12 ms·

I always found it fascinating the grade-A executable names which imagemagick was able to claim in the global namespace: imagemagick /usr/bin/animate im

I always found it fascinating the grade-A executable names which imagemagick was able to claim in the global namespace: imagemagick /usr/bin/animate imagemagick /usr/bin/compare imagemagick /usr/bin/composite imagemagick /usr/bin/conjure imagemagick /usr/bin/convert imagemagick /usr/bin/display imagemagick /usr/bin/identify imagemagick /usr/bin/import imagemagick /usr/bin/mogrify imagemagick /usr/bin/montage imagemagick /usr/bin/stream

enobrev 5y ago
This is something I always preferred about the graphicsmagick fork, was the `gm` base command.
- pxc 5y ago
  I came here to say the same thing
alerighi 5y ago
import is the most fun, when you forgot the `#!/usr/bin/env python` at the start of the script and of course the first instruction is import and you get an ImageMagik error
ReaLNero 5y ago
They are pretty common verbs, but they give 0 context to the user on what they do. I don't think these names are in any demand -- there's always a better name than "import" for your command line utility.
- majkinetor 5y ago
  Sounds like you want PowerShell style naming :)
  - ReaLNero 5y ago
    With good autocomplete, I wouldn't mind it! I was honestly thinking of stuff like `du` (disk usage), `cp`, `mv`, and the like. Like I sort of mnemonically remember them, compared to mentally mapping `convert` -> imagemagick.
    - noobermin 5y ago
      This sentiment directly contradicts your post above...
      - ReaLNero 5y ago
        I'm making a distinction between mnemonic names (du = disk usage) and just vague names (convert = ???).
wnevets 5y ago
the latest versions recommend that you use magick convert instead of just convert. I'm assuming because the globals are going away.
- banana_giraffe 5y ago
  "convert" always gave me trouble on Windows with some existing tools that used Windows' built in "convert" tool. It was an edge case, but always entertaining when the tool needed to convert a filesystem or some tool I wrote wanted to convert an image, and got the wrong executable.
Meph504 5y ago
Image magick has been around for a pretty long time, and was doing image processing on linux before most had considered it.
- Maursault 5y ago
  ImageMagick was developed by John Cristy at DuPont in 1987 and release in 1990. Your statement is not only false, even it it wasn't, mentioning Linux in relation to ImageMagick is a non-sequitor. Maybe you should try other things.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    Your point would have been much better if you had stopped after the first sentence.
  - Meph504 5y ago
    Im really not sure what you are getting at? I didn't say it was developed on/for Linux. But because it was a mature product and added to Linux very early on, this is why it was able to get the names that it did. so maybe you can share what it is you are responding to?
    - Maursault 5y ago
      > Im really not sure what you are getting at? To be quite clear, in the context of ImageMagick, claiming early Linux image processing with ImageMagick is irrelevant, also, not exactly true. What much does alleged Linux inclusion of any application (/usr/local/*) whatsoever have to do with that application? You're apparently promoting Linux by claiming it's a feat few had considered, or otherwise saying "I am cool," which is fine I guess and I don't doubt it, but also irrelevant. As I pointed out, ImageMagick was developed in 1987, and I should have gone on to specify that most digital image manipulation techniques were developed in the 1960's. So assuming your Yggdrasil installation was processing images with it in early 1993, that it was "before most had considered it" is hardly knowable. I'm reading it similarly to saying your Chevy wipers were wiping your windshield before most had considered it when modern wipers were invented 50 years ago and all the techniques for doing so were worked out around the turn of the century. Chevy's are great and all, but there are other things.
nauticacom 5y ago
Thankfully as of v7 these are all bundled under a single "magick" command (with symlinks for compatibility). Hopefully in the future these can be removed
- noobermin 5y ago
  tbf this sounds like a problem that doesn't need to be fixed... Ironically this would introduce problems where many scripts sort of assume the binaries have the names they have.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    Scripts written for version 6 or older are probably going to have problems with version 8 or later anyways as that's what the major version number is there to represent.
HeckFeck 5y ago
If executable names were traded like internet domains, imagine what they'd be worth now.
- technobabbler 5y ago
  I tried to convert those units but all I got was an imagemagick error
herpderperator 5y ago
This looks like useful output, what distro and command did you use to list this?
- coldpie 5y ago
  Arch Linux. $ pacman -Ql imagemagick | grep bin imagemagick /usr/bin/ imagemagick /usr/bin/Magick++-config imagemagick /usr/bin/MagickCore-config imagemagick /usr/bin/MagickWand-config imagemagick /usr/bin/animate imagemagick /usr/bin/compare .... You may also enjoy: $ pacman -Qo /usr/bin/{display,convert} /usr/bin/display is owned by imagemagick 7.1.0.16-1 /usr/bin/convert is owned by imagemagick 7.1.0.16-1
  - 7kay 5y ago
    For reference (mostly for me as I need this from time to time), you can do the same on dpkg-based distros with $ dpkg -L imagemagick-6.q16 | grep bin /usr/bin /usr/bin/animate-im6.q16 /usr/bin/compare-im6.q16 /usr/bin/composite-im6.q16 /usr/bin/conjure-im6.q16 /usr/bin/convert-im6.q16 /usr/bin/display-im6.q16 /usr/bin/identify-im6.q16 /usr/bin/import-im6.q16 /usr/bin/mogrify-im6.q16 /usr/bin/montage-im6.q16 /usr/bin/stream-im6.q16 Similarly, you get $ dpkg-query -S /usr/bin/convert-im6.q16 imagemagick-6.q16: /usr/bin/convert-im6.q16 This does not work for the canonical executables though as they are just symlinks to /etc/alternatives/foobar
    - pxc 5y ago
      > This does not work for the canonical executables though as they are just symlinks to /etc/alternatives/foobar you can use realpath for this dpkg -S $(realpath /usr/bin/convert) and you can ignore the path to it entirely with dpkg -S $(realpath $(which convert))
pavlov 5y ago
No self-respecting Unix tool would use such long names, so that's why they were free. "compare" vs "cmp", etc.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Image magick isn't something you use frequently and quickly like changing directories or moving a file. A longer more descriptive name is better here. Also easier to speak. Telling someone to write "compare" is easier than "C-M-P"
  - noobermin 5y ago
    The reason the common commands were short was because typing on the keys for old terminals was a pain in general, and thus they are short for historical reasons. It is however an accident of history that them being shorter now makes it more convenient...if you have the names memorized.
  - pavlov 5y ago
    I was trying to make a joke about the infamous naming practices of Unix, an operating system with a call named “creat”.
    - saghm 5y ago
      My favorite is "ioctl", which is especially delightful when pronounced phoenetically
- ajkjk 5y ago
  A regrettable state that will hopefully be fixed someday.
- contingencies 5y ago
  Spell create with an 'e'. - Ken Thompson (referring to design regrets on the UNIX creat(2) system call and the fallacy of premature optimization) .. via https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
rdfi 5y ago
Is there an easy way to get that list for a package?
saghm 5y ago
I totally agree and also had found it fascinating, except for...mogrify? I don't think I've ever heard that word before, and I don't even know what it could mean based on the only related word I can think of, "transmogrify".
rambojazz 5y ago
That's exactly my same thought every time I need to use one of those!

