Paul Tremblay wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 03:55:58AM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote: >> >> Xforms sucks so bad, and QT is so beautiful. Also torturing the >> developers to finally finish the job is known to work wonders :-) >> > > I am not trying to be a contrarian here. I am sure you are right, that > QT is so much better (though I'm not sure what it is --is it what KDE > uses?).
Yes, KDE, qtella, opera, YaST are all qt-based. > But LyX under Xform is so predictable and stable for me. It is > the *only* document processor that even comes close to working on my > linux box. Everything else is simply unusable, in part because of the > gui. > So yes, Xforms is ugly. But its predictability and stability make it > beautiful for me. I hope the the new gui for LyX is as easy to set up > and as predictable as Xforms. Well finishing the QT-Frontend won't make the Xforms-GUI go away (immediately...). It is important to get the QT-Frontend to a usable state, so that users can test it out. ATM, I find the QT-Frontend less responsive than the Xforms frontend, especially where it comes to scrolling. -- Moritz Moeller-Herrmann ICQ #3585990 (wiss. Mitarbeiter, IMGB, Mannheim)
