FYI
For the QRpedia crew.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/allqr/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/allqr/discuss/
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
Hello everyone,
Apologies for the mass email.
I was wondering if anyone has a spare license for Adobe Creative Suite
software kicking around somewhere that I might be able to use please.
Any offer gratefully received!
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
On Apr 17, 2012 12:40 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
Hello everyone,
Apologies for the mass email.
I was wondering if anyone has a spare license for Adobe Creative Suite
software kicking around
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Text files writing PNMs, obviously.
(The answer is frequently not within reason, and it's not like RMS is
ever being let into Wikimania ever again.)
- d.
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Stevie needs standard tools to do his job and if someone has a spare
license they might donate in-kind, all the better.
The output would be available in
On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Stevie needs standard tools to do his job and if someone has a spare
license they might donate in-kind,
On 17 April 2012 12:40, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
Hello everyone,
Apologies for the mass email.
I was wondering if anyone has a spare license for Adobe Creative Suite
software kicking around somewhere that I might be able to use please. Any
offer gratefully
On 17 April 2012 13:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe our existing policy is to use open source tools whenever
they exist and are fit-for-purpose. Just because they aren't the
industry standard shouldn't be a reason not to use them.
Cool, name something that is
Well, one piece of open source software I'll certainly be using is
Audacity, for editing audio files. It's as good as anything around for
simple podcast editing. GIMP is *not bad* for photo editing although I'm
much more familiar with Photoshop (and more qualified to use it).
When it comes to
Well, one piece of open source software I'll certainly be using is
Audacity, for editing audio files. It's as good as anything around for
simple podcast editing. GIMP is *not bad* for photo editing although I'm
much more familiar with Photoshop (and more qualified to use it).
I'd not
On 17 April 2012 13:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Have you tried Inkscape (FOSS vector image editor)? I used to use Fireworks
a lot and Inkscape turned out to be, surprisingly, a worthy upgrade on that.
But there can be a learning curve if you're only a casual Fireworks
I've never tried Inkscape actually, I'll give it a look. I'm not
especially experienced with Fireworks, unlike Photoshop, in which I am.
Glad I don't have to use Dreamweaver again - coupled with MS Front Page,
I've never sworn at a piece of software so much. Mail Chimp sounds an
excellent
On 17 April 2012 13:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Have you tried Inkscape (FOSS vector image editor)? I used to use
Fireworks
a lot and Inkscape turned out to be, surprisingly, a worthy upgrade on
that.
On 17 April 2012 13:34, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Well, one piece of open source software I'll certainly be using is Audacity,
for editing audio files. It's as good as anything around for simple podcast
editing. GIMP is *not bad* for photo editing although I'm much
On 17 April 2012 13:56, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:54, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm desktop publishing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus
Last I used it, it was mostly useful for crashes. Are you mentioning
it as someone who's actually used it for
Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to
be honest.
On Apr 17, 2012 1:18 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a
On 17/04/2012 14:11, James Farrar wrote:
Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose,
to be honest.
It really depends on whether collaborative editing is required. If it's
merely used to produce an end product that is open / widely used format,
then the program
On 17 April 2012 14:11, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to
be honest.
Not the case outside of some health and safety stuff that is unlikely
to apply to the office. MS office may be the industry standard but I
No problem at all Tom, thank you very much for checking - and I hope
FrontPage doesn't still give you nightmares!
On 17/04/2012 15:48, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:51, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk
mailto:stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Glad I don't have
Checking my miscellanea, I have a still sealed copy of Adobe Acrobat 7
Standard for Windows which must have been part of an old system bundle
of stuff. I guess this might be used as is, or used to get the upgrade
price to Acrobat X on a Mac?
Cheers,
Fae
On 17 April 2012 16:08, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
If it's unused, it should be helpful. I'm running Windows 7 so as long as
Acrobat 7 is compatible (and it should be) that would be very helpful indeed
and provide one part of the mix!
Ah, I was looking at the Korean
On 17/04/12 13:05, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Indeed there is. One part is.
http://www.gimp.org/
And it will run on the Microsoft Windows machines in the WMUK HQ
Gordo
___
On 17/04/2012 13:56, David Gerard wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:54, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm desktop publishing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus
Last I used it, it was mostly useful for crashes. Are you mentioning
it as someone who's actually used it for real work? 'Cos that's
On 17 April 2012 15:52, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
No problem at all Tom, thank you very much for checking - and I hope
FrontPage doesn't still give you nightmares!
I don't know about Tom M, but FrontPage still gives *me* nightmares
and I haven't used it for about 10
This thread seems to have become about open source vs. closed source, and what
exactly counts as industry standard or best of breed.
I think there is a much more sensible policy we could pursue here:
1. If there is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative, use it.
2. If not, use
On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
This thread seems to have become about open source vs. closed source, and
what exactly counts as industry standard or best of breed.
The fact is, that Stevie just asked if someone had some spare licenses
for software so the charity
Having some technical oversight from the community in the form of a
lightweight 'geek cabal'* seems like it might be quite important given other
discussions about things like mailing lists, having to run a locally-hosted
OTRS-type system for fundraising email, and funding of tool
Just a quick note before I go to bed: if you're running in the election,
there are only eight hours left to get your candidate statements in.
Richard Symonds
WMUK
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
28 matches
Mail list logo
