On the French version of its website (https://www.dxo.com/fr/about/news), DxO says Le 7 mars 2018, la société DxO Labs a choisi de se placer sous un régime d’administration judiciaire, le temps pour elle de procéder à une réorganisation interne. As it's a French company, I tend to think this is the "original" text and that the reference to Chapter 11 in the English version is just a way to render the notion of a "régime d’administration judiciaire" (literally, "a regime of judicial administration").

Mike, you have my sympathy in this situation. However, it's also important to realise that atrial fibrillation is not a big deal and you should not think of yourself as being ill. I had an episode a bit like yours in 2012 - though without the ambulance - but once my cardiologist and I had identified a suitable drug regime (bisoprolol + flecainide) the fibrillation has never recurred. I now also take an anticoagulant (dabigatran) to further reduce stroke risk. Forget the stents and bypasses mentioned by other commenters - these have nothing to do with atrial fibrillation - and avoid offers of surgery to "fix" the problem. You mustn't forget to take your medication, but otherwise this episode will soon be a distant memory.

I'm coming late to this thread - which has a lot of useful suggestions - but I would still like to make a very general point. Your headline "LR replacement photo editing software" is missing the reason why many people use LR and why it is so hard to replace. For me, LR is a tool which handles everything from the organisation of my photos, metadata, editing, printing and uploading to services like Facebook and Flickr, as well as preparing files for emailing. It's obviously possible to find other applications which can handle the editing part; it's less clear which ones could really take over the organisation of my photo collection. And the chances of finding a new tool which can import the complete metadata and editing from LR are slim. That being said, I think people who have stand-alone LR don't need to panic. I am still using LR 3.6, which runs fine. And LR 6 is still available for sale on the Adobe website (follow "view all products" and search on "Lightroom 6") - I bought the upgrade a couple of weeks ago as a precaution. There is no reason why LR 6 should not still work fine (apart from processing raw files from newer cameras) years from now. I would also like to correct some misinformation which has appeared here. LR does not ingest your image files into a database; the files are stored in the filesystem and you can structure the folders and filemenames any way you like. The LR catalogue contains the information about the files, including the metadata and the edits, but the files themselves are not "in the database" and remain perfectly accessible to other applications and to normal file management operations.

As you say, a run of almost 80 years for a magazine is a remarkable achievement. I was trying to think of other comparable examples: two which come to mind are Railroad Model Craftsman (1933) and Model Railroader (1934). Then I checked on the British Amateur Photographer and discovered that its first issue was in October 1884! I fear, though, that special-interest magazines are more and more in danger of falling behind the web when it comes to really good journalism; I know that whether I want good up to date information or deep inspiration, I am more likely to find it on TOP than in Amateur Photographer. And I say this with regret, having read the latter on and off for more than 50 years.

Mike, you said that you will send the PDF of the new edition of your book to your Patreon supporters, but what about people like me who have been supporting you through Paypal? I've been making a regular monthly payment for quite a number of years. I didn't switch to Patreon because it didn't seem necessary. [Oh, definitely. And anyone else who has mailed contributions of donations. --Mike]

Mike, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by always assuming that the answer to your computer requirements is an Apple product. Just to consider 2 arguments which might convince you to look at the PC/Windows world: - for a desktop PC, you can always have one built by a local computer outfit to match your exact needs, whether for processing power, graphics, card reader, whatever. For laptops, it's more a question of looking at the wide range of models, picking one which more or less matches and then adding memory and storage (see below). - Apple computers are significantly more expensive for memory and storage, possibly because Apple often doesn't use standard or even removeable parts. For example, according to the latest price changes described here (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/11/apple-drops-prices-for-storage-upgrade-options-on-older-macs/), an upgrade to a 1TB SSD for a 2015 MacBook Pro costs $600-$800; if you have a non-Apple computer which takes standard SSDs, a good quality 1TB drive may cost only $250. And in the non-Apple world, RAM and storage are generally removeable, so you can add capacity a couple of years later, whereas in the Apple world these components are more and more often soldered in.