On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Graham Samuel wrote: > Thanks Warren, this is good stuff. As my primary target is Windows I think > I can use existing binaries, but of course I remain interested in a Mac > version, which I have now made work experimentally. > > I did not realise that MacPorts will create a 'fully functional binary', > so thanks very much for that info. I have some hopes after all for my > geography teachers. > > <rant> If this is the case, then why the heck haven't the producers of > ImageMagick gone so far as to do this? After all they have produced a > perfectly functional .exe of the latest version for Windows users. Maybe in > their Unix-type world the idea of running MacPorts, which involves > installing the whole of Xcode on a Mac (several Gb) and then waiting over > an hour for that program to create a viable version of IM, is all in a > day's work, but it seems odd to say the least if one's motivation for using > IM is simply to convert some graphic files from one format to another… as I > have said elsewhere there seems to be a different philosophy at work among > *nix jocks compared to us simple-minded users of consumer-level > environments.</rant> > > Thanks again > > Graham
While it is true that the makers of ImageMagick could do a better job of packaging a minimal installation of the binaries for Mac, the cluttering of our own Dev systems is part of the process of learning what our options are. As you made a backup before installing Lion, you could CCC your drive before installig IM (for testing), then restore afterwards. Yes, it takes time, but is probably worthwhile if no uninstaller was provided. IM packaging is an example of bad end-user empathy. It is our responsibility as developers to deliver our products in an intuitive format the end-user has come to expect. If we, the developers experience some hardship in building that experience, it is just part of the job, and a process we must endure to satisfy OUR users. That said, not all products coming from the *nix world are as complicated. Many of them now provide GUI installers, and those will be used by end-users because of that simplicity. IM is targeted more to Devs to include for back-end processing. Have you considered a scenario where you ONLY deliver a LC application which accesses a CGI server to off-load the image processing. ImageMagick would run only in a single server instance, and your app could FTP the users PDFs into a watched folder, then download the resulting PNGs to be displayed in the LC application. ˜Roger _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode