🚀 go-pugleaf

	Why should everyone have to reinvent the wheel
	(by writing Postscript interpreters) while Adobe stifles progress and
	creativity by clinging to "trade secrets"?

I'm going to regret this, but...

Adobe isn't stifling progress. There are at least two, no, it's three
now that IBM has announced, products that let you do exactly what you
want, or at least build the application that you want, using Display
PostScript. You can do it with two different window systems, NextStep or X. 

I think WriteNow on the NeXT handles encapsulated PS just fine. I know
that DECwrite does (or will when they release the current version). They
both use Display PostScript to do the job. I can write a program with
XDPS that animates an arbitrary PostScript file by saving the bitmaps
into pixmaps. Of course I can use the bitmaps in my program -- that was
the point of doing the integration. DPS is good for some things, and X
is good for others. I'm not *allowed* to save the bitmaps onto a file or
transmit them to another machine -- those are the terms of the license
agreement I knowingly signed when I bought it. 

This isn't about stifling progress folks -- let's be fair. This is about
not wanting to pay for using the fruits of Adobe's labor. You're hooked
on PostScript because it's so good that the printing market has made it
damn near ubiquitous, and now you want it on your workstations for free.
If you want to use DPS in your application, pay for it. If your
workstation vendor doesn't use it, gripe at them. If they don't listen,
switch vendors to one that does.

Complain to someone who can do something about it, eh?

Chris Kent	Western Software Laboratory	Digital Equipment Corporation
kent@decwrl.dec.com	decwrl!kent			(415) 853-6639