Thomas Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:29:12 -0000, Olivier Lecarme
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could you be only a little specific about these "capricious changes"?
> > And what is this "alt-key problem"? From the beginning of GIMP, the alt
> > key has been used for some specific uses, for example in the layer mask.
> I'm not aware of any interaction with the layer mask which requires
> Alt and mouse movement (only click, which isn't a problem). Moving a
> selected region is a very common action and now seems impossible
> under normal Linux user interfaces. I can see the application of
> "capricious" to that situation. What was the benefit of changing the
> default drag action?
I don't think I'm using an abnormal Linux user interface : Debian Sid
with Gnome. I asked the window manager (Metacity) to use the windows key
for dragging a window, and all works perfectly. I imagined that you were
using Windows, which of course cannot be parameterized.
> >> From the beginning of GIMP, it has been suggested, when the window
> > manager confiscated this key for its own use, to use Shift+Alt instead,
> Shift-Alt does not seem to work with the dragging motion, for me anyway.
> > or to change one's window manager. Does it really need to be a
> > programmer to understand that, or to change the window manager
> > parameters in order to free the alt key?
> Suggesting that a system-wide setting should be changed to accomodate
> one application's arbitary decision that all users must use Alt
> instead of any number of other spare keys that keyboards have (AltGr,
> Windows, Menus, Meta, whatever) when it is well known that Alt-drag
> is used by desktops is perverse and lazy.
Whatever be the key choosed, it will be also be the choice for another
application or component. And the decision from this application will
seem arbitrary to others.
> The problem seems to be with GTK rather than Gimp, to be fair. But it
> would have been nice if Gimp allowed it to be worked around. If it was
> the only problem with 2.4 I would do something about it myself by way
> of a patch, but it isn't and I've just personally had enough with
> 2.4. It offers very little new for a lot of hassle with functions
> that used to work fine.
Once again, you are making non-specific complains. What exactly if this
lot of hassle ?
Gimp-user mailing list