[This topic is so worthwhile that I've added a bunch of new addressees
to my email version. If you don't recognize my email address, I'm the
one you know and love in Baltimore.]

For some reason, maybe MS did it on purpose so I'd notice, when I went
to a pre-opened page of Settings, on its own it took me to the Settings
index, which I think they call home.

And there in the top middle row was Phone. Does everyone but me already
know about this? Does everyone on the Android group know but not on
the win10 group? How are you going to pass your Android finals if you
don't keep up with things?

At Settings / Phone, you can link your android or iphone. And then you
can copy your pictures from the phone to the laptop or PC by unlocking
the phone, connecting it with a USB cable, on the computer pressing
Start / Photos -- takes a while to open, in the upper right "Import".
From a connected device, your phone!!!

It said it was looking on my phone for photos and it took a really long
time, so much that I was doing something else when it displayed them, so
if it said anything in the middle, I missed it. It also said the phone
had to be unlocked. I don't lock my phone but when it took a long time,
I thought swiping up, and then I thought restarting the process might
help, but it still took a long time. Not that time matters, but don't
assume it's not working.

A problem is that it looks beyond DCIM / Camera and found a bunch of
worthless graphics I had to either uncheck or copy. I suppose one can
uncheck a group all at one time using the shift key to mark the other
end. I suppose it could be an asset, maybe, under special
circumstances, that it looks beyound the Camera folder, and maybe that's
why it took a long time to display.

This duplicates one of the functions, but far from all, of My Phone
Explorer. And it might be a little better, although I'd have to use it
a few more times to decide. So far;
Advantages of My Phone Explorer, Don't have to open an app on phone;
goes by calendar month (although I presume it know which ones were
already copied)

Simlarities, Do have to open an application, just a different one, on
the computer. b) MPE is free

Disadvantages, Was prepared to copy in 60 worthless files from
Ad:Cache, a bunch of silly graphics. I had to uncheck each one. b) It
puts the photos whereever it chooses and I have to now go find them. It
doesn't put them where I want them, and if I move them to where I want
them, it may lose track of what is already copied, so I'll be stuck with
lots of duplicates. Maybe if I only move them at the end of every
month, but that's one more thing to keep track of. And it could be I
want some pictures one place and another somewhere else. Can MS Photos
handle that?

c) You have to install a program on the computer, an app on the phone,
then start each one and press F1 to connect, but it's so easy to use
after that it's well worth it.

My Phone Explorer is still great for moving files, photos and all the
others, back or forth or synching. For writing and sending texts while
using the full-size keyboard, for updating the contact list and copying
back or forth or synching and lots of other things I haven't tried yet.
And it works either with a cable or with wifi or bluetooth. It does
not work with the semaphore.

Note that selfies are reversed left to right.

[snip long explanation]

I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way? :-)

--
Chris Green
·

Chris Green wrote:

> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?

My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi (which I
suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Chris Green wrote:
>
> > I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
> > auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>
> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi (which I
> suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).

I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

Chris Green wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>> Chris Green wrote:
>>
>>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>>
>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>
> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)

+1
I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.

-p

Piet wrote:

> Chris Green wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>>>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>>>
>>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>>
>> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>
> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.

guess all you like, or ask me if there are any images that I'm bothered about
being "private", I enabled this, I would disable it if it bothered me.

On 17/02/2022 12:04, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Piet wrote:
>>
>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>>>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).

Do you use that camera facility, and does it actually work? I ask
because my fairly new Nikon D5600 camera claims to have WiFi, but in
practise it's barely practicable. What happens is that, under Bluetooth
control, it can become a hotspot, but I can't change the IP address
range it broadcasts, and it happens to be in the 192.168.1.* range,
which is exactly the same as the default of a great many people's
routers, including mine. Hence if my PC tries to connect to the
camera's WiFi, while still cabled to my router, it becomes confused,
fails to connect to the camera anyway, but also loses all connectivity
with everything else via the LAN! It's true I could reconfigure the
router, but it's a PITA which can easily be avoided by connecting the
camera with a USB cable, which of course is what I do instead. Hence
its much vaunted WiFi capability is in fact useless to me, and I suspect
a great many other people.

>>> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>>
>> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
>> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.

