10-10-2010, 04:34 PM
Indeed: spraying windows all over the screen Gimp-style is an absolute disaster on the usability front. Maybe it's OK if all you do is boot up and run Gimp with nothing else active, but when you have fifteen Firefox windows, six Open Office documents and then run Gimp, trying to track where all its bloody windows are is a nightmare.
Originally Posted by yotambien
10-10-2010, 04:37 PM
The multiple windows of GIMP can be a nuissance, but have you people ever heard of a window manager? Multiple desktops? Window grouping?
Seriously, it's 2010 and you're using Linux, how come you're complaining about things that were solved 20 years ago?
10-10-2010, 05:23 PM
10-10-2010, 05:51 PM
That's not the point. It's true that in Linux we have an assortment of window managers that can satisfy the tastes of everyone. Multiple desktops and a window manager properly configured mitigate the pain, but don't solve the problem. The Gimp's floating window interface has been loathed since always, you can't pretend it's been just a few people who didn't know what a WM is (or that we don't know it either). Usability panels arrived at the same conclusion as those users, as well as the people at Adobe. Multiple monitors or very small screens are the only cases where a floating model is an advantage.
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
All these years, every time somebody complained about the lack of a single window interface in The Gimp somebody would appear justifying this model or dismissing the complain as a bad habit from Photoshop. Well, it turned out we were right.
10-11-2010, 01:45 AM
More control not complete control.
Originally Posted by movieman
You're arguing with the wrong person. I'm stating why people do it, not why people should do it. I use C++ for everything. I think it's better. But, knowing how it works, things can go wrong. It can go wrong in C too but some developers prefer having more control than standard C++.
10-11-2010, 04:43 AM
10-11-2010, 06:25 AM
That's fine, especially now that we will have both options. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" here, if you find the floating windows UI comfortable that's your preference. It just happens that a lot of people did not, and the same was concluded by both Adobe UI designers and the usability people in charge of revamping The Gimp. This is what I mean when I say "we were right", i.e. that it was considered sufficiently important by both a good number of users, developers (at last) and UI experts.
So it would be foolish if I tried to convince you about how to best use The Gimp, you know what works best for you. For me it all boils down to having to manage more than one window. Sure, with a tiling WM (or kwin's grouping, but this is quite new), things aren't that bad. But I don't see how the possibility of rearranging the panels outweights the extra burden of actually rearranging them. I don't gain any extra space by moving them around because I want both the tools and the working document visible at all times, with no overlap. With more than one image loaded things used to get out of control rather quick. It's a similar principle to tabbed browsing, or the tabs in Thunderbird 3, or tabbed documents in text editors or IDEs. I don't want an extra window for more of the same, nor two parts of the same program separated for no obvious reason. If I had two monitors or were to edit an image on a netbook I might value more the floating interface.
10-11-2010, 07:44 PM
1.) genius clang is barely functional as still is under heavy development, so it's ridicioulus to bring that one out (you bother in check what clang is and in what state is LOL, take read it here http://clang.llvm.org/)
Originally Posted by BlackStar
2.) ICC doesnt count either since icc is not GNU compliant aka it misses some extensions added to the specification especificaly made to use in the GNU framework and it compile garbage(aka crappy performance) in AMD too since is for intel processors only. (is the same on windows btw, icc is incompatible with Viual Studio. that is why programs created with ICC are huge cuz you need to recompile all the dependicies using ICC)
3.) gcc 4.5 is not a minor revision genius, a minor revision is 4.4.1 for example, and yes gcc 4.5 need some additional iron out cuz it include a whole new series of technology to be closer performance wise to commertial compilers like graphite, SSA trees, C++0x, etc
4.) mozilla is the worth example you could ever bother to find, since mozilla main focus is windows compatibility and Visual Studio compiler is the worth C/C++ implementation you will ever find, so many of those cool feature are a pain to port to VS so mozilla try to avoid it.
5.) the rest of the post is just too lol to respond, this is free world so you are free among the oter 7 users of mono to keep using it, at least until microsoft stop paying novell to develop it and it slow fade aways.
6.) you dont have abi in an interpreted language for god sake, lol why im wasting my time replying this ....
10-11-2010, 08:14 PM
The usual GNU convention (also followed by Linux) for 3-part version numbers is major.minor.revision. So GCC 4.5 is a minor release, it's just that it's only "minor" compared to GCC 5.0.
Originally Posted by jrch2k8
10-12-2010, 03:45 AM
Everything you just said is wrong. I didn't believe this was possible, but people never cease to amaze me:
Originally Posted by jrch2k8
1) Clang currently implements all of the ISO C++ 1998 standard (including the defects addressed in the ISO C++ 2003 standard) except for 'export' (which has been removed from the C++'0x draft). Source
2) ICC is a mature, standards-compliant compiler. Can it compile Gentoo? The fact that you don't like its license is irrelevant.
3) Educate yourself: " The version number has the form [i]major-version.minor-version[//i] or major-version.minor-version.micro-version, where the additional third "micro" version number (as shown above) is used for subsequent bug-fix releases in a release series."
4) Are you insane? Take a look at the list of supported compilers and platforms. Its build system is GNU configure/make.
5) Running out of arguments? Oh wait, you didn't have arguments in the first place.
6) Mono is JIT compiled, not interpreted and has a well-defined ABI. Read the Debian CLI packaging policy, section 3.2.1.
Tags for this Thread