On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 01:23, Guy Harris wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 01:17:21AM +0100, Erwin Rol wrote: > > Is a GTK-1 GUI still needed ? I mean all (WIN32 included) systems have > > the GTK-2 libs by now, don't they ? > > "Have" in what sense? >
"Have" as in, is possible to compile it for that system. (Just like Windows does not _have_ GTK, but it is possible to compile it for Windows). > Not all of them have it installed; I don't have it installed on most of > my systems at home - I tried, once, but it was a real pain getting all > the bits of software it needed installed and usable in the build > process. (I am running FreeBSD 3.4 on my main home machine, although if > we don't care about BSDs that old, I could probably upgrade at some > point.) > This might (well not for you, since you of course need to be able to compile it) be solved like the windows way by delivering the libraries with the installer. > Also, there may still be performance issues with Ethereal using GTK+ > 2.x. > OK this is something that has be worked on. And of course it can only be solved when people work on it :-) > > I would like to see (and will not be to lazy to program it ;-) A > > interface a-la gimp , where the 3 parts of the main window are separate > > top level windows. This would make things easier for multi-monitor > > setups. In general a option where you can select the layout of the > > windows, top to bottom (like now) , multi-window etc. would be nice. > > That's OK, as long as it's an *option*. Yes, that was the idea, don't want to force people in a certain layout. But the current layout it bad for when your screen is much wider than it is tall, like with wide screen monitors or multi-monitor setups. > > > Trying to follow the HIG http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/1.0/ > > as much as possible might not be a bad thing. > > We've been picking up at least some of the suggestions from there. > > > What also would be very nice is being able to use proportional fonts but > > still draw them with a fixed width. > > Are you certain that wouldn't look Really Strange? Not for the "hex dump" window, and not for the flags fields ( ..1.0.. ). In those two cases it is more important that things are aligned correct than the real "look". > > > A way to compare two packets (like a file diff) would also be nice. For > > example comparing two packets and than display the differences in red or > > so. > > That's on the wishlist, but without a specification as to what it means. > Are you talking about something that looks like a diff between the > protocol tree displays? An exact definition is hard, since it depends on what you want to compare i guess. Two protocol trees side by side would be good when the protocols are the same and only the values differ. OK this might be more complicated than i thought :-) -- Erwin Rol Software Engineering - http://www.erwinrol.com/
