OT: Command-line blues (ImageMagick)

[Roger Eller]

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