On 8/26/14 12:58 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
Inkscape isn't ever going to export to jpeg.
That is their choice.
But you know, that course just makes it harder for them to get many
computer users to choose their product. If that's their choice, they
also should not be surprised at it, nor complain privately about their
program's acceptance in general.
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:21 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
> Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source
> projects have some catching up to do.
No. No. No. Open Source doesn't "catch up" it simply is what users have
invested it to be. It's not here to meet your expectations, it's hear to
allow you to meet them for yourself. Open Source isn't freeware and it's
not a charity. It's something much bigger and more important
fundamentally to how software is constructed and why users should care
about how it's made and be literally involved.
No matter who the user is, the
user comes with expectations. The
proportion of users who are capable of making changes to the software,
in one way or another, are minimal in today's world.
How it's constructed and made isn't worth much if it doesn't do the job
the user desires, and the user cannot contribute in whatever way. Even
more so, it's depressing to try to participate in a project only to be
told your concerns are not important enough to be considered.
> Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on Libre Office.
Did you try getting involved to solve the issues? If Libre Office had a
fundraiser, would you help?
I did. My only contribution could be reporting of
bugs. I'm not a
programmer, I'm a computer user, looking for software that does the job
I need. Then when it doesn't, be told your issues are not important?
Why would I donate to a fundraiser when I've been told the issue isn't
> I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source
> that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work to
> do the additional converting.
The unix model which most open source projects follow is "do one thing
well" and not "do a million things sort of ok". this is the same sort of
kind of model Apple follows. We're not going to convert raster images in
inkscape because inkscape is a vector editor and not a raster converter
tool. Using more than one tool isn't a burden on users, it's an
But often having only 1 tool is a limitation. MS seems to follow the
idea of doing a lot of things, but usually poorly. That's been their
reputation for years. If Inkscape combined vector drawing with raster
editing plus a bit of page layout/word processing capabilities, I'd
agree they would likely be doing a million things sort of OK. Which it
already does to a very limited extent. You have basic text
capabilities, which includes kerning. That's a text function which MS
Word and Publisher do not have.
You already convert to a raster image with the export of the PNG
format. If you don't want to convert to raster images, take PNG export out.
But exporting in a bitmapped format has nothing to do with the tool,
Inkscape. The tool is what lets you create the graphic. The filetype
is just the end result, having nothing to do with the actual creation of
the original graphic.
Mind you, I'm not saying Inkscape is a bad product. I'm saying the
limitation of just the one raster format, one that is not that well
known to many users, will limit its acceptance by others. Myself, I've
not given up on it, but I'm sure the highlighting issue will eventually
drive me away. My eyes are not what they used to be. :-(