Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Software Linux

Xara X to Be Released as Open Source 299

Posted by Zonk
from the nice-to-have-options dept.
zero-one writes "Xara today announced that they are releasing an open source version of their vector drawing program, Xara Xtreme. They already have a Linux demo but source code is not available quite yet. Xara Xtreme on Linux will not only bring a leading-edge graphic tool to the platform, but with community assistance, has the potential to become the world's most powerful, easiest-to-use and simply the world's best graphics program. If they get this right it could bring the Linux desktop into whole sectors of the market that is has not been able to address before."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xara X to Be Released as Open Source

Comments Filter:
  • Sell Adobe? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:53PM (#13768906)
    Time to sell my Adobe stock?
  • Exaggeration? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fragmentate (908035) * <jdspilled AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:54PM (#13768912) Journal
    First, read this this. [slashdot.org]

    All tools add value to the Linux desktop, but if it's not user-friendly none of that matters. To be able to say we have the exact same tools as Windows means nothing if those tools are frustrating to use. We recently began the process of ridding ourselves of certain proprietary software (primarily Microsoft products). It's been painful because after watching a Window-savvy person struggle with Linux I began to understand why Linux hasn't really kicked-in on the desktop yet.

    I think the value of a single product is being overstated here. The Linux development community has to work on usability first, as well as product integration. There is a level of inconsistancy between applications that hampers Linux-desktop.

    When I think back to the very early versions of Linux (1.0.xx) it's come a long long way. But no single product along the way has contributed any large amount. Primarily, it has been the work of the individuals that understand that, although we don't want a duplicate of Windows, we do want something that people making the switch can more easily slide into.

    I am always excited when a new product is ported to Linux-desktop (simply X?). But let's keep things in perspective -- although Xara is quite "neat", it's not going to attract legions of people to Linux all of a sudden.

    In truth, this may all help Mac OSX more than Linux...
    • When I think back to the very early versions of Linux (1.0.xx) it's come a long long way.

      Um, not to nitpick, but what exactly constitutes an early version of Linux? An early (1.x) Linux kernel? Because that doesn't really make any sense... Maybe you mean an early Linux distro, like Slackware 1.0? eh?
      • I think he used the kernel version as more of a timestamp than an, "I used Linux X.XX and foo bar, etc." Referencing a kernel version will have more relevence than a specific version for a (possibly) obscure distro, to all members of the linux community at that time.
    • All tools add value to the Linux desktop, but if it's not user-friendly none of that matters.

      That's just not true. There are a lot of powerful tools that are not "user-friendly", but they are exactly the sort of thing that professionals use for their work (e.g., "Photoshop"). Usability is only one of many factors determining the importance and the popularity of an application.

      But let's keep things in perspective -- although Xara is quite "neat", it's not going to attract legions of people to Linux all of
      • Except Photoshop is for pros. Photoshop Elements is much easier to use for casual/home users, and it's cheaper to boot. Then there's Apple's iPhoto, even easier to use than Photoshop Elements, although not nearly as powerful.

        What is the Linux equivilant to Photoshop Elements? Or iPhoto?
        • Possibly LPhoto from Linspire, though I have not used it, so I can't say.

          Likely there are a lot of little utility programs that would work. But many distros just ship Gimp for the task, which will work if you know what your'e doing, but is very similar to iPhoto or Elements.
          • by jaseparlo (819802)

            [Gimp] is very similar to iPhoto or Elements.

            Not really. iPhoto is so simple your grandma can use it. Gimp's interface takes a lot of getting used to, it's another great example of where open source falls down - it's all run by geeks and programmers. Where are the interface experts, usability consultants, test groups etc? One thing commercial softwaredoes have that open source generally doesn't, is wholeness and polish. Geeks write features when they need them, and get used to the interface on the w

            • by Dh2000 (71834)
              No, the developers of Gimp did not experience this horrible thing, the horrible Default Window Manger functionality of Microsoft Windows. A window manager with no Focus-on-Mouse-Over, and a taskbar that didn't properly ignore Gimp's dialog boxes.

              Gimp was not created for Windows, it was created for X-Windows. That the port to win32 wasn't perfectly implemented to work with Windows' quirks is not related to the original quite decent design.