enobrev 5y ago

This is something I always preferred about the graphicsmagick fork, was the `gm` base command.

pxc 5y ago
I came here to say the same thing

alerighi 5y ago

import is the most fun, when you forgot the `#!/usr/bin/env python` at the start of the script and of course the first instruction is import and you get an ImageMagik error

ReaLNero 5y ago

They are pretty common verbs, but they give 0 context to the user on what they do. I don't think these names are in any demand -- there's always a better name than "import" for your command line utility.

majkinetor 5y ago
Sounds like you want PowerShell style naming :)
- ReaLNero 5y ago
  With good autocomplete, I wouldn't mind it! I was honestly thinking of stuff like `du` (disk usage), `cp`, `mv`, and the like. Like I sort of mnemonically remember them, compared to mentally mapping `convert` -> imagemagick.
  - noobermin 5y ago
    This sentiment directly contradicts your post above...
    - ReaLNero 5y ago
      I'm making a distinction between mnemonic names (du = disk usage) and just vague names (convert = ???).

wnevets 5y ago

the latest versions recommend that you use magick convert instead of just convert. I'm assuming because the globals are going away.

banana_giraffe 5y ago
"convert" always gave me trouble on Windows with some existing tools that used Windows' built in "convert" tool. It was an edge case, but always entertaining when the tool needed to convert a filesystem or some tool I wrote wanted to convert an image, and got the wrong executable.

Meph504 5y ago

Image magick has been around for a pretty long time, and was doing image processing on linux before most had considered it.

