> Lots of disgreement here, and obviously in many quarters.
Yes. I don't want to start a flame-war, and should therefor just shut
up, but at the same time I feel that I should explain the reasons behind
the statement a bit more, since I'm the one responsible for them on the web
page.
> KLyX offers nothing whatsoever to ease use, particularly at those points
> where LyX and LaTeX meet (e.g., ERT). For most users, the experience is
> the same. LyX is even a couple of bumps ahead on the road, isn't it?
> (KLyX is 12.0 code). More modern? Yes, if Win98 is modern.
KLyX is based on 0.12.0 code, but most LyX patches up to 1.0.0 have probably
been back-ported.
I don't know if they have added the "Import LaTeX" feature. Except for
that one, LyX v1.0.0 is not substantially more advanced that LyX 0.12.0.
It's more stable, and a few small features have been added. But still,
the main thing is LaTeX import, and I would imagine that they added this
in KLyX, since it's a small patch. If not, it could be done in a few
hours, assuming reLyX is bundled.
So, regarding important features, KLyX is similar to LyX, despite being
started on 0.11.x code.
Regarding whether KLyX is easier to use: Since it supports drag'n'drop,
multiple views, math-toolbar, and the Qt toolkit is generally easier to use
than XForms (try the menus), I claim that it is easier to use. Since the
Qt toolkit is more modern than XForms, I claim KLyX is more modern. Also,
the dialogs have had another iteration in the design cycle, because they
are based on the XForms ones, and improved from those.
Ordinary LyX does not support drag'n'drop, multiple views, auto-changing
toolbars. All of these things make life easier. It's as simple as that.
But, once again: I get your point: KLyX is not easier to use for everybody.
If you never use those features, there is little difference. It might
even be harder for some, since they are used to XForms.
However, if you are using KDE, you probably want your applications to
look similar, and you are probably using drag'n'drop, etc.. And since
KLyX is designed to be used in KDE, it is simply easier in that particular
environment.
That's what I claim on the web-page, and that's what I sustain.
Personally, I use ordinary LyX for my work, eventhough I use KDE.
That seems like I'm undermining my own reasoning. However, the reason
I use LyX, is that I know much of the code, and many of the bugs.
Therefor, I can work around them (and get a bad conscience for not
fixing them instead.). So, LyX is easier for me.
However, all of this might be a storm in a glass of water.
The discussed statement on the web page is this:
KLyX is a port of LyX version 0.12.0 to KDE done
primarily by Matthias Ettrich and Kalle Dalheimer.
This port uses a more modern toolkit (namely Qt)
than LyX (which uses XForms). This makes KLyX
have a more modern look, and it is probably easier to
use compared to the "normal" LyX if you are using
KDE.
That's not too strong a statement IMO. Especially since I later say:
KLyX is considered to be a temporary version of LyX,
and at some point in time the normal LyX will make
KLyX obsolete. Before this happens (it could be a
long time), please check out KLyX and decide for
yourself which version you prefer. As of the 17th of
September 1998, KLyX is still beta, while LyX is
stable.
Basically: Try it and then decide for yourself.
I just felt that it was important to state that the LyX Team does
not look down on the KLyX port -- on the contrary, it was a technical
accomplishment.
We are sad that it's largely a wasted effort concerning the further
of normal LyX (until Allan Rae gets the KLyX dialogs back-ported into
LyX v1.1 again), but we do not want to blame anybody for using KLyX
if they prefer to do so.
The goal is to live in peace. Matthias said that he considers KLyX
a temporary version, and so do we. There is no sane reason to fight
each other. Until we catch up regarding the issues mentioned above,
there is therefor no harm in recommending to try KLyX.
The good news in all of this is that when we catch up, we also surpass
them by many lengths because we spent time on cleaning up rather than
hacking a questionable base. (And the ERT results from the Mexican
meeting are the first visible proofs of this. Doing that small ERT
inset is much harder than it looks.)
--
Of course I use "we" without any authorization. That's because I'm
an arrogant bastard that make statements on the behalf of many people
without their agreement, but I hope you all know that by now.
The reasoning is simple: If they don't agree in the broad picture,
they'll hopefully say so.
Greets,
Asger