              That's why they didn't turn around and say "Hey you
              • Yes. To all Windows users: when you're criticizing Win32 ports of non-Windows software, please mention that the problem you are experiencing is with the Win32 port.
              • Normal users don't need that stuff. They just crop photos, and print. Artists/Professionals/Hobbyists do need that stuff, 'cause Photoshop and the Gimp, like most decent applications are complex and *Gasp* not exactly like every other application.

                Exactly. And cropping and printing is much simpler in photoshop than many applications. The crop tool is right there in the second row of the tool palette! It's much harder to find the crop tool in some "amateur" programs. Normal users don't need the "advanced tri

      • but they are exactly the sort of thing that professionals use for their work (e.g., "Photoshop").

        WTF? photoshop is popular in part because it is one of the most usable products on the planet. You can be a beginner or an expert, and it is still easy to use. Contrast that with most graphics programs, where even the ones aimed at "beginners" or "consumers" are harder to use than Photoshop. I don't know how the average person is supposed to make sense of the insane graphics editing software that comes for fre

    • And also read this, http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html [catb.org]. It's Eric Raymond's fairly famous rant on the poor design of open source interfaces, with suggested rules on how to avoid or fix some of the issues.
  • by Simarilius (665671) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:54PM (#13768918)
    This comes hot on the heels of them sponsoring the uber converter project to the tune of $10000 to create a XAR>SVG conversion util, to increase compatability with inkscape. Press releases for both can be found at http://www.xara.com/press/ [xara.com] uber converters at: http://scratchcomputing.com/projects/uber-converte r/ [scratchcomputing.com] inkscapes at: www.inkscape.org
  • Wow, this is their flagship product!
    I've no idea what it does, but thanks, we really appreciate it /OSS 1, M$ 0
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by popo (107611) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @05:56PM (#13768937) Homepage

    " has the potential to become the world's most powerful, easiest-to-use and simply the world's best graphics program"

    Why does it suddenly have this potential? Why is it suddenly the "easiest to use"? Why is it suddenly the "world's best"?

    I'm happy its being opensourced and ported to Linux too, but typically the process of opensourcing and linux-porting doesn't go hand in hand with making an application best-of-breed.

    This isn't flamebait, just a reality check.
    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)

      by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:05PM (#13769032)
      " has the potential to become the world's most powerful, easiest-to-use and simply the world's best graphics program"

      So does MS Paint, but I fully expect that potential to go unrealized.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Albanach (527650) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:08PM (#13769060) Homepage
      The reason it has the potential is because XaraX is already a fantastic small, fast, stable offering from a programming house that's been developing graphics apps for decades. When Xara launched their vector graphics app first for Acorn RISC OS and then on Windows, the features like transparency and speed were groundbreaking.

      Seriously this means an excellent program in an area underserved on linux (vector graphics) will be available source and all.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dreffed (526511) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:59PM (#13769480) Homepage
        I have to agree, Xara grew up on the Archimedies RiscOS platform as Artworks, the team as Computer Concepts produces som very innovative products, it was a pity RiscOS lost out in the brawn over style schools placement battles of the 90s. I have been using the application since the mid 90s, and now it is to be ported I don't need my Windows install anymore :) at last, I am very happy
        • by kabz (770151)
          Yeah, I remember watching DaveD's superfast image rotation routines. The PC (12MHz 8026 was the 'biz') didn't get *near* the 'ol Archie at that time. This is about 1989, when the initial work on a drawing package was started. This was a natural fit for our DTP package, Impression, which was going great guns, despite (in intial versions) the ease with which the parallel port dongle code could be hacked around.

          I went back to Uni after working on Impression [cconcepts.co.uk] (and wrote my MSc thesis using it), and have watched
      • The reason it has the potential is because XaraX is already a fantastic small, fast, stable offering from a programming house that's been developing graphics apps for decades.

