Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Daniel, it's all nice and good but there's no production version of ext/imagick available. Until this isn't done, everything else is waste of time ;) - Markus On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 03:04:51PM +0200, Daniel Lorch wrote : > Hi, > > > If you think that imagemagick is great,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

* Daniel Lorch wrote: > If GD was so great, why do products like typo3 and "gallery" rather > use imagemagick? Maybe because it's more feature-rich, supports 68 > formats and can do ALOT of effects? Yep, but I don't see a reason why GD should be thrown away. -- PHP Development Mailing List

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

* Daniel Lorch wrote: > Have you ever tried to do something productive with GD? See http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph/ (yes, Vagrant seems to be the counterpart of JPGraph regarding Imlib compatibility and general complexity, but I think JPGraph ist the better one) -- PHP-Support * realitätsnahe Per

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:46:56PM +0200, Daniel Lorch wrote: > >> why not replace GD by imagemagick which is better anyway? > > > Have you looked under the skirts of ImageMagick? It is one of the > > poorest-written libraries I have seen. > > Have you ever tried to do something productive with

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

ext/gd is more popular then imagick. And, seriously, I wouldn't use imagick if I've read the code carefully. It's not yet production quality. On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:54:11AM +0200, Daniel Lorch wrote : > Hi, > > > Yes, the intention was never to remove the ability to link against

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Hi, I don't, I don't! I don't like GIF, I'm just saying that unfortunately it's there! The Sony CD300 spits out animated GIFs and statics GIFs. Fab. >From: Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: fabwash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: [EMAIL PR

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Hi, > Well, as far as I understand it, simply reading an LZW compressed GIF > would not violate the license. It is software that creates LZW-compressed > GIF files that need to pay up. So, we could still support GIF and > manipulate LZW-compressed files, but once we read it in and manipulate it

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Yes, the intention was never to remove the ability to link against the system GD lib. -Rasmus On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Robinson, Mike wrote: > Rasmus Lerdorf writes: > > > Well, supporting writing regular GIF files is not something > > we can legally do. It is not us making the decision. There wi

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Title: RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD! Rasmus Lerdorf writes: > Well, supporting writing regular GIF files is not something > we can legally do.  It is not us making the decision.  There will > definitely be no writing of LZW-GIF files in PHP.  I am not > willing to blatantly

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

I don't think I have ever seen a digital camera that spits out GIF files. Why in the world would you want to dither your world down to 8-bit colour? And GD doesn't support animated gifs anyway. -R On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, fabwash wrote: > +1 ! > Agreed with GIF format, look at facelink.com, i'm sur

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Well, supporting writing regular GIF files is not something we can legally do. It is not us making the decision. There will definitely be no writing of LZW-GIF files in PHP. I am not willing to blatantly violate a patent that is being actively enforced. -Rasmus On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Robinson,

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

source code for Windows. -- The same monkeys, given 5 minutes more would produce "Earth in the Balance" -Original Message- From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 8:17 AM To: fabwash Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Let

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

f>> It only reads the first frame, so it's not really supported, but f>> the point was that there are a lot of GIF images around there f>> (unfortunately), either static or animated. I also hope it dies f>> like BMP, or even the stupid AOL ART format! Well, I think animated GIFs will be a relic v

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

v Malyshev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "fabwash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD! > f>> Agreed with GIF format, look at facelink.com, i'm sure 80% of the > f>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

f>> Agreed with GIF format, look at facelink.com, i'm sure 80% of the f>> pictures uploaded there are from programs and cameras that default f>> to GIF. I'm not really savy with graphics but isn't GIF the only f>> format that allows for animated pictures? If you mean digital cameras, they usually

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Title: RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD! Rasmus Lerdorf writes: > Well, I don't actually see a license problem for non-LZW > compressed gifs. But I am still not sure supporting GIF > is a productive thing to do.  The format needs to die.  No > sense helping it stay alive.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

--- From: "Edin Kadribasic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Markus Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Stig S. Bakken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 2:49 AM Subject: Re

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

I don't see how it would be a problem for PNG. Who wants to go back to images limited to 8-bit colour and no alpha channel? GIF is an outdated format, I don't see it making a comeback in its current form. -Rasmus On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Lukas Smith wrote: > > For a good explanation of the curren

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

> For a good explanation of the current status. They verify there that > reading of LZW-GIF files is perfectly ok. It is only creating them that > is an issue. > > The patent does expire in 2003 though. > > -Rasmus Well 2003 isn't all that far off. That will be a serious problem for PNG when

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

> At 23:05 11/04/2002 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > On Friday, 12. April 2002 06:53, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > > Well, I don't actually see a license problem for non-LZW compressed gifs. > > > > But I am still not sure supporting GIF is a productive thing to do. The > > > > format needs to

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Was composing that same message when I received it. +1 -Original Message- From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:05 AM To: Georg Richter Cc: Markus Fischer; Stig S. Bakken; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD! > On Fr

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

At 23:05 11/04/2002 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On Friday, 12. April 2002 06:53, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > Well, I don't actually see a license problem for non-LZW compressed gifs. > > > But I am still not sure supporting GIF is a productive thing to do. The > > > format needs to die. No

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

> On Friday, 12. April 2002 06:53, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > Well, I don't actually see a license problem for non-LZW compressed gifs. > > But I am still not sure supporting GIF is a productive thing to do. The > > format needs to die. No sense helping it stay alive. > > > +1 > I think its not a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Well, as far as I understand it, simply reading an LZW compressed GIF would not violate the license. It is software that creates LZW-compressed GIF files that need to pay up. So, we could still support GIF and manipulate LZW-compressed files, but once we read it in and manipulate it, we would no

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

> Well, I don't actually see a license problem for non-LZW compressed gifs. > But I am still not sure supporting GIF is a productive thing to do. The > format needs to die. No sense helping it stay alive. In the ideal world that would be true, but 90% of the web graphics files I get from the de

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

002 12:36 AM To: Rasmus Lerdorf Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD! Yes! The end to all GD-related configure problems! Can we put the GIF support back too, please? :-) - Stig On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 00:26, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Guys, I have had enough of the GD conf

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

IMHO the same sense why you think it's good to put a GD fork into PHP. There are still users out there wo need this format. Now that we're on the steering while of GD we can make it less painless for them to use it ("PHP: ease of use, blabla") ... don't you think it might be a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

At 07:36 12/04/2002 +0200, Stig S. Bakken wrote: >Yes! The end to all GD-related configure problems! Can we put the GIF >support back too, please? :-) Not a good idea in my opinion. :) Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Well, I don't actually see a license problem for non-LZW compressed gifs. But I am still not sure supporting GIF is a productive thing to do. The format needs to die. No sense helping it stay alive. -Rasmus On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Markus Fischer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 07:36:06AM +0200,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 07:36:06AM +0200, Stig S. Bakken wrote : > Yes! The end to all GD-related configure problems! Can we put the GIF > support back too, please? :-) Wanted to ask the same :) But how's about this licensing problem, don't we run into trouble if we put GIF support in?

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:37:34AM +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote : > Hello, > > The dream :)). No more nightmares when php failed to detect the correct gd > :). > > btw, anyone know how goes the imlib ext ? Search for google on it. It's not in PHP nor in PECL and it's up to the author

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Yes! The end to all GD-related configure problems! Can we put the GIF support back too, please? :-) - Stig On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 00:26, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Guys, I have had enough of the GD configuration nightmare and the fact > that it has taken 6+ months for the Boutell folks to incorpo

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Sounds like a good idea. At 01:26 12/04/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >outstanding patches and default to building from the bundled library much >like we do with MySQL. I think GD is a popular enough extension for PHP >that it would be extremely cool to have decent truecolor GD2 support >available

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

On 11/04/02, "Rasmus Lerdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guys, I have had enough of the GD configuration nightmare and the fact > that it has taken 6+ months for the Boutell folks to incorporate various > patches that have been sent their way. > > I propose that we roll the GD library into PHP,

RE: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!

Hello, The dream :)). No more nightmares when php failed to detect the correct gd :). btw, anyone know how goes the imlib ext ? pa -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php