Re: graphicsmagick or imagemagick

["Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@gmail.com>]

22.01.2010 16:41, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Hi,
> my naïve questions for today :
>
> 1) is graphicsmagick really better than imagemagick ?
> it advertises it's twice as fast, scales better, and 'contains'
> imagemagick.

This fork was created primarily for legal/licensing reasons.

> 2) if so, why graphicsmagick is not widely used ?

I don't know. But it is still the fact.

> The migration "looks" easy. I feel i'm missing something.

Yes. Vulnerabilities. For licensing reasons, they can't borrow patches 
from ImageMagick. And some not-so-competent bug reporters like myself 
report bugs only to ImageMagick lists, and thus bugfixes don't reach 
GraphicsMagick.

Look here for my posts:

http://studio.imagemagick.org/pipermail/magick-developers/2009-January

and also:

http://studio.imagemagick.org/pipermail/magick-developers/2009-March/003119.html

and see if any of the linked images still cause GraphicsMagick to 
misbehave (crash, access uninitialized variables, leak memory, or unpack 
pixels even if explicitly told to extract only image metadata).

--
Alexander E. Patrakov