        With modern graphics requirements, multimedia, format support, colour management support, etc, it's a bit difficult for the "world's best" graphics application to be particularly small. After all, it could hardly be considered world's best, without addressing the most advanced users and professionals in the task that it is designed to

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by walnut_tree (905826) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:41PM (#13769317)

      The Xara program has been around for a few years - every incarnation has had excellent magazine reviews [pcpro.co.uk]. It has a loyal base of users and one of the primary reasons is it's powerful set of features and its easy-to-use interface. They are not starting from scratch on the usability front - they already have a head start. If you have a Windows PC, the best way to see for yourself is to simply download the trial version and give it a spin. Even better, compare it to Adobe Illustrator with its plethora of floating palettes and you'll see how tired and old-fashioned the Illustrator interface feels in comparison. Of course, these are all my subjective opinions; but then, what isn't on Slashdot? :-)

    • This isn't flamebait, just a reality check.

      Slashdot is bouncing back your reality check due to insufficient funds.

  • Illustrators and designers like their shiny macs and have (generally) spent years learning the Adobe suite. Why do you think nobody gives 3 tosses about Corel?

    Okay, so 10/10 for style, minus several million for yet another "OMG OPENSOURCE WILL SAVE TEH WORLD SQUEE" post.

    And, before anyone says "But, GIMP!" - I work with ACTUAL designers. They all think it's an ugly piece of shit.
    • by MikeFM (12491) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:17PM (#13769125) Homepage Journal
      On the other hand the majority of designers I know are simple minded idiots that can barely use Photoshop and Illustrator let alone anything else and all their designs look amazingly alike as they have no ability to think outside their own little box. Most designers come from a graphic arts background and have no experience in designing good interfaces or problem solving. If something wasn't taught to them in class they just can't handle it.

      I know a couple GOOD designers and they are intelligent enough to see that different tools are better for different things you want to do. Personally I can't stand the interfaces of Photoshop and Illustrator but will sometimes use them when I need to do something GIMP or Inkscape can't yet do. On the other hand there are things that are hard to do in Photoshop and Illustrator that are easier in GIMP and Inkscape. It comes mostly from which tools you know best and a bit from the way the tools were designed. Being able to use all the tools you have available lets you do awesome work.

      Even good designers sometimes have blindspots that are amusing. One of the best I know I heard the other day complaining to another designer that animated gifs always have white borders around the image. Duh. Years in school and work experience and neither knew how to get rid of the borders left over from converting an image to a gif? Of course you'd think Photoshop and Illustrator would take care of that issue automatically anyway since it's a fairly common problem. Anyway the point being that designers look at interfaces more from a stylistic point and they may miss the benefits of usability.
      • Of course you'd think Photoshop and Illustrator would take care of that issue automatically anyway since it's a fairly common problem. Anyway the point being that designers look at interfaces more from a stylistic point and they may miss the benefits of usability.

        If you're talking about anti-aliasing, the problem is that you can't correctly anti-alias an image with no alpha channel (like a GIF) unless you know the background color it'll be sitting on. Photoshop, Illustrator, etc assume it'll be used on a w
        • Exactly the problem I meant. It'd seem that some more elegant solution should exist in such high dollar software than just assuming a white background. Of course not using gifs is a better idea but that is a whole different discussion. ;)

          I guess my point was not only that I know the solution while they didn't as much as that just because they are graphic designers doesn't mean they are experts in how graphic design software should be made. Even experienced graphic designers don't know all the tricks of the
    • by Hosiah (849792) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @08:21PM (#13770051)
      have (generally) spent years learning the Adobe suite.
      I work with ACTUAL designers. They all think it's an ugly piece of shit.

      I *AM* an actual designer, and it never fails to amaze me how people will comfortably devote "years" to learning proprietary software that costs $485.00 http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Adobe_Photoshop_7_0/4 014-3633_16-8918085.html [com.com] , but cannot be bothered to investigate the menus in Gimp for five minutes for free to discover all the features they claim Gimp is missing. But, uh, oh, yeah, *sure*, you guys are ALL THAT!


      • I *AM* an actual designer, and it never fails to amaze me how people will comfortably devote "years" to learning proprietary software that costs $485.00 http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Adobe_Photoshop_7_0/4 [com.com] 014-3633_16-8918085.html , but cannot be bothered to investigate the menus in Gimp for five minutes for free to discover all the features they claim Gimp is missing. But, uh, oh, yeah, *sure*, you guys are ALL THAT!


