From: David Scheffel Date: 2008-05-03T22:16:55+09:00 Subject: Re: RMagick 2.3.0 > David Scheffel wrote: > > | 1.2) and proved by: > | > http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libmagick&searchon=names&suite=testing§ion=all > | ImageMagick: several entries are marked as security patch. > | > | > http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libgraphicsmagick&searchon=names&suite=testing§ion=all > | GraphicsMagick: no such markers > > Which means that the GraphicsMagick folks are too lazy to fix critical > bugs. > > Or that the maintainer for that Debian package is slow. > > Or nobody uses it, and thusly there are no bug reports. > > Or that, indeed, GraphicsMagick is Perfect and error free. ;) Well, I've just checked. In "testing" stage the package version of GraphicsMagick includes the last security fixes, while ImageMagick does not. After comparing the change logs of both I'd say ImageMagick has more vulnerabilities. However since the size of both communities differ, one can never tell for sure. But that's the same with Windows and Linux. And I still tend to say that Linux is more reliable. At least it has the better concepts and I did hit the boundaries of Windows capabilities quite often in my last job working for a leading internet service provider. So, I assume strongly that you use ImageMagick at Twitter? Well, if it's good enough for the biggest Rails app out there, it can't be that bad, I guess. > And if you are out to make a buck, it won't hurt to give back to the > community, either, if you are able to. In one way or another. :) > > That said: Good luck with your Web 2.0 business. Thanks. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.