On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 09:44:47AM -0700, Michael J. Hammel wrote: >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. The point is not just KDE vs. GNOME, is it? Isn't BeOS doing their own port of GIMP, using the native widget set? And I'm sure Windows users would appreciate a more-or-less native Windows UI, too. >> 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. I don't really get your argument here. Are you saying that `KDE is wrong, so we shouldn't integrate GIMP into it', or just `variety is the spice of life'? Remember, we're doing this for the end users, and end users will probably want the same UI everywhere, no matter if they've chosen KDE, GNOME or Win32. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/