        If you make a good living doing a job and there is one primary tool that you use for most of
      • Gimp has a lot of features, some of them i like, some that I may have never tried out yet. I don't do windows or Photoshop, so I cannot compare to that.
        But the Gimp certainly has made me scream at it. I never seem to be able to figure out how a certain feature works (the stuff with pasting and layers for instance). I am no useability expert either, but I am sure that if you get the user in a state of sreaming, there is something seriously wrong with the software.
        There are two ways to fix that problem; the e
  • With support for 16bit/channel images and colour management, Glasgow (a branch of CinePaint) is shaping up to be a real contender in the Raster Graphics editing space. Some concerns though:

    • The documentation for cinepaint really really really sucks
    • The CinePaint/Glasgow developers seem to be under the impression that ALL of their users are in the motion picture industry, not still photographers). Consequntly, (as of CP 0.18) they've left out handy stuff like cropping and sizing the images in physical units
  • by xutopia (469129) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:05PM (#13769031) Homepage
    He drew up a map in it in about 5 minutes. It reminds me of Cool Edit Pro except it's for drawing instead of sound. Before you master it, it seems like nothing big but once you start knowing how to get the power from it you can not go back to another tool.
  • That annoucement reads like total marketing crap. I know Xara, their products are quite popular, but I would not claim so loud such goals. And by the way, we have tools which are user friendly and I'm used to :)

    But ignoring that, I just can say - welcome! For example, open sourcing for Blender was really best way to go. Propably for Xara Xtreme too.

  • by narrowhouse (1949) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:07PM (#13769050) Homepage
    They specifically mention the GPL here:
    http://www.xaraxtreme.org/news/11-10-05.html [xaraxtreme.org]

    This will be huge news, sodipodi and inkscape could use their algorithms for new functions. Abiword could support their file formats. The Gimp could build compatibilty in easily. Bravo Xara, I will be the first one to mail a check when I know this is really going to happen. I just hope this doesn't go down like the GOBE Productive announcement a few years back.
    • If this is not a hoax, and I sincerely hope it's not, let's hope it starts a trend.

      Are you listening, Wolfram?

    • by justsomebody (525308) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:17PM (#13769131) Journal
      I was having the same opinion until I read mailing list on Inkscape about this. Talk about one sided canibailzing without prejudice (would take theirs, but hell no, they won't resell mine).

      http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?threa d_id=8520852&forum_id=36054 [sourceforge.net]

      p.s. Last comment (or it was last at the time I read was probably the only inteligent comment, about shared LGPL libraries)
      • hmmm,you didn't get it that way. They talk about copyright assigment and that Inkscape have SO much contributors that they can't even try that - it would be huge job to locate all of them, get them assign their copyrights, etc. etc.

        That's the whole issue.
      • by t35t0r (751958) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @07:14PM (#13769577)
        From the FAQ:

        Having said that it's conceivable that a version of the Open Source Linux port could be converted back to Windows. But it would not be the official Xara version (it couldn't use the Xara name), it wouldn't include any customer support or any of the licensed components we can include. So we hope it doesn't happen, because that would jeopardise our ability to continue. Put simply, if we can't earn money from the product somehow, we can't employ full time engineers working on the Open Source product, and that helps no one.

        It's not inconceivable. It will happen, maybe even under cygwin, but it will. Windows users will start to get mad since they have to continue to pay (and no they won't switch to linux). Sure the OSS version would not include some of the proprietary plugins, but if the user really wants or needs those then he/she would be happy to pay for them by purchasing the retail version. With an OSS version ported to Windows, all that Xara could do is just sell their support and expertise. But with so many online forums, chats, and help pages would their support even be necessary?

        It seems to me that Xara is really shooting themselves in the foot.

        And on Linux that means it has to be Open Source in order to stand any chance of success

        I also think this is not true. I think they should have done the exact opposite. That is port it to linux and macosx, keep it closed source, and sell their product at their current low price on all platforms. Not only would this help them, but it would give support to Xorg/Xfree + whatever window manager/desktop + linux kernel as a feasible graphics platform with a commercial backing. If they are scared about being bought out (are they even a publicly traded company?) then open source the linux / macosx codebase in the event that it seems imminent that they will be bought out.
      • by MenTaLguY (5483) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @07:54PM (#13769862) Homepage

        Talk about one sided canibailzing without prejudice (would take theirs, but hell no, they won't resell mine).

