Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!labrea!polya!rokicki
From: rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki)
Newsgroups: gnu.ghostscript.bug
Subject: Re: Bugs ...
Message-ID: <7976@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 23 Mar 89 23:17:12 GMT
References: <401@helios.prosys.se>
Sender: Tomas G. Rokicki <rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 18

Anders Thulin writes:
> I think I've found a couple of bugs in Ghostscript 1.2.

Am I mistaken is asserting that GhostScript is actually rife with
bugs, both major and minor, and that bugs should be reported only
with fixes?  Or should I start making a (huge) list?

Of course, I love GhostScript and appreciate the code very, very
much, but there is still a rather large amount of work to be
done---I envision it becoming competitive with real Adobe PostScript
in the not-to-distant future . . . with as many people working on
it as there are, I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen,
especially given the fine coordination provided so far by the
author.

This baby will take off with a bit more work!

-tom