Hi,
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 GD? It is one of
the poorest tools I have ever seen.
Seriously:
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 GD? It
* 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
Hi,
If you think that imagemagick is great, so don't you write an extention for it
yourself.
Other developers can deside on buildtime which image library they use.
Here are some additionals arguments:
I have, and so have all sorts of other people. Look at packages like
jpgraph. GD does enough. It is a clean and simple library. The ImageMagick
library is full of buffer overruns and crash bugs. Try drawing a big
circle, for example. The thing writes all over memory it isn't supposed
to. If it
* 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
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, so
+1
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:48 AM
To: Daniel Lorch
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[3]: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!
I have, and so have all sorts of other people. Look at packages like
jpgraph. GD does enough
Hi,
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
I didn't know imagemagick's sources were of *THAT* bad quality.
Rasmus' arguments convinced me not to move to
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
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
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 good idea
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 sense
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 Friday, 12
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 sense
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 the
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 current
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: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!
Well, I don't actually see a license problem for non-LZW compressed
gifs
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.
If there will be no gif
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
[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 pictures uploaded there are from programs and cameras that default
f to GIF. I'm
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 very
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's fork GD!
f It only reads
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,
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 sure
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 violate a patent
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 will
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,
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 PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's fork GD!
Date: Fri
Hi,
Yes, the intention was never to remove the ability to link against the
system GD lib.
-Rasmus
why not replace GD by imagemagick which is better anyway?
http://www.imagemagick.org
http://pear.php.net/manual/en/pecl.imagick.php
-daniel
--
PHP Development Mailing List
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
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.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
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, apply the various
outstanding patches and default to building
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 http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
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, apply
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
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
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 to
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?
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,
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 http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit:
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
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 configuration nightmare
43 matches
Mail list logo