        That's the reality though. Everyone on the Inkscape side had, so far, been working with the understanding that (as far as Inkscape goes) we're staying in [L]GPL-land; Xara's announcement can't unilaterally change that.

        Also, in practical terms, Inkscape's like the Linux kernel; due to the number of individual copyright holders we couldn't relicense if we wanted to, so it's simply not possible for much Inkscape code to make it into Xara-commercial, even if it made it into Xara-GPL.

        p.s. Last comment (or it was last at the time I read was probably the only inteligent comment, about shared LGPL libraries)

        Thanks. As I wrote in that email, I do think it's worth investigating ways to share future code without compromising on the [L]GPL stance. We can also probably share experience and algorithms.

    • What happened to GOBE becoming GPL? I remember getting excited about it a while back, but was the source ever released?
  • Well, can't say I'm sad to hear it -- I emailed the folks at Xara Ltd. almost a year ago to ask if they intended to port their product to Linux to help ease my transition in that regard (having bought versions of their software since 1.0). Their move to open source is a bit of a shock (I would have been happy with a Linux binary ported using Wine), but it's all good -- better than I could have hoped for. Hopefully some collaboration/cross-semination will occur between the Xara folks and the Inkscape guys, w
  • Artworks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chiller2 (35804) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:19PM (#13769143) Homepage
    Grr! All of these great things have come from one place, namely the Acorn computing market who could have had it all and blew it. Xara is simply the PC port of ArtWorks [cconcepts.co.uk] for RISCOS [wikipedia.org]. Now Xara is set for potential greatness. Just like when Acorn spawned ARM Ltd, and now ARM cpu's are everywhere. Where are Acorn?

    Boo hiss and all that.
    • It's interesting that all this happened because Acorn included a good, basic vector drawing program with their machines. This created a community of people for whom vector art was second nature, programmers fluent in the concepts involved, and demand for more advanced packages. In hindsight the appearance of Artworks, which later became Xara, was inevitable.

      After I moved to other platforms it took me a few years to shake off the expectation that I'd be able to simply create vector graphics, and accept that
  • by jodo (209027) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:23PM (#13769179)
    I have used xara for years. I maintain an old windows machine just for xara. It is an outstanding drawing and for me a one page or smaller layout program. Great for print ads and web graphics work.

    It does not compete with The Gimp.

    The windows version is very easy to use. Hope the linux version uses the same interfaces.

    Woohoo!!! Gets me excited about linux again.
  • Really F*cking good (Score:5, Informative)

    by WasterDave (20047) <davep AT zedkep DOT com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:31PM (#13769233)
    All I see is bitching, whining and moaning from a people who've never used it. My SO uses Xara X damn near constantly and loves it. She was up the learning curve like a mountain goat. There's good documentation, the /real/ thing ships with a CD full of video tutorials, a whole bunch of things work like they ought to - so much so that since we're so accustomed to things not working properly you initially discount the possibility of whatever you're trying to do actually working.

    And it's FAST! Xara was initially written in the mid 90's and the system specs included "pentium processor recommended" so it goes without saying that it goes like a rocket on modern hardware. We're running it on a P3-933 and, just, whoosh.

    This is a good piece of kit. Probably the best thing I can advise is finding a windows box and playing with the downloadable demo. Be happy. Get involved in porting it. Fuck Adobe.

    Dave

  • This is Big. (Score:5, Informative)

    by SpamJunkie (557825) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @06:44PM (#13769338)
    I'm a designer and I've used Xara quite a bit. It is a very, very good piece of software. In terms of ease of use and speed it kills all the big boys like Illustrator and CorelDraw. In fact this is the software that Corel owned/distributed at one time as CorelXara. Then they pillaged it for features and set it on its way. It has fantastic transparency abilities and some cool bitmap-like effects such as realtime blurs. It also has some decent bitmap abilities built-in. I know most designers won't know anything about it and the open source community won't either, so please trust me when I say this is a fantastic development. I hope to take a swing at the code, with any luck creating a mac version. Sweet.
  • Xara Xtreme on Linux will not only bring a leading-edge graphic tool to the platform, but with community assistance, has the potential to become the world's most powerful, easiest-to-use and simply the world's best graphics program. If they get this right it could bring the Linux desktop into whole sectors of the market that is has not been able to address before.

