|Subject:||Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?|
|Date:||Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:34:47 +0530|
One might also try to be somewhat honest with the ( prospective )
customers! As in..
- 'This we are able to do. However, there a few features that are
not yet fully implemented due to the limitations of our current systems.
We are working hard to improve this situation, and will keep you fully
updated as to our progress.' -.
.. ' -
As to the subject of donating time, well same also goes for myself.
I do not ( as yet ) have a thorough knowledge of c/c++, nor am I properly
familiar with PDF/Flash formats, or even for that matter Actionscript
2/3. Maybe with a spot of effort wedged in here and there, this will
all come. Who knows? ;o)
That said, just maybe a proper division of labour on the various
components would help matters along a little, rather than this all
falling on a just a few heads? In addition, further documentation
on the existing code, and how it operates on the two formats would
For some reason, the use of pdf2swf seems to be quite widespread,
I'm really not sure why - personally I can't stand all these irritating
animations such as 'flipping' ( literally ) books! However, since
this component srrms to be the main topic of interest, maybe it
should be seperated out from the other tools? Just a thought.
On 20 April 2010 20:16, Matthew Richer <address@hidden> wrote:
> It is a pretty common issue amongst FOSS software. I always make a point of
> telling management, "Hey, if you want X feature done now (say multiply
> blended transparency groups), then donate some money or contact the lead
> developers and get a price for the custom work. If you aren't willing to
> put money on it, then you'll have to wait for the developers to get around
> to it. There are doing this in their spare time and most likely cannot and
> do not make a living off of this." If I had enough knowledge on the
> language at hand and the area (PDF/Flash manipulations) I would donate some
> time myself, but alas I do not have the skill set.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Behalf Of Chris Pugh
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:24 PM
> To: Michael Haufler (scireum)
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?
> On 20 April 2010 16:09, Michael Haufler (scireum) <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Yeah this is true,
> What's all the fuss about having a One point Zero?
>> we are also waiting for the next release, and we are also willing to test
>> the release candidate (with about 220k PDF pages).
> That's a good enough incentive? Wow!! ;o) Now.. if you were to say donate
> x Euros per PDF page tested. maybe that'd be a way better one! ( Why is it
> that web sites with a commercial bias/angle still expect to be given stuff
> and invariably want it yesterday? Or am I being a little unfair?)
>> Von: email@example.com
>> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Im Auftrag von
>> filip sound
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2010 16:48
>> An: SWF Tools
>> Betreff: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?
>> i'm wondering if the development of pdf2swf is dead or still going on. i
>> see minor fixes for single pdfs but not a new mayor release for a long
>> will there be anything happening? will there be a version 1.0 some day?
>> please let me know,
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|