+1, it wouldn't be a route I would take, but that's Andy's choice, not ours.

> guess all you like, or ask me if there are any images that I'm bothered
> about being "private", I enabled this, I would disable it if it bothered
> me.

Another aspect of it that may be more concerning is that you may lose
some or all copyright once you put it in the cloud. There's probably
something in the T&C of the cloud service that gives them the right to
trawl your data for 'useful' metadata, in other words, data than can be
monetised. Never having used a cloud service, I can't be sure, but
fresh from finally getting to the end of Shoshana Zuboff's tome "The Age
Of Surveillance Capitalism", which gives many similar examples, that's
what I would expect.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2/17/22 04:45, this is what Chris Green wrote:
> [snip long explanation]
>
> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way? :-)
>
+1
Connect via USB, Open file explorer and explore the phone. It works on all OSs (not sure about MAC).
Heck I'm on linux and I can do it.

Also my image browser on Android has an option to be a web server and gives me an IP and I can pull up a browser and put in the IP and
explore the phone that way too.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:59:01 +0100, Piet wrote:
>
> Chris Green wrote:
> > Andy Burns wrote:
> >> Chris Green wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
> >>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
> >>
> >> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
> >> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
> >
> > I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>
> +1
> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.

"There's no such thing as the cloud; it's just someone else's
computer."

I can't remember who said that, but it's wise words.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:45:15 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:

>I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way? :-)

And I never do it that way. I put the card (or cards, one at a time,
if there are several--which there often is if I've been away on
vacation) into a card reader which I then plug into a USB port, and
copy them from there.

Java Jive wrote:

> another aspect of it that may be more concerning is that you may lose some or all
> copyright once you put it in the cloud

It's a private area of my google drive, not a public website like flickr, if I
create a shareable link to an individual photo, or a public folder, I believe
that would grant google rights to distribute those images, but not any rights to
my intellectual property.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 05:48:27 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:

>>>>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>>>>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>>>>
>>>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>>>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>>>
>>> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>>
>> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
>> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.

My goal is always free easy file transfer both ways between all platforms.

Given every post should add value where Andy knows more about the cloud than
I do. I've tested (almost?) _every_ method known to man to copy files
between Android & Windows, well, except for the cloud & Windows-proprietary
stuff, but if you know of any non-cloud or Windows-proprietary methods that
I did not test (and list below, from memory), let me know I goofed up.

The goal is to list _every_ method known to man in this post or corrections.

In fact, I just ran a _new_ test (of sorts) just yesterday of seeing what
happens if I _MOVE_ every single visible file & folder on my $100 old 64GB +
64GB sdcard Android Moto G7 to Windows (yes, move!) and it worked perfectly
as a backup (for my purposes) over USB. Interestingly, the $100 G7 still
works (seemingly perfectly?) even after that move (need to test more).

I did that all over USB (after running on-the-phone backups such as Nova
free homescreen backups, and APK archivers, and the like of course).

The point is each method has advantages & disadvantages, e.g., the adb
methods allow non-root access to _system_ files (e.g., /etc/hosts) which
other methods just don't allow, while the cloud methods allow non-local file
transfers, and the WiFi methods can cross floors, while the USB methods are
trivially simple, fast, private, and reliable, and the FTP & SMB methods
allow Windows default network access while the WebDav methods allow mounting
the Android file system as a bona-fide Windows drive letter, etc.

Looking at respondents, I respect both Stan and Andy, but as a micky
constantly pollutes the a.h.r newsgroup with off-topic political trolls, I
can only thank him, as the OP, for this thread of his actually being on
topic.

In keeping with the mantra to always add value to the Usenet team sport, and
knowing there are pros & cons to each & every method, I would like to list
the ways that I can copy _both ways_ from Android to/from my Windows PC.
1. USB default (MTP or, less and less lately, PTP)
2. USB command-line (adb)(libmtp)
3. Wi-Fi protocols (FTP)(HTTP)(SMB)(WebDAV)
4. Wi-Fi foss (NitroShare)(KDEConnect)
5. Wi-Fi proprietary (Kies) (Wi-Fi Connect)
6. Wi-Fi platform (any new Windows 10/11 Phone stuff?)
7. Cloud (Google 15GB) (iCloud 5GB) (OneDrive 5GB)
8. sdcard (plug & play)

Note I've tested every method above save for the cloud & Windows default
methods, but I might have missed a method or ten so if others know more than
I do (which I'm hoping is a challenge that someone here does) then please do
edify all of us by adding more value to this post.

The goal would be to list every known useful method of transferring files
(both ways if possible) to and from the entire visible file system of both
platforms (bearing in mind some methods above are read-only to the system of
Android but they can still copy those system files, such as /etc/hosts).

Please add value so all benefit from every post.
--
We're always assuming non-rooted devices unless otherwise specified.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:13:35 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

>> another aspect of it that may be more concerning is that you may lose some or all
>> copyright once you put it in the cloud
>
> It's a private area of my google drive, not a public website like flickr, if I
> create a shareable link to an individual photo, or a public folder, I believe
> that would grant google rights to distribute those images, but not any rights to
> my intellectual property.

With respect to US & world (rather diverse) copyright laws, the Usenet
newsgroup rec.photo.digital may be more apropos, but, as I recall, you
_never_ lose your copyright rights merely by transferring a file, although
the place you transfer them to "may" force such a commitment (I suspect
that's doubtful, though, just on pragmatics alone).

�till, every post is an opportunity to increase our knowledge, so, searching:

*Copyright Law: If You Want to Use Material on the Internet*
<https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-protection/>
"Each day, people post vast quantities of creative material on the
Internet. Material that is available for downloading by anyone who
has the right computer equipment. Because the information is stored
somewhere on an Internet server, it is fixed in a tangible medium
and potentially qualifies for copyright protection.

Whether it does, in fact, qualify depends on other factors that you
would have no way of knowing about, such as when the work was first
published (which affects the need for a copyright notice),
whether the copyright in the work has been renewed (for works published
before 1978), whether the work is a work made for hire (which affects
the length of the copyright) and whether the copyright owner intends
to dedicate the work to the public domain.

If you want to download the material for use in your own work, you
should be cautious. It's best to track down the author of the material
and ask for permission. Generally, you can claim a fair use right for
using a very small portion of text for commentary, scholarship or
similar purposes."

I skimmed a few others, but often the best answer is "it depends".
*All About Online Images Copyright*
<https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/guide-copyright-fair-use-laws-online-images/>
--
Every post to Usenet should purposefully helpfully strive to add value.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:39:19 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 17/02/2022 12:04, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> Piet wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>>>>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>
>Do you use that camera facility, and does it actually work? I ask
>because my fairly new Nikon D5600 camera claims to have WiFi, but in
>practise it's barely practicable. What happens is that, under Bluetooth
>control, it can become a hotspot,

Is that the only option? Hotspot certainly doesn't sound like what you
want. In fact, Bluetooth doesn't sound like what you want. See if you
can go directly to the WiFi menu and then see if there's an option to
connect to your existing WiFi network.

>but I can't change the IP address
>range it broadcasts, and it happens to be in the 192.168.1.* range,
>which is exactly the same as the default of a great many people's
>routers, including mine. Hence if my PC tries to connect to the
>camera's WiFi, while still cabled to my router, it becomes confused,
>fails to connect to the camera anyway, but also loses all connectivity
>with everything else via the LAN! It's true I could reconfigure the
>router, but it's a PITA which can easily be avoided by connecting the
>camera with a USB cable, which of course is what I do instead. Hence
>its much vaunted WiFi capability is in fact useless to me, and I suspect
>a great many other people.
>
>>>> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>>>
>>> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
>>> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.
>
>+1, it wouldn't be a route I would take, but that's Andy's choice, not ours.
>
>> guess all you like, or ask me if there are any images that I'm bothered
>> about being "private", I enabled this, I would disable it if it bothered
>> me.
>
>Another aspect of it that may be more concerning is that you may lose
>some or all copyright once you put it in the cloud. There's probably
>something in the T&C of the cloud service that gives them the right to
>trawl your data for 'useful' metadata, in other words, data than can be
>monetised. Never having used a cloud service, I can't be sure, but
>fresh from finally getting to the end of Shoshana Zuboff's tome "The Age
>Of Surveillance Capitalism", which gives many similar examples, that's
>what I would expect.

I've noticed that the people with the strongest opinions about new
technologies are frequently people who haven't actually used those
technologies.

People who would never use cloud storage because it means "using someone
else's computer" don't seem to have a problem using someone else's
computer to access the Internet and everything else it has to offer. For
most of us, the entire Internet is someone else's computer.

In article <ar3t0hti515vl58q1tp87ishekn92ljfen@4ax.com>, Char Jackson
<none@none.invalid> wrote:

> >
> >Another aspect of it that may be more concerning is that you may lose
> >some or all copyright once you put it in the cloud. There's probably
> >something in the T&C of the cloud service that gives them the right to
> >trawl your data for 'useful' metadata, in other words, data than can be
> >monetised. Never having used a cloud service, I can't be sure, but
> >fresh from finally getting to the end of Shoshana Zuboff's tome "The Age
> >Of Surveillance Capitalism", which gives many similar examples, that's
> >what I would expect.
>
> I've noticed that the people with the strongest opinions about new
> technologies are frequently people who haven't actually used those
> technologies.

very much true, and they don't fully understand how any of it works
either.

> People who would never use cloud storage because it means "using someone
> else's computer" don't seem to have a problem using someone else's
> computer to access the Internet and everything else it has to offer. For
> most of us, the entire Internet is someone else's computer.

email sits on someone else's computer and traverses various others on
its journey.

spam filtering, which just about every isp does, requires scanning the
contents, although it's automated.

On 2/17/22 05:59, Piet wrote:
> Chris Green wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>>>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>>>
>>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>>
>> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>
> +1
> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.
>
> -p

They may SAY those pictures are always available, but that means nothing
when the company fails or discontinues the service.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." - -
anonymous

On 17/02/2022 18:37, nospam wrote:
>
> In article <ar3t0hti515vl58q1tp87ishekn92ljfen@4ax.com>, Char Jackson
> <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>>

[Attribution broken: Java Jive, not Char Jackson, wrote:]

>>> Another aspect of it that may be more concerning is that you may lose
>>> some or all copyright once you put it in the cloud. There's probably
>>> something in the T&C of the cloud service that gives them the right to
>>> trawl your data for 'useful' metadata, in other words, data than can be
>>> monetised. Never having used a cloud service, I can't be sure, but
>>> fresh from finally getting to the end of Shoshana Zuboff's tome "The Age
>>> Of Surveillance Capitalism", which gives many similar examples, that's
>>> what I would expect.
>>
>> I've noticed that the people with the strongest opinions about new
>> technologies are frequently people who haven't actually used those
>> technologies.
>
> very much true, and they don't fully understand how any of it works
> either.

I've noticed that often people don't bother to read, or quote, ng posts
properly, let alone the small print in the 'uncontract' of an online
supplier's T&C.

>> People who would never use cloud storage because it means "using someone
>> else's computer" don't seem to have a problem using someone else's
>> computer to access the Internet and everything else it has to offer. For
>> most of us, the entire Internet is someone else's computer.
>
> email sits on someone else's computer and traverses various others on
> its journey.
>
> spam filtering, which just about every isp does, requires scanning the
> contents, although it's automated.

But in none of those situations, supposedly at least, do you allow
others to make money out of your data, nor lose copyright of it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2/17/22 07:48, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:59:01 +0100, Piet wrote:
>>
>> Chris Green wrote:
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>>>>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>>>>
>>>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>>>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>>>
>>> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>>
>> +1
>> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
>> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.
>
> "There's no such thing as the cloud; it's just someone else's
> computer."

And now someone else in controlling access to YOUR pictures.

> I can't remember who said that, but it's wise words.

On 2/17/22 09:36, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:45:15 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way? :-)
>
>
> And I never do it that way. I put the card (or cards, one at a time,
> if there are several--which there often is if I've been away on
> vacation) into a card reader which I then plug into a USB port, and
> copy them from there.

I do that. One reason is that it's usually easier (since I'd have to go
into another room for a suitable USB cable).

If I plug one of my cameras into a Windows system, I get an annoying
prompt to install a driver. The driver is overcomplicated and hard to
use. On Linux, plugging the camera in works perfectly, it becomes
another drive.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." - -
anonymous

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> They may SAY those pictures are always available, but that means nothing when
> the company fails or discontinues the service.

