite yet. I don't think it is as mature as Postgres/PostGIS yet.

[rbowman]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 14:31:12 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:

> Yes, but up to 60GiB in SQLite? How does that even work?

https://www.sqlite.org/limits.html


Maximum Database Size

Every database consists of one or more "pages". Within a single database,
every page is the same size, but different databases can have page sizes
that are powers of two between 512 and 65536, inclusive. The maximum size
of a database file is 4294967294 pages. At the maximum page size of 65536
bytes, this translates into a maximum database size of approximately
1.4e+14 bytes (281 terabytes, or 256 tebibytes, or 281474 gigabytes or
256,000 gibibytes).


If you're usedto Access's 2GB cap, that's a breath of fresh air.

[DFS]

On 12/2/2023 9:31 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:20:50 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
> <23HaN.149244$BbXa....@fx16.iad>:
>
>> On 12/1/2023 11:31 AM, vallor wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
>>
>>
>>>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's
>>>> minimum $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named
>>>> user' expense.
>>>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>>>> software subscriptions.
>>>>
>>>> They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
>>>> size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of
>>>> that's on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside cola.
>>>
>>> Why not just use MariaDB?
>>>
>>> You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service like
>>> Digital Ocean.
>>
>> https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/managed-databases
>>
>> Looks like it would cost $60/month for MySQL or PostgreSQL, for the
>> capacities I need.
>
> Did you misread the table? That's the pricing for 60GiB of storage.
> Are you really using that much?

That $60 level gets you 4GB of memory.

My Usenet.sqlite file is 17GB (mostly cola), but could be cut by 25% at
least if I deleted all the bullshit from alt.checkmate and
talk.politics.guns, etc.

>>
>>> Or find an old piece of iron, put Linux on it, and install MariaDB
>>> there.
>>
>> Linux is unnecessary at ALL times.
>>
>> I'm a one-Windows-machine, local DB man.
>>
>>
>>> Or if you want turnkey: buy a Synology Diskstation w/disks of your
>>> choice, then go into the package center and install MariaDB 10.
>>>
>>> No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.
>>
>> I like Oracle. I like my hobby. I like my hobby running on Oracle.
>>
>> I also like SQLite, which is a lot easier to setup, use and administer.
>
> Yes, but up to 60GiB in SQLite? How does that even work?

It works due to the genius of the original SQLite developer, D. Richard
Hipp, who scoffs at 60GiB. His program will put up to 281TB in a single
file.

It could easily hit 60GB (or GiB) by downloading the entirety of a bunch
of newsgroups. I only have cola posts since mid-2003, but it was opened
for business in 1994.

And my latest collection/storage methodology adds about 50% to the
minimum space required: I first download the headers and body of each
Usenet message into python list objects that are stored in a master
'messages' table. Later at my leisure I split them apart into 12 or so
tables with relations. The granularity of the data and the relations
are what lets me search and summarize posts and metadata so deftly.

[vallor]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 08:55:35 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in <kNDFS
<nos...@dfs.com>N.29080$pgLd....@fx05.iad>:

> On 12/2/2023 9:31 AM, vallor wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:20:50 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
>> <23HaN.149244$BbXa....@fx16.iad>:
>>
>>> On 12/1/2023 11:31 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's
>>>>> minimum $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named
>>>>> user' expense.
>>>>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't
>>>>> do
>>>>> software subscriptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
>>>>> size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of
>>>>> that's on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside
>>>>> cola.
>>>>
>>>> Why not just use MariaDB?
>>>>
>>>> You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service like
>>>> Digital Ocean.
>>>
>>> https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/managed-databases
>>>
>>> Looks like it would cost $60/month for MySQL or PostgreSQL, for the
>>> capacities I need.
>>
>> Did you misread the table? That's the pricing for 60GiB of storage.
>> Are you really using that much?
>
>
> That $60 level gets you 4GB of memory.

Yes, 4GB of RAM in the (managed) database server. You get
60GiB of database storage at that level. Take
another look at the table.

