On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:18:54AM +0000, Nick Lamb <njl98r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From the user's perspective The Gimp is part of GNOME. For 1.2 this
> won't be really true, but only because of lack of development time to
> handle the changes.
Maybe I am misinformed... I have a different impression, but since there is
no central steering agency for gimp, we will never know ;)
> I suppose we might conclude that vendors will ship only KDE, in which
I talked quite a bit about that with Kalle Dalheimer about "kimp". You
(rightly) remember that the "official" plan is to seperate the gimp ui
from the core.
The KDE people would not at all be opposed to code their own gui.
The reason for their hack (no one says kgimp was a reasonable design) was
that they lack the developer power to help with the core/ui seperation.
> case maybe those wacky Qt people will show up again and threaten to code
> a replacement Kim*g*sh*p if we won't re-write Gimp in C++ :)
We haven't ever seen a bad comment about kde here or on #gimp, for sure ;)
The problem with this is that many people on the kde lists are 3133t3-type
people, unlike with gnome (simply because kde is the perceived leader,
which is of course bound to change soon ;)
> UI in the 1.3.x devel series, so maybe then everyone will have a better
> opportunity to evaluate the dependencies of Gimp.
That would enable a _sensible_ kde frontend, and most probably a cool perl
interface for web-servers and the like ;)
Regardless of what happens, I do not feel like a gnome developer at all, I
don't even use gnome (much because of the same reasons I do not use kde).
I am sure I am not the only one who feels more-or-less strongly that gimp
!= gnome.
Nick: view it as a sign of quality... we are independent!
> But - back to 1.1.x coding!
Unfortunately, it's more like "1.2 fixing" :(
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
