Picasa substitute

On 7/10/19 2:28 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
I've got to do special stuff that's fraught with peril to
get 32-bit-only apps to run on my 64-bit system.* At this
point I really don't want to even think about updating to
the next (if any) version of slackware for fear of finally
losing picasa.

I like Picasa, as well, for all the reasons you do.

But... there's no reason to give it up just because it's
32-bit software (on a Mac, I presume?).

Almost all the software I like and use is 32-bit, with no
upgrade path to 64 bits (for various reasons).

So... I've decided on a personal "Mac strategy for the
future", of sorts.

I recently bought a 2018 Mini, nicely-equipped. It will be
one of the last Mac desktops to run Mojave (still a 32-bit OS).

This Mini will NEVER be upgraded "beyond Mojave". It will
run a 32-bit OS forever, or for as long as I use it (I'm
getting old).

I don't particularly care about running "the latest and
greatest" version of the OS, and I care NOTHING about being
"out-of-date" insofar as "security" is concerned.

So... I expect to see, 6, 7, 8 or maybe more years running
this Mini under Mojave, and keeping the 32-bit apps I want.
By then I may have become too old to even need a computer
any longer. This will be "the one I go out on".

Bear in mind that I -will- keep one or two external SSDs
around, to experiment with later versions of the Mac OS. But
my "work OS" will be the final version of Mojave.

That's how I'm doing it.
Running on that Mini right now.

In article , J.Albert
wrote:

On 7/10/19 2:28 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
I've got to do special stuff that's fraught with peril to
get 32-bit-only apps to run on my 64-bit system.* At this
point I really don't want to even think about updating to
the next (if any) version of slackware for fear of finally
losing picasa.

I like Picasa, as well, for all the reasons you do.

But... there's no reason to give it up just because it's
32-bit software (on a Mac, I presume?).

she's a linux user.

Almost all the software I like and use is 32-bit, with no
upgrade path to 64 bits (for various reasons).

then you're using incredibly outdated software which hasn't been
updated in at least 5 years, probably more.

64 bit mac software first appeared in 2003, more than *fifteen* years
ago, with most of it released in the past decade or so.

just about everything has been updated to be 64 bit.

very, very little mac software is still 32 bit, and all of it orphaned.

any of it that connects to the 'net will likely encounter compatibility
issues at some point, entirely unrelated to bitness.

So... I've decided on a personal "Mac strategy for the
future", of sorts.

one which is going to fail.

I recently bought a 2018 Mini, nicely-equipped. It will be
one of the last Mac desktops to run Mojave (still a 32-bit OS).

mojave is a 64 bit os.

all previous versions of mac os for more than a decade have been 64 bit.

lion (10.7, released in 2011, eight years ago) was the first version of
mac os that *required* a 64 bit intel core 2 duo (or later) processor.

This Mini will NEVER be upgraded "beyond Mojave". It will
run a 32-bit OS forever, or for as long as I use it (I'm
getting old).

that mini is never going to run a 32 bit version of mac os because 32
bit versions of mac os are much too old to work at all, since they're
written for powerpc, not intel.

it might be possible to hack a 32 bit linux onto it, but there is no
point whatsoever in doing so and it's likely to be very difficult, at
best.

I don't particularly care about running "the latest and
greatest" version of the OS, and I care NOTHING about being
"out-of-date" insofar as "security" is concerned.

that's incredibly dumb. expect to be pwned.

So... I expect to see, 6, 7, 8 or maybe more years running
this Mini under Mojave, and keeping the 32-bit apps I want.
By then I may have become too old to even need a computer
any longer. This will be "the one I go out on".

much less than that.

In article , The Real Bev
wrote:

64-bit slackware linux, but it needs special handling to deal with
32-bit programs.

then it's poorly designed.

In article , The Real Bev
wrote:

Not sure when Picasa was updated (maybe never), but google killed it
long ago.

and replaced it with something much better, along with other options
from other companies.

I don't think I even have a zip/whatever file in case ****
happens. Fortunately I've got a lot of backups.

apparently not enough of them, since you don't have the zip/whatever
file.

On 15/07/2019 12:25 PM, RichA wrote:
..

I would like a modular image manipulation program I could intimately configure myself, assigning specific functions to small squares. No more drop-downs, no more fly-out menus. Ever.