>
> My Usenet.sqlite file is 17GB (mostly cola), but could be cut by 25% at
> least if I deleted all the bullshit from alt.checkmate and
> talk.politics.guns, etc.
>

Hey, if you trust it to sqlite, more power to you.

Personally, a set that big, I'd want it in a "real" database.

>
>
>
>
>>>> Or find an old piece of iron, put Linux on it, and install MariaDB
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> Linux is unnecessary at ALL times.
>>>
>>> I'm a one-Windows-machine, local DB man.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or if you want turnkey: buy a Synology Diskstation w/disks of your
>>>> choice, then go into the package center and install MariaDB 10.
>>>>
>>>> No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.
>>>
>>> I like Oracle. I like my hobby. I like my hobby running on Oracle.
>>>
>>> I also like SQLite, which is a lot easier to setup, use and
>>> administer.
>>
>> Yes, but up to 60GiB in SQLite? How does that even work?
>
> It works due to the genius of the original SQLite developer, D. Richard
> Hipp, who scoffs at 60GiB. His program will put up to 281TB in a single
> file.

I didn't realize it would handle that much. What's the speed like?

>
> It could easily hit 60GB (or GiB) by downloading the entirety of a bunch
> of newsgroups. I only have cola posts since mid-2003, but it was opened
> for business in 1994.
>
> And my latest collection/storage methodology adds about 50% to the
> minimum space required: I first download the headers and body of each
> Usenet message into python list objects that are stored in a master
> 'messages' table. Later at my leisure I split them apart into 12 or so
> tables with relations. The granularity of the data and the relations
> are what lets me search and summarize posts and metadata so deftly.

A perfectly acceptable hobby for your hobby Windows system. ;)

--
-v

[chrisv]

> some dumb fsck

>>
>> The granularity of the data and the relations
>> are what lets me search and summarize posts and metadata so deftly.

Can it tell us how many thousands of times you've made a friggen
jackass of yourself, in here?

--
"[Chris A] plays soccer. That tells you all you need to know about
him." - some dumb fsck

[DFS]

I know the diff between RAM and storage. Geez.

>> My Usenet.sqlite file is 17GB (mostly cola), but could be cut by 25% at
>> least if I deleted all the bullshit from alt.checkmate and
>> talk.politics.guns, etc.
>>
>
> Hey, if you trust it to sqlite, more power to you.
>
> Personally, a set that big, I'd want it in a "real" database.

When it got too big for Access (which at a 2GB max file size happened
quickly), I started looking for an alternative. I thought SQLite was
too wimpy, but found it could handle large datasets, is file-based, easy
to install and administer and backup, and has great documentation and
support. So I gave it a try and found out it rocks for my usage.

The only oddity I don't like is it uses non-static data typing, meaning
you can insert text data into columns you create as integer, and vice versa.

As it's public domain and is distributed with Android and other systems,
SQLite claims to be the most widely used db in the world. I don't doubt
it at all.

>>>>> Or find an old piece of iron, put Linux on it, and install MariaDB
>>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> Linux is unnecessary at ALL times.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a one-Windows-machine, local DB man.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Or if you want turnkey: buy a Synology Diskstation w/disks of your
>>>>> choice, then go into the package center and install MariaDB 10.
>>>>>
>>>>> No need to use Oracle for your hobby Windows system.
>>>>
>>>> I like Oracle. I like my hobby. I like my hobby running on Oracle.
>>>>
>>>> I also like SQLite, which is a lot easier to setup, use and
>>>> administer.
>>>
>>> Yes, but up to 60GiB in SQLite? How does that even work?
>>
>> It works due to the genius of the original SQLite developer, D. Richard
>> Hipp, who scoffs at 60GiB. His program will put up to 281TB in a single
>> file.
>
> I didn't realize it would handle that much. What's the speed like?

In my system, with a few million rows spread among a dozen
properly-indexed tables, the performance is smokin'.

Here's what I said to rbowman a while back:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've sung the praises of SQLite many times. It's not a multi-user
system suitable for large numbers of concurrent writing, but it's
fantastic for many scenarios, including fairly large databases. It
doesn't support the full SQL standard, but plenty enough. The
documentation is first-rate, and the SQLite Forum is great. I recently
got a quick answer directly from D. Richard Hipp, the original SQLite
developer. It's still under active development.

