[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?

From: Chris Pugh
Subject: Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:39:25 +0100

On 20 April 2010 20:24, filip sound <address@hidden> wrote:
> well, if I'd donate x euro, would that mean that some developer will focus
> on a new release?

It may well be a very strong incentive, but, and has been said previously,
some Open Source project developers simply don't have the resources
or time to bug-fixing and update as aften as they would wish to.

> if there is no motivation otherwise, the sense of open source got lost here.

One has to live before one can do what one would like to do.

>  to me the last release (0.9.0) is not usable since it produces more objects
>than its predecessor with the same pdf input.

You are talking specifically about pdf2swf rather than swftools as a whole.
0.9.0 is usuable.   Maybe it doesn't have every feature you'd wish it to have,
maybe it isn't developed as fast as you'd wish it to be, but then again, you
and your 'boss' chose to use this tool knowing it's limitations and development
state.  So, I really don't see how you can complain too much.

> so, i  need to see improvement before I'm willing to donate. my boss already
> donated and i'm going to tell him again as soon as i get a version running
> that is better for my needs than the current one.

Care to humour us again and detail exactly where the limitations ( as far as
you system is concerned ) are?  How about using the Wiki or this task, then
posting the link to it here?

> anyhow, thank you for your time and for swftools. without it, we be in deep
> trouble i guess.

.. the kind of trouble that is caused by running before walking, speaking before
thinking, saying we can, before finding out that we are not able to? ;o)



> filip
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Chris Pugh <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 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?
>>    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/swftools-common/2010-01/msg00037.html
>> > 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
>> foc,
>> and invariably want it yesterday?   Or am I being a little unfair?)
>> Chris.
>> >
>> > Greetings
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Von: address@hidden
>> > [mailto:address@hidden Im Auftrag
>> > von
>> > filip sound
>> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2010 16:48
>> > An: SWF Tools
>> > Betreff: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > hi,
>> >
>> > i'm wondering if the development of pdf2swf is dead or still going on. i
>> > can
>> > see minor fixes for single pdfs but not a new mayor release for a long
>> > time.
>> > will there be anything happening? will there be a version 1.0 some day?
>> >
>> > please let me know,
>> >   filip

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]