I've still got copies on the phone, or the camera SD card.

In article <FTwPJ.37597$Y1A7.29618@fx43.iad>, Mark Lloyd
<not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> > I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
> > and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.
> >

where it's located doesn't matter, and it's usually in multiple
locations anyway, thereby eliminating any risk of natural disaster,
making it *much* safer than a local copy.

> They may SAY those pictures are always available, but that means nothing
> when the company fails or discontinues the service.

major cloud providers, such as google, microsoft, apple, amazon,
facebook, etc., aren't about to fail or discontinue their offerings any
time soon, so this is not a major worry, but if for some reason one of
them were to shut down, they would give ample warning to download
content beforehand.

also, the cloud should never be the *only* copy, nor should a local
hard drive, which could also fail (and is far more likely to do so. in
the unlikely event a cloud provider or hard drive suddenly fails or
disappears, there will be other copies. no big deal. a hassle to be
sure, but nothing will be lost.

In article <sum5ta$dao$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> [Attribution broken: Java Jive, not Char Jackson, wrote:]

attribution was not broken. his text was single-quoted and directly
attributed. yours was double-quoted and kept for context so that what
he wrote made more sense. usenet 101.

>
> >> People who would never use cloud storage because it means "using someone
> >> else's computer" don't seem to have a problem using someone else's
> >> computer to access the Internet and everything else it has to offer. For
> >> most of us, the entire Internet is someone else's computer.
> >
> > email sits on someone else's computer and traverses various others on
> > its journey.
> >
> > spam filtering, which just about every isp does, requires scanning the
> > contents, although it's automated.
>
> But in none of those situations, supposedly at least, do you allow
> others to make money out of your data, nor lose copyright of it.

google used to scan email for ads.

email metadata is often monetized

isps track dns for ads.

there are others.

your data *is* highly valuable so it's mined, and in ways that are
*really* difficult to avoid.

On 17/02/2022 16:13, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> another aspect of it that may be more concerning is that you may lose
>> some or all copyright once you put it in the cloud
>
> It's a private area of my google drive, not a public website like
> flickr, if I create a shareable link to an individual photo, or a public
> folder, I believe that would grant google rights to distribute those
> images, but not any rights to my intellectual property.

That means absolutely nothing, I'm afraid. If Google already reads your
supposedly private googlemail, as it does, very probably it scans your
supposedly private cloud data too. Did you ever actually read the T&C
that you agreed to?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:15:21 -0600, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2/17/22 09:36, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:45:15 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way? :-)
>>
>>
>> And I never do it that way. I put the card (or cards, one at a time,
>> if there are several--which there often is if I've been away on
>> vacation) into a card reader which I then plug into a USB port, and
>> copy them from there.
>
>I do that. One reason is that it's usually easier (since I'd have to go
>into another room for a suitable USB cable).

Sometimes it's nice to have a second cable so that one can be kept near
each computer.

>If I plug one of my cameras into a Windows system, I get an annoying
>prompt to install a driver. The driver is overcomplicated and hard to
>use. On Linux, plugging the camera in works perfectly, it becomes
>another drive.

Can you dismiss the suggestion and proceed to use it as another drive,
just as Linux does it? I don't have any cameras that give such a prompt
so I can't test it myself. Currently, my cameras are smartphones, and
they don't prompt me to do anything when I connect them to a PC.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:04:57 -0600, Sam E <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

>On 2/17/22 07:48, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:59:01 +0100, Piet wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from the
>>>>>> auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>>>>>
>>>>> My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>>>>> (which I suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>>>>
>>>> I don't want my pictures on the cloud thank you! :-)
>>>
>>> +1
>>> I guess Andy has no idea where "in the cloud" is physically located
>>> and under whose control and which jurisdiction that location falls.
>>
>> "There's no such thing as the cloud; it's just someone else's
>> computer."
>
>And now someone else in controlling access to YOUR pictures.

It's hard to look forward in time to see if that will ever become an
issue, but we can look backward and see that it's not a serious concern.
No cloud storage provider should have your only copy of anything. There
are many cloud providers and you aren't limited to just one of them, and
of course there are lots of local, non-cloud, storage options that can
be used, either instead of or in addition to, cloud storage.

>> I can't remember who said that, but it's wise words.