🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Feb19.172134.12850@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>[omitted section]... You could
>output PostScript on a plotter, or an automatic vinyl cutter, or any
>number of other devices that wouldn't know what a bitmap is if you threw
>one at them.  A PostScript program is an abstract description of how to
>render an image.  It says nothing about the actual end result
>of rendering that image.  The fact that most PostScript renderings are done
>inside 300 dpi black & white printers is irrelevant.

In the strict theorectical sense, yes.  But I think this discussion
has become too esoteric.  Some of us have very practical, real-world,
needs for Postscript-to-bitmap conversion.  I have a plotting program
that writes Postscript code.  I plot my data, and print the plots on a
PS printer.  When I need to make presentation graphics for a
scientific meeting, I use Framemaker.  Framemaker doesn't interpret
Postscript but it will import bitmaps from encapsulated Postscript.
If I have such a bitmap, Framemaker will display the graphic image so
I can add a label, etc.  Since I use the PS printer to print the end
result, I'm not taking anything from Adobe, but they could sure help
me by making this mechanism available.

>[omitted section]... lets stop arguing about
>the evils of Adobe, or at least take it to alt.religion.computers.

I'm not as interested in Adobe's copyrights or trade secrets as I am
in producing top-quality scientific graphics with minimal effort.  If
the mechanism exists to create bitmaps within my printer, I want to
know how to get them.  Why should everyone have to reinvent the wheel
(by writing Postscript interpreters) while Adobe stifles progress and
creativity by clinging to "trade secrets"?

-- 
		Brad Jones  bjones@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
			    bjones@uhccux.bitnet