XnView = plagiarism?

[helmut]

There has been a provocative and pretty unfriendly post here claiming that XnView is simply a plagiarism of other software. I've just deleted this post. Below please find some explanation for the original poster and for other people who wonder whether we have censorship in the XnView forum.

First, it's not a good idea to walk into a church and say that Jesus is an a?#§#!.

Second, you won't be able to lead a logical and sensible discussion about atheism in a church.

Our XnView forum is not a church and isn't holy, and there is room for criticism and we are open to discuss things. But there's things that can be discussed and have a basis and there's things which can't.

There's many, many graphic viewers around, and every month there's new ones. It is pretty clear that many of them look alike. E.g. the pretty new FastStone Image viewer has various concepts of XnView. And actually ACDSee has moved from a pretty unstructured user-interface in Version 6.0 to a better user-interface in 7.0, which is not very far away from XnView. Now, XnView 1.80 has the little toolbar for the file list, so it looks more like ACDSee. And I wonder how long it will take till there is more graphic viewers with tabs like XnView 1.80 has, now...
The point is that some ideas and concepts turn out to be good and powerful, so these concepts are adopted. For example if you look at cars, you will find 99.9% of the cars with four wheel and a windscreen and doors. No car manufacturer will ever complain.

The many and long discussions lead here by active members show where the ideas come from and why XnView has a good and intuitive user interface.

You might like and understand my above comment or not, but I can say already that any new post regarding this matter will be deleted instantly. Please do not reply to this post, we will not discuss any plagiarism theory or possible proofs for plagiarism in any detail, here.

If you have questions regarding this issue, please contact Pierre or me.

Regards,

Helmut