On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ----- Forwarded message from Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
> >
> > Now imagine having LyX on Windows. All these people would be happy and
> > there is quite a few of them. Add to that group potential users from non
> > scientific community, say writers, who want to have a nice interface for
> > their SGML endeavours but don't want to learn UNIX. That's quite a nice
> > little user base.
>
> To my knowledge, the "GUII" path is virtually unprecedented in a project
> of this scope and scale in the open source community.
abiword (apparently multiple toolkits supported -- haven't had time to examine it),
xemacs (mixes multiple toolkits including gtk+ [21.4.1]),
mozilla (home-grown cross-platform toolkit)
siag (not sure what they are doing)
We aren't the only ones. We have a different approach to others -- we use
signals/slots instead of function pointers (same thing actually but better
way of handling them). Our approach also allows more flexibility than
either mozilla or xemacs approach.
> The bottom line is that, by the time this GUII path of development
> evolves into a stable Windows product (2003?), there will be widely
> deployed, low cost (in the academic market) alternative on the Windows
> platform, perhaps LaTeX based but ... if you are following developments
> in alternative word processing platforms and technologies ... very
> likely not.
These exist now. People (such as academics attending CCP2000) still want
LyX on Windows and also on Mac OSes.
> So why exactly should we slow the development of Unix LyX to a crawl
> to chase a wild goose?
Have you actually seen how much stuff has changed in the last twelve
months! In the last 18 months LyX development has accelerated forward, we
have doubled (or maybe even tripled) our developer base and we now have
more features than you could poke a stick at!
This is too slow for you? I haven't been able to keep up!
Allan. (ARRae)
