> > This is getting ridiculous. Why can't people believe that when they > > see something cool in what they like, it can be found in something > > else, or that when they see a defect, what they like can have it. It > > gets even worse when they just look at the other stuff with the sole > > goal to find defects inside, or when they use useless features as > > arguments (although I have to agree that Glob2 badly needs an SVG > > backend). Of course you can find defects wherever you want if you only > > look for them. > > > > I defended both QT and Gtk against people who seem to be so desperate > > about pushing their preferred toolkit that they act like xenophobes > > (tu sembles tellement acculé que tu commences à dire des conneries). > > There is no shame in using something just because it does the job and > > you like it. And because of that, there is no point in arguing against > > or for anything else. Just use it. And if you don't, don't complain. > > Because differences between the features of these toolkits are so > > minor that it really boils down to a matter of taste (which of course > > implies religion quarrels). > > > > Person who say it should not be done like this should not interrupt > > person doing it. --Chinese Proverb > > Since we seem to agree that both QT and GTK are fit for the job (and > that ther should be no flamewar). I suggest that the first one > working on it chooses the library to use... Because Martin V is > right; there is no point in defending or critisising stupidly one > technology agains another without solid and evident arguments (which > really don't seem to exist in this case).
Check out the quatuor module in the glob2 cvs (FYI it's QT-based). NCT and I began this a few days after his salvage proposal. But it's so in its infancy (it's more a directory layout than anything else) that we can still change everything. Martin _______________________________________________ glob2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