At one point last year I had SQLite, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, Firebird, DB2
Express and Oracle Express running at the same time on my old Win10
system, each populated with identical data [edit: from my Usenet
database]. The performance of each was
plenty acceptable, but SQLite, Oracle and PostgreSQL were consistently
faster (maybe 5%-10% difference between the servers, using a PyQt app).

SQLite and Firebird were the least 'robust' but I completely trust
SQLite with my data. It's a very well-tested system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the 'datasource' list at the top of the screen
https://imgur.com/a/1F5GfVk

I could choose some criteria, then go down the list and click each
server and it would immediately run the same query, return the same
data, and report the timing.

>> It could easily hit 60GB (or GiB) by downloading the entirety of a bunch
>> of newsgroups. I only have cola posts since mid-2003, but it was opened
>> for business in 1994.
>>
>> And my latest collection/storage methodology adds about 50% to the
>> minimum space required: I first download the headers and body of each
>> Usenet message into python list objects that are stored in a master
>> 'messages' table. Later at my leisure I split them apart into 12 or so
>> tables with relations. The granularity of the data and the relations
>> are what lets me search and summarize posts and metadata so deftly.
>

> A perfectly acceptable hobby for your hobby Windows system. 😉

A perfectly grand hobby for my professional, commercial-grade,
built-MS-tough, Windows system!

[DFS]

On 12/3/2023 7:38 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 12/3/2023 9:03 AM, vallor wrote:
> >
> > I didn't realize it would handle that much.  What's the speed like?
>
>
> In my system, with a few million rows spread among a dozen
> properly-indexed tables, the performance is smokin'.

By smokin', I mean SQLite returns a short summary

Submitted By
In Reply To
Date
Subject

of 50,000+ posts (4-table join) in about 1/2 second, then PyQt requires
another 1/2 second to load them to screen.

So in about 1 second I can see a summary of every post I ever made to cola.

In 0.11 seconds I can see the same summary of every reply between us in
all the time we've been here on cola.

https://imgur.com/a/dTaopSU


Anyway, SQLite blazes, but so does Oracle and all the db servers I tried.

[DFS]

On 12/2/2023 3:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:20:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2023 11:31 AM, vallor wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:29:38 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
>>
>>
>>>> I want an Oracle Personal Edition license, but thru Oracle it's
>>>> minimum $460 one-time, plus $101/year non-optional 'support/named
>>>> user' expense.
>>>> I found it elsewhere for $83 per year subscription, but I don't do
>>>> software subscriptions.
>>>>
>>>> They have a free Express Edition, but it has severe limits on the db
>>>> size (12GB). I can't even fit my Usenet database on it - some of
>>>> that's on account of the cross-dressers you attract from outside cola.
>>>
>>> Why not just use MariaDB?
>>>
>>> You don't even have to maintain it, if you use a cloud service like
>>> Digital Ocean.
>>
>> https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/managed-databases
>>
>> Looks like it would cost $60/month for MySQL or PostgreSQL, for the
>> capacities I need.
>
> ???? You want your database in the cloud? I'm not familiar with Digital
> Cloud but I do know you can lose your shirt with Amazon RDS if you're not
> careful.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Relational_Database_Service

I definitely do not want any of my data in the cloud. Bloaty was just
making some suggestions.

> It's very convenient. You can BYOD but then you have to administer it. One
> advantage is you are in control. The Postgres on my Linux box gets
> frequent updates. With RDS you are locked in to whatever version/patch
> level AWS uses. The last time I looked if you wanted DB2 you had to bring
> your own.
>
>> Linux is unnecessary at ALL times.
>>
>> I'm a one-Windows-machine, local DB man.
>
> That's no fun... It was a test of the feasibility but I was able to
> replicate a PostGres DB on Linux to the one on Windows successfully.

One of the pleasures of SQLite (any file-based db) is you copy one file
from place to place and you've replicated or backed up your database.