    Also it cures baldness.
  • by GooseKirk (60689) <goosekirk&hotmail,com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @07:45PM (#13769794) Homepage
    I've been using Xara for nearly 10 years. It is a phenomenal piece of software. It's fast, stable, and it gives you the tools you need with a clean, intuitive interface and without a bunch of crap in your way. Give an untrained person a choice between the nightmare of Illustrator and Xara, and it's no competition at all. Corel and Xara are closer, but last time I checked, Corel was way over-bloated and buggy. Fireworks is probably closer yet, but while its interface isn't as FUBAR'd as Illustrator's, it's still too idiosyncratic.

    Xara is the best general-purpose vector graphics software out there. It's the easiest to learn how to use, and it really is a pleasure to work with. This is the right move for Xara, and I think it's great news for Linux. As we get new, regular users transitioning to Linux desktops, hopefully Xara will be included with some of the best distros... it should be an exciting and significant feature for a decent percentage of users. Even people who just want to make a flyer for their garage sale will find Xara cool and fun.

    On a personal note, Xara is the main reason why I still haven't switched to a Linux desktop for myself. I can't live without my Xara... now it looks like I'll finally be able to switch! Tonight, I will literally go out and toast to Xara. This is the best news I've had in months.
  • Xcellent.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    I've used Xara X on and off for a number of years. Fantastic vector image program. I only moved over to Illustrator after discovering the Xara .AI/.EPS output filter didn't work 100% with some applications and there were a few other little niggles. This might have been fixed since then but otherwise it's fantastic application and porting it to Linux is a brilliant move.

    Once a decent/user friendly bitmap editing application is available for linux, then I might be able to move over fully.
  • by Hosiah (849792) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @08:08PM (#13769959)
    Now, Photoshop robots will have *TWO* Open-Source programs to bitch about!!! Yes, Gimp can now expect half the Photozealots to switch their flames from Gimp to how much they hate Xara for not being Photoshop. Welcome to the *deep inside*, Xara, and you can share my bread crust, but not my bunk.
  • Xara and Inkscape (Score:5, Informative)

    by bbyakk (815167) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @08:22PM (#13770061)
    If you read their FAQ, they are more than aware of the existence of Inkscape. They give credit to Inkscape for "features that Xara does not have" and a higher rate of development. In fact, they say that the ultimate goal is a single merged vector editor combining the best in Xara and Inkscape. And as an Inkscape developer, this is something I'd like to see as well.

    It remains to be seen how exactly this merger will proceed, who will be on the giving side and who on the receiving side. Whichever way it goes, however, their goal is the same as mine: to create the best vector editor in the world. So I guess this means Xara and Inkscape are bound to be friends overall, even though an element of competition will be present as well.

    For an overview of how Inkscape and Xara compare, read this:

    http://wiki.inkscape.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Xara_X [inkscape.org]
  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @09:57PM (#13770485)
    If you think the news is no big deal, that's fine. But, why are so many posters here enraged?

    I'm noticing this trend on slashdot more and more. Some good news for Linux is announced (often no BFD). And many posters here are screaming about how Linux is so inferior to msft.

    Frankly, I don't care what desktop you use. I don't care if you don't like Linux. But, it seems strange to me that this sort of news would make so many posters so angry.

  • I'm interested to see the spin here as Linux being the big beneficiary of this announcement. Surely, if the code is released, then pretty much anyone who has a use for it benefits as it canM then be built for their platform. Regardless of which variant of linux, bsd or unix anyone's partcular platform is. Tp.
  • I'm intrigued by the graph [xaraxtreme.org] that compares the speed of XaraCDraw to that of GDI+ and Cairo 1.0.

    Maybe this rendering engine would be useful for the desktop or other programs, spun off on its own? I always loved SGI Irix's vector based desktop with that awesome vertically oriented scroll wheel widget that would scale all icons on the desktop.

It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. - W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876

Working...