Posted by
michael
on from the now-better-splash-screens dept.
d3vi1 writes "Pango, Glib & GTK 2.4.0 have been released to the public. See gtk.org in general, or specifically: the announcements for pango, glib and gtk."
It's the little things....
by
klipsch_gmx
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
... like glib, gnet, gtk+ (hah! little! and now, brand new!) but you know what I mean - these were things that people needed, so they wrote. We all benefit, and so does linux and unix.
I guess one of the strengths of the unix development model is that my SGI and Sun boxes have all the linux libraries on them, and I don't think that's at all strange...
Unix (before linux became mainstream) didn't have as much work in the class libraries (which like it or loath it, VC++ provided quite well).... Now it does.
Re:It's the little things....
by
sydb
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
All hail Lord Stallman; praise to St Ignucius.
Those "linux libraries" are not "linux" libraries, they are GNU libraries.
I don't see that a good thing necessarily. I've gone through the pain of compiling programs that had dozens of libraries needed because the author was too lazy to write a single function. Having all these libraries an arm reach away has made modern programmers lazy and less knowledgeable.
This is a tragic mis-statement. What it has done is extended the power of complex, standard behaviors and routines to other programmers, allowed for centralised bug fixing as well as system wide improvments and feature enhancements. Code reuse has allowed us to build complex software in short time periods to meet ever diminishing deadlines.
Even if the use of standard libraries made programmers 'lazy' and 'less knowledgeable' ( I can't believe I'm writing this ), how does this in any way negatively impact their output provided they have access to these amazing laze inducing libraries?
It almost makes me sad to read this post. My computing forebears slaved and suffered in a living hell of replicated work and wasted maintainance time - we have these tremendous advantages at our disposal, and they are characterised as some kind of enemy of programming moral fiber.
This release should clear the most litigious point against GTK+ : the file dialog.
Recent screenshots on gnomedesktop.org seem to prove they did the job right.
However, anyone knows if the WIN32 is far behind or up to date with this release ?
-- Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Re:New File Dialog
by
Tack
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I know they're attempting to appeal to inexperienced users, but they always seem to (1) do so in a way that pisses off experienced users, and (2) botch things up in the inexperienced-user case anyway.
I'm sure you like to pretend to think you know what you're talking about, but the design of this new file selector was not haphazard. There were long, arduous debates on the various, related lists about the UI and API and various use-cases for both beginner and advanced users.
Please set aside your righteous indignation and consider reading the list archives on desktop-devel-list, gtk-list, and others, and read the issues that the developers and designers have weighed and addressed in the design of the new file selector.
I'm sure nobody would say it's perfect, but you're grossly mistaken if you think it was blindly hacked together without regard to usability and API.
Jason.
Re:New File Dialog
by
Skjellifetti
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm sure you like to pretend to think you know what you're talking about, but the design of this new file selector was not haphazard. There were long, arduous debates on the various, related lists about the UI and API and various use-cases for both beginner and advanced users.
Remember, though, that