ImageMagick/Graphicsmagick
As the lead developer of ImageMagick I would like to clear up a few misconceptions being stated on this list. 1. Harold L Hunt II says: This package [GraphicsMagick] will replace ImageMagick for various reasons. One of those reasons is that the GM folks are committed to provide ABI stability and proper version numbers, whereas IM is not making such a commitment and has already made various arbitrary changes to ABI version numbers. This is something Bob Friensenhahn is trying to convince people of but it is simply not true. http://studio.imagemagick.org/ states our project goal of: ImageMagick's focus is on performance, minimizing bugs, and providing stable APIs and ABIs. Bob Friensenhahn does not speak for ImageMagick. He tends to diminish ImageMagick in various mailing lists I assume in order to promote his ImageMagick clone project, GraphicsMagick. 2. Daniel Reed says: GaphicsMagick is a feature-for-feature replacement of ImageMagick. This is simply not true. GraphicsMagick is missing many features that ImageMagick has and if you run a program or script against the two you will in many cases get different results. 3. Daniel Reed says: I considered ImageMagick's to be votes for GraphicsMagick. Why vote at all if you are going to usurp the votes? A vote for ImageMagick should remain with ImageMagick. If you want votes for GraphicsMagick have a separate vote. If you choose to support GraphicsMagick instead of ImageMagick, fine. However, base your decision on facts, not misconceptions.
Re: ImageMagick/Graphicsmagick
How many developers have you still got? There doesn't seem to be much evidence of other developers on the project anymore. Clearly you have made up your mind so it seems a waste of time to answer questions you don't really care about but here goes. We have 7 developers mostly part time. I am the original author and full-time developer of ImageMagick and a majority of the GraphicsMagick was written by me. We had a discussion on the cygwin-apps mailing list; unfortunately, the discussion might not have always had ImageMagick in the subject, so you might not be able to find all of the messages. The gist of the I found them all. discussion was that, regardless of stated intentions, the way that ImageMagick was handling ABI version numbers was going to cause problems on Cygwin. Someone else can pipe in with the details if you ask again, but I was satisified with the results of the discussion. GraphicsMagick has the same ABI versioning numbers as ImageMagick. ImageMagick starts at 6 rather than 1 since previous versions of ImageMagick was at 5. Are we not adults capable of making our own decisions? Bob had nothing to do with this discussion and he has nothing to do with the fact that there is a problem with the way that ImageMagick is handling library version numbers. Bob chimed in on your mailing list and I was responding to that message. Hasn't been a problem for us so far. If you want to prove us wrong, you'd better be prepared to submit some step-by-step examples of how to generate such cases and describe why the differing results are meaningful. Assuming that you do that, why should we care? We've only I could submit step-by-step examples but why waste my time since you do claim you do not care. had the ImageMagick package for less than a month and, quite frankly, it is easier to maintain the GraphicsMagick package because the build files don't create empty directories that I have to go back and delete by hand, among other things. That's an excellant criteria for choosing a package for the entire CYGWIN community :-). Nope. I packaged ImageMagick, then I found GraphicsMagick and was convinced (by the code, not rhetoric) that it is superior for our purposes. I will not continue to package ImageMagick; I will only continue to package GraphicsMagick. Again, you have not investigating the best solution here. You have made up you mind based on just a few criteria and you are shoving it down everyones throat. Given your strong statements and clear unwillingness to discuss which project is best based on merit, don't bother replying. I will not waste anymore of the CYGWIN community's time on a dead subject. I will tell the CYGWIN community that ImageMagick Studio intends to have full support of ImageMagick 5.5.7 and 5.5.8 Beta for CYGWIN and both source and binaries will be available on ftp://ftp.imagemagick.org/pub/ImageMagick.
ImageMagick
Now that I understand the Cygwin community a bit better, I propose a solution that should satisfy everyone. I am the original author and current primary maintainer of ImageMagick. I will spend some time ensuring ImageMagick complies with the general Cygwin package requirements and then submit it as a contributed package as detailed in http://cygwin.com/setup.html. Any help/suggestions in how to properly package ImageMagick for Cygwin is welcome. Thanks for your consideration. John Cristy http://www.imagemagick.org
ImageMagick/Graphicsmagick
As the lead developer of ImageMagick I would like to clear up a few misconceptions being stated on this list. 1. Harold L Hunt II says: This package [GraphicsMagick] will replace ImageMagick for various reasons. One of those reasons is that the GM folks are committed to provide ABI stability and proper version numbers, whereas IM is not making such a commitment and has already made various arbitrary changes to ABI version numbers. This is something Bob Friensenhahn is trying to convince people of but it is simply not true. http://studio.imagemagick.org/ states our project goal of: ImageMagick's focus is on performance, minimizing bugs, and providing stable APIs and ABIs. Bob Friensenhahn does not speak for ImageMagick. He tends to diminish ImageMagick in various mailing lists I assume in order to promote his ImageMagick clone project, GraphicsMagick. 2. Daniel Reed says: GaphicsMagick is a feature-for-feature replacement of ImageMagick. This is simply not true. GraphicsMagick is missing many features that ImageMagick has and if you run a program or script against the two you will in many cases get different results. 3. Daniel Reed says: I considered ImageMagick's to be votes for GraphicsMagick. Why vote at all if you are going to usurp the votes? A vote for ImageMagick should remain with ImageMagick. If you want votes for GraphicsMagick have a separate vote. If you choose to support GraphicsMagick instead of ImageMagick, fine. However, base your decision on facts, not misconceptions. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
ImageMagick
Now that I understand the Cygwin community a bit better, I propose a solution that should satisfy everyone. I am the original author and current primary maintainer of ImageMagick. I will spend some time ensuring ImageMagick complies with the general Cygwin package requirements and then submit it as a contributed package as detailed in http://cygwin.com/setup.html. Any help/suggestions in how to properly package ImageMagick for Cygwin is welcome. Thanks for your consideration. John Cristy http://www.imagemagick.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
