On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:55:51AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My head is not "in the ground". We obviously have longstanding, dramatic > > But you'd be hard pressed to offer a host of significant new features, from the > user's standpoint, introduced in the last two years.
Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground. Peek above the water table and have a look at things. It's frankly a waste of my time to list stuff, I'm not even going to bother trying. > It's not just the GUII effort at fault here. It's just one chapter. LyX has > suffered numerous efforts to circle back and clean up the code, rewrite "hacks" suffered ? Evidence please. (That's right, evidence - I don't know if that's cute or not). > dependent on xforms, etc. The community has often seemed incapable of building > on the foundation in place, rather than tearing it down and reconstructing it > ad nauseum. You obviously have no conception of the vast majority of LyX code changes. > GUII has been one more excuse not to "settle" with the code in place, but to go > back and rewrite it, in the process of separating it from GUI elements. Wrong. If you want me to take you seriously, I'd like you to quote cvs logs from just *one* case where this has actually happened with GUII. The GUII stuff was built on refactoring slightly the existing code. 99% of the work was pretty much based on moving code around. There was no "rewrite". You're arguing against a chimera I'm afraid. > Do you recall the attempt -- five years ago or more? -- to do a major rewrite > that was scuttled? The coding effort reverted back to the in-place, I wasn't there then. > Sure, LyX today is very nice, sparkling and clean, at least under the hood. rotfl ... good one ! :) > But I believe that my publicly expressed fears that this would be a long, drawn > out process -- much longer than anyone thought -- while the ground moved from > under LyX, has indeed been vindicated. You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything... > Why such fundamental user interface elements are still being tweaked is beyond > me. It must reflect the kind of dramatic differences in goals and objectives I > mentioned above. You're welcome to actually do a bit of research and read the mailing list archive. You're even welcome to report bugs and make suggestions. Random whining, though, is just going to edge towards my procmailrc. > A casual attitude toward the GPL is how licenses work? I don't understand your > point. And many consider the GPL a good, not an unfortnate, necessary evil. I'd rather that humanity had the grace to abide by the spirit of the GPL without the technical limitations regards john
