Thus spoke Robert L Krawitz > From: Sven Neumann <neumanns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea. > > Actually, it's an eminently sensible idea. For KDE, having an image > editing program that follows the KDE UI guidelines and all the other > good stuff would be completely logical, especially since they wouldn't > have to maintain the core, just the UI. But they wouldn't have to maintain anything if they just left the UI alone. I'm with Sven on this one. Two UI's accomplishes little. After all, the whole point of modern desktops is to personalize them, not make them all look the same. I like KDE and think they've done a good job with their desktop, but they shouldn't feel Gimp does't fit because it looks like GNOME. It doesn't look like GNOME. GNOME looks like Gimp. No chicken and egg problem here. What is important is that the application behaves well under session management under those environments. And, if possible, some drag and drop. Changing the UI is a lot of misplaced effort. > The basic idea here is consistency. Look at it from the standpoint of > someone just coming over from Windows: why should the Gimp work > differently from all of their other KDE apps, which work consistently? Because it can. A little wave in the pond adds depth to a smooth surface. > "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." Interesting sig, considering you're argument about uniformity in user interfaces. -- Michael J. Hammel | Any sufficiently advanced technology is The Graphics Muse | indistinguishable from magic. mjhammel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | - Arthur C. Clarke http://www.graphics-muse.com
