MacOSX-admin Digest, Vol 39, Issue 26

[Ashley Aitken]

Hi Alex (et al.),

I understand where you are coming from but I have to disagree (its  
just me).

On 03/04/2007, at 1:36 PM, Alex Satrapa wrote:

> On 03/04/2007, at 14:40 , Ashley Aitken wrote:
>
>> Why would this be any different from the Adobe Postscript  
>> implementation (apart from the fact that Adobe probably have a  
>> better implementation of the Postscript specification)?
>
> You've answered your own question.

How smart am I ?! ;-)

> Would you buy your steak knives from someone who specialises in  
> giving away free knives with purchases of other items, or from a  
> company that specialises in high quality cutlery?

Ah, so you know for sure that these other Postscript implementations  
are poor quality products sold by shady companies?  I personally have  
very little knowledge of their expertise or business practices.

> If you're in the "spend $10 every year replacing knives" crowd, the  
> PostScript emulation is fine for you

But Adobe's Postscript is Postscript emulation as well, I thought I  
explained that.  Your comparison (given its not your terminology)  
sounds like you are comparing a native application with an emulated  
application.

If you mean would I prefer to pay more for Adobe's implementation of  
Postscript as opposed to another companies implementation of  
Postscript then that's a good question with, I believe, no easy answer.

There is no reason I can see why a third party implementation of the  
Postscript specification cannot be better than Adobe's AND cheaper.   
Like any big name, you're paying for the Adobe brand as well ...

That said, as I said before, Adobe's implementation is probably  
better given their history, but I wouldn't knock third-party  
implementations too quickly.

Enough said.

Cheers,
Ashley.