Don: Now we are finally getting somewhere. Thanks for finally going
on the record with your definition of "bug"; that is any feature that
is not implemented or does not work exactly like PhotoShop (or ICE or
GEM or etc.) or perhaps any feature that is not implemented or does not
work exactly like you think it should.
Except for one "minor" detail which Vuescan apologist always miss:
I did not say *any* of that!
As Vuescan apologists regularly do, you (misre)presented your
subjective feeling of what you THINK I said without any basis in fact.
So, let me (try to) make it even clearer (and all according to Bart,
so if you disagree, talk to him):
- The program presents one image (gamma 2.2) for the user to determine
the settings.
- The program then applies these settings to a *totally different*
image (gamma 1.0, B&W points, etc).
That's a canonical definition of a *bug*!
You have added a new chapter
and verse to the English lexicon. Unfortunately I doubt if the folks
at Webster or Oxford will be giving you a call anytime soon.
Please enlighten us and your favorite guardians of the English
language what would you call the above case of "bait and switch"?
No wonder you think VueScan is buggy wall to wall.
I just go by what frustrated Vuescan users themselves post and other,
equally frustrated users, immediately confirm. So, if you have a
problem with any of that I suggest you address them.
Don.