From: "Michael J. Hammel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:44:47 -0700 (MST)
Thus spoke Robert L Krawitz
> From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea.
> Actually, it's an eminently sensible idea. For KDE, having an image
> editing program that follows the KDE UI guidelines and all the other
> good stuff would be completely logical, especially since they wouldn't
> have to maintain the core, just the UI.
But they wouldn't have to maintain anything if they just left the UI alone.
I'm with Sven on this one. Two UI's accomplishes little. After all, the
whole point of modern desktops is to personalize them, not make them all
look the same.
Exactly. And that's why I think it's reasonable to have other UI's
for the Gimp..
> The basic idea here is consistency. Look at it from the standpoint of
> someone just coming over from Windows: why should the Gimp work
> differently from all of their other KDE apps, which work consistently?
Because it can. A little wave in the pond adds depth to a smooth
Why, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF USERS WHO WANT ALL THEIR APPS TO WORK THE
SAME, should the Gimp work different from their other apps?
> "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
Interesting sig, considering you're argument about uniformity in
Enforced uniformity in user interfaces? Hardly. However, if that's
what the KDE folks want to do, that's between them and their users.
It isn't stopping anyone from using any other interface.
Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/
Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for The Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net
"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."