To install
extract the .zip file from sqlite.org to your filesystem, and add an
entry to your path (say D:\computer\apps\database\SQLite\3.39.2).
Done.

Create a database
$sqlite3 newdbname
Done (well, technically not until you add 1+ tables).

import a .csv file
$ sqlite> .import data.csv newtablename --csv
Done.

And I've grown to trust its reliability.

One con: It hasn't caused any problems for me, but the default "dynamic
data typing" of SQLite is offputting and a little confusing at first.
You can put any type of data in any type of column. They say "Flexible
typing is a feature of SQLite, not a bug.", but I'd like to be able to
specify most of the data types available in Oracle or Postgres.

Still, it's a heck of a great program for being single-authored.

>> I like Oracle. I like my hobby. I like my hobby running on Oracle.
>>
>> I also like SQLite, which is a lot easier to setup, use and administer.
>
> Each to their own... I didn't qork on the project but about 10 years ago
> a RFP required Oracle and another programmer was tasked with making a
> couple of core applications Oracle capable. The apps used embedded SQL and
> it wasn't difficult. Later I did the same updates for MSSQL and Postgres.
> The biggest PITA was the different text formats for timestamps.
>
> I like SQLite. I use it to store data from a one time query of ArcGIS
> Server data when I needed a directed graph ofr shortest path and later
> stashed some other useful information. I haven't played around with
> SpatiaLite yet. I don't think it is as mature as Postgres/PostGIS yet.

For the market planning dept of a client I built an Access system to
find franchises within X miles of one another, using latitude and
longitude. The distance calculations used various trig functions to
account for the Earth's curvature. Edit: I just came across the
'haversine distance formula', which looks a good bit easier than what I
used.

Can these kinds of distance calculations also be solved with GIS systems
and geospatial data?

[rbowman]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 23:31:57 -0500, DFS wrote:


> For the market planning dept of a client I built an Access system to
> find franchises within X miles of one another, using latitude and
> longitude. The distance calculations used various trig functions to
> account for the Earth's curvature. Edit: I just came across the
> 'haversine distance formula', which looks a good bit easier than what I
> used.

Vincenty's formulae are a little more accurate but the haversine is
generally good enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenty's_formulae

>
> Can these kinds of distance calculations also be solved with GIS systems
> and geospatial data?

Yes. One important thing is allowing spatial indices.

https://postgis.net/workshops/postgis-intro/indexing.html
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/spatial/
spatial-indexes-overview?view=sql-server-ver16

They all work similarly. The syntax syntax varies but for your case you
would construct an envelope around a central point for a spatial filter
and then do a query which would return all the franchises within the
envelope.

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcobjects/latest/java/c5cac8ef-
fd09-4f83-8c20-21ec9f9b9130.htm

Those are some examples using the Esri ArcObjects API.

There is a lot of other operations that become quick and easy like finding
if polygons or polylines intersect, touch each other and so forth.

For example, to geocode an address you know a street segment is N feet
long nad has addresses from 100 to 199. The spatial functions allow you to
find a point say 50% along the segment for 150, and construct a line
normal to the segment, say 15 feet long, and find the coordinates of the
end point. The idea is you don't want the point for 150 Chestnut St to be
in the middle of Chestnut St but to be offset some distance.

All that sort of thing becomes pretty painless. All the math is being done
under the hood but you're not doing it.

At one time the spatial extender for DB2 was an extra cost option and I
was faced wit finding the nearest fire hydrant to an incident. Iterating
though all the records and finding the shortest distance was slower than a
ruptured sloth so I had to do some optimization.

One way which is the basic idea of spatial indexing is to create a grid,
sort of like the city maps where a grid block might be B16. Go through the
data, calculate which grid each location falls in, and store the
information permanently in a table. Given a random point you can
calculate which grid it falls in. If you're looking for the closest
something, examine all the points in that grid. If you don't find any,
move out to the adjacent grids, A16, A15, B13, etc, rinse and repeat. The
same thing would work for all points within an area.

The spatial indexing algorithms are very sophisticated, both in
calculating the optimal cell sozes for the grid and in building the search
trees but that's the general idea.