Without fly-out menus sounds very limiting to me ...

geoff

In article , Incubus
wrote:

64-bit slackware linux, but it needs special handling to deal with
32-bit programs.

then it's poorly designed.

From memory (it has been a while since I used Slackware), you need to install
the appropriate 32-bit libraries. Nothing to do with design.

it has everything to do with design. those libraries should be included.

forcing the user to jump through hoops just to run an app is poor
design. the developers were lazy and didn't give a **** about the user
experience, which is one of many reasons why linux on the desktop is a
colossal failure.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:50:08 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , The Real Bev
wrote:

Not sure when Picasa was updated (maybe never), but google killed it
long ago.

and replaced it with something much better, along with other options
from other companies.


Which free photo system has the facial recognition that old Picasa
had/has?

--
AnthonyL

Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?

In article , AnthonyL
wrote:

Not sure when Picasa was updated (maybe never), but google killed it
long ago.

and replaced it with something much better, along with other options
from other companies.


Which free photo system has the facial recognition that old Picasa
had/has?

google photos and apple photos, both of which do not only face
recognition, but also scene recognition as well as other features.

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:46:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , AnthonyL
wrote:

Not sure when Picasa was updated (maybe never), but google killed it
long ago.

and replaced it with something much better, along with other options
from other companies.


Which free photo system has the facial recognition that old Picasa
had/has?

google photos and apple photos, both of which do not only face
recognition, but also scene recognition as well as other features.

rephrase - which OFFLINE Windows free photo system has the facial
recognition that old Picasa had/has?


--
AnthonyL

Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?

In article , Incubus
wrote:

64-bit slackware linux, but it needs special handling to deal with
32-bit programs.

then it's poorly designed.

From memory (it has been a while since I used Slackware), you need to
install
the appropriate 32-bit libraries. Nothing to do with design.

it has everything to do with design. those libraries should be included.

It has nothing to do with design and everything to do with ethos. Slackware
is intended to give the user control over their system.

the user *always* has control over their system. what ever gave you the
idea otherwise?

needing to install a library or anything else other than the app itself
just to be able to run it is a design flaw. simple as that.

you're trying to rationalize a poorly designed product.

people want to get actual work done, not **** around with the os.

The idea of installing
lots of libraries without asking the user first goes against Slackware
principles.

nobody suggested installing anything without asking.

forcing the user to jump through hoops just to run an app is poor
design.

You know nothing about Slackware. With Slackware, you don't even have to
install a windowing system if you don't want to.

making it even more limited!

the 1970s wants you back.

Installing the 32-bit
libraries is easy to do but if it's a big deal for you, you are better off
choosing something simpler instead.

ad hominem, and you're trying to rationalize a poorly designed product.

the developers were lazy and didn't give a **** about the user
experience,

The developers offer the user experience people expect with Slackware and
laziness is not something anyone would associate with Slackware.

forcing the user to do work that the developers should have done is
sheer laziness.

you're trying to rationalize a poorly designed product.

which is one of many reasons why linux on the desktop is a
colossal failure.

According to you, no doubt based on meaningless criteria.

nope. according to industry stats, desktop linux has approximately 1%
market share.

linux is well suited for servers and embedded devices, not the desktop,
where it's been nothing but an unmitigated disaster.

the selection of linux apps is incredibly limited and what does exist
is overall, not as good as what's available for mac, windows, ios and
android. there is the occasional exception, but that's very rare.

Meanwhile, some of
us are using desktop system to get things done on a daily basis, maybe even as
part of our work.

nobody said they weren't.

meanwhile, *far* more people are doing *far* more things and with a lot
*less* effort simply by using an operating system without the hassles,
resulting in much higher productivity.

put another way, you're making things more difficult that they need to
be and pretending that all that effort is somehow meaningful.

Stick to OSes that cater to idiots if installing a few libraries via a package
manager is too much work for you. In the time you spent bitching about it
here, you could have learned what you need to know.

only an idiot would choose a system that requires jumping through hoops
just to do basic tasks, including one as basic as running an app.

smart people choose systems that let them get actual work done rather
than waste time getting to where they can do their work, including
modifying the system just to run the apps they need to run, most of
which aren't even available for other systems.

in other words, by the time you're done installing libraries and window
managers and whatever else just to run an app that isn't as capable,
plus dealing with any other issues that come up, the smart people have
finished their tasks with minimal fuss and moved on to something else.

now who is the idiot and who is the smart one?