On Sat, 27 May 2006, Michael Natterer wrote: > Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:51:22 +0200 > From: Michael Natterer <mitch@xxxxxxxx> > To: Alan Horkan <horkana@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: New microsoft image format > > On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 08:08 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote: > > On Fri, 26 May 2006, Nathan Summers wrote: > > > > > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:52:44 -0400 > > > From: Nathan Summers <rockwalrus@xxxxxxxxx> > > > To: Alan Horkan <horkana@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Not Photoshop <gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: New microsoft image format > > > > > > On 5/26/06, Alan Horkan <horkana@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > If you hit the "Do not agree" option it will still let you read the > > > > specifications without agreeing. I expect they'll change that soon > > > > though. > > > > > > Is there anything interesting in there? > > > > In my opinion no, not really but you might find it more interesting. The > > ideas all seem to be more or less covered by other existing standards like > > JPEG 2000 primarily and various others. The summer of code work on Jpeg 2000 support should provide a good counter point and give one less reason for the new Microsoft image format to gain an audience. More contributors are preferable to non contributing users but if it keeps them away from proprietary formats which hurt us in the long run the network effect of many users turn a small difference into a big defense. > > (Frankly I'm more interested in XPS/Metro which attempts to replace PDF, > > and XAML/WVG/Avalon/whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week attempt to > > replace SVG.) > > Really? I'm not interested at all. Zero percent. > To me that looks like the usual M$ attempts to "replace" > just about anything that other people have done. That is the part that interested me, I'll be interested to see it fail hopefully. I'm not saying the format is necessarily any good but it is interesting to see Microsoft try to reinvent the wheel. I hope the drawing part of XAML to end up deader than VML. Since acrobat reader is so horribly slow by default I think XPS might stand a decent chance of carving out at least a small niche but perhaps a windows port of Evince (or KPDF or or ...) would give diserning users a faster alternative to Adobe and reduce there interest in what Microsoft might offer. > It's already ambivalent to have GIMP running on windows > at all, I wholeheartedly support more Free Software for those still stuck on a proprietary Operating System. It is what put me on the path to using more Free Software and a free operating system. There are times when I dont have the choice of operating system but I do still have the option of installing additional software. > I'm not interested in taking this any further by supporting these > formats, and thereby supporting M$. I wonder if creating importers for these formats would reinforce them or help get users away from them? Of course it all depends on if a developer decides it is interesting enough to implement. Free and open standards are very important. It is shame we dont yet have a suitable standard for sharing layered raster images. -- Alan _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
