On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 10:48:02AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some of us recall wistfully the adaption of a 1.0 vintage LyX from
> xforms to QT in "a week" (or some other ridiculously short period of
> time, was the claim) by one of the original core developers and, if I
> recall correctly, one other gentleman.
Matthias and Kalle. Kalle is now working with us on the current proper separation.
> I can't help but wonder whether GUI "independence" is a worthwhile
> goal, verses the selection of an alternative toolkit, warts and all.
I suggest you go back, and read approximately 3-4000 messages on this topic.
I'm not kidding. This is /old/ territory and nobody wants to go through it
again, thanks very much.
> Although I may be missing something obvious, I can't think of another
> major open source development effort that is trying to achieve GUI
> "independence". How did LyX ever end up on this quest?
that's total nonsense. several packages have done exactly this. licq mean anything
to you ? how about gphoto ?
> Is there any significant benefit, other than the "benefit" of this
> community enjoying the luxury of *avoiding* having to choose a single
> alternative?
yes.
> By "significant", I mean a benefit worth drawing out the process of
> phasing out xforms from "weeks" (perhaps that's a fantasy) to almost two
> years.
blah blah .... everyone's tired of this by now
> I hope that no one seriously considers supporting the Windows
> environment as one of the reasons. When I read that dependencies on
> X-server are "a problem", I wonder if someone here is getting lost in a
> vision (this one is definitely a fantasy) that a significant user base
> will develop on the Windows platform, if a LyX on Windows (not Cygnus)
> comes online in late 2002 or early 2003.
you severely underestimate the size of the interested Windows user base.
john
--
"I hope you will find the courage to keep on living
despite the existence of this feature."
- Richard Stallman
