Subject: Re: gdk-pixbuf vs. ImageMagick
From: Paul Rohr (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 12:38:24 CDT
At 12:57 PM 4/26/01 -0400, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>At 09:34 AM 4/26/2001 -0700, Paul Rohr wrote:
>>If he's also just talking
>>about #2, then we find ourselves in the truly odd situation where the only
>>person seriously considering #4 is ... Leonard, our resident IM guru.
> It's not as simple as you make it out to be Paul. Read my message
>entitled "More on Imaging"...Those questions and their answers also play a
>big role in what direction(s) we take on this issue.
>P.S. I don't really care one way or the other whether you use IM or not. I
>DO care that we make the right technical decisions for the right reasons.
Sorry for mischaracterizing you.
My main goal was to provoke any remaining XP gdk-pixbuf folks (if there ever
were any) to start making their case. I actually meant to compliment you
for the work you're doing to consider the merits of alternate approaches,
but it came out backwards. Whoops!
I admire your focus on making the best technical decision for sound reasons.
I think that's the standard we all strive to meet, and you've been setting
an especially fine example.
It's a lot easier to just be an advocate for one position than it is to
understand and fairly summarize other people's positions. (He says,
speaking from experience.) I really appreciate the efforts by you and
others on this list to really get to the heart of the kinds of technical and
policy decisions we're wrestling with here.
Keep up the good work!
PS: As my blitz of recent posts suggest, I'm still digging through a pile
of back email. A few of your posts (including that one) are nearing the top
of my pile.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Apr 26 2001 - 12:30:52 CDT