Maursault 5y ago
ImageMagick was developed by John Cristy at DuPont in 1987 and release in 1990. Your statement is not only false, even it it wasn't, mentioning Linux in relation to ImageMagick is a non-sequitor. Maybe you should try other things.
- pstuart 5y ago
  Your point would have been much better if you had stopped after the first sentence.
- Meph504 5y ago
  Im really not sure what you are getting at? I didn't say it was developed on/for Linux. But because it was a mature product and added to Linux very early on, this is why it was able to get the names that it did. so maybe you can share what it is you are responding to?
  - Maursault 5y ago
    > Im really not sure what you are getting at? To be quite clear, in the context of ImageMagick, claiming early Linux image processing with ImageMagick is irrelevant, also, not exactly true. What much does alleged Linux inclusion of any application (/usr/local/*) whatsoever have to do with that application? You're apparently promoting Linux by claiming it's a feat few had considered, or otherwise saying "I am cool," which is fine I guess and I don't doubt it, but also irrelevant. As I pointed out, ImageMagick was developed in 1987, and I should have gone on to specify that most digital image manipulation techniques were developed in the 1960's. So assuming your Yggdrasil installation was processing images with it in early 1993, that it was "before most had considered it" is hardly knowable. I'm reading it similarly to saying your Chevy wipers were wiping your windshield before most had considered it when modern wipers were invented 50 years ago and all the techniques for doing so were worked out around the turn of the century. Chevy's are great and all, but there are other things.

nauticacom 5y ago

Thankfully as of v7 these are all bundled under a single "magick" command (with symlinks for compatibility). Hopefully in the future these can be removed

noobermin 5y ago
tbf this sounds like a problem that doesn't need to be fixed... Ironically this would introduce problems where many scripts sort of assume the binaries have the names they have.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Scripts written for version 6 or older are probably going to have problems with version 8 or later anyways as that's what the major version number is there to represent.

HeckFeck 5y ago

If executable names were traded like internet domains, imagine what they'd be worth now.

technobabbler 5y ago
I tried to convert those units but all I got was an imagemagick error

herpderperator 5y ago

This looks like useful output, what distro and command did you use to list this?

coldpie 5y ago
Arch Linux. $ pacman -Ql imagemagick | grep bin imagemagick /usr/bin/ imagemagick /usr/bin/Magick++-config imagemagick /usr/bin/MagickCore-config imagemagick /usr/bin/MagickWand-config imagemagick /usr/bin/animate imagemagick /usr/bin/compare .... You may also enjoy: $ pacman -Qo /usr/bin/{display,convert} /usr/bin/display is owned by imagemagick 7.1.0.16-1 /usr/bin/convert is owned by imagemagick 7.1.0.16-1
- 7kay 5y ago
  For reference (mostly for me as I need this from time to time), you can do the same on dpkg-based distros with $ dpkg -L imagemagick-6.q16 | grep bin /usr/bin /usr/bin/animate-im6.q16 /usr/bin/compare-im6.q16 /usr/bin/composite-im6.q16 /usr/bin/conjure-im6.q16 /usr/bin/convert-im6.q16 /usr/bin/display-im6.q16 /usr/bin/identify-im6.q16 /usr/bin/import-im6.q16 /usr/bin/mogrify-im6.q16 /usr/bin/montage-im6.q16 /usr/bin/stream-im6.q16 Similarly, you get $ dpkg-query -S /usr/bin/convert-im6.q16 imagemagick-6.q16: /usr/bin/convert-im6.q16 This does not work for the canonical executables though as they are just symlinks to /etc/alternatives/foobar
  - pxc 5y ago
    > This does not work for the canonical executables though as they are just symlinks to /etc/alternatives/foobar you can use realpath for this dpkg -S $(realpath /usr/bin/convert) and you can ignore the path to it entirely with dpkg -S $(realpath $(which convert))

pavlov 5y ago

No self-respecting Unix tool would use such long names, so that's why they were free. "compare" vs "cmp", etc.

Gigachad 5y ago
Image magick isn't something you use frequently and quickly like changing directories or moving a file. A longer more descriptive name is better here. Also easier to speak. Telling someone to write "compare" is easier than "C-M-P"
- noobermin 5y ago
  The reason the common commands were short was because typing on the keys for old terminals was a pain in general, and thus they are short for historical reasons. It is however an accident of history that them being shorter now makes it more convenient...if you have the names memorized.
- pavlov 5y ago
  I was trying to make a joke about the infamous naming practices of Unix, an operating system with a call named “creat”.
  - saghm 5y ago
    My favorite is "ioctl", which is especially delightful when pronounced phoenetically
ajkjk 5y ago
A regrettable state that will hopefully be fixed someday.
contingencies 5y ago
Spell create with an 'e'. - Ken Thompson (referring to design regrets on the UNIX creat(2) system call and the fallacy of premature optimization) .. via https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup

rdfi 5y ago

Is there an easy way to get that list for a package?

saghm 5y ago

I totally agree and also had found it fascinating, except for...mogrify? I don't think I've ever heard that word before, and I don't even know what it could mean based on the only related word I can think of, "transmogrify".

rambojazz 5y ago

That's exactly my same thought every time I need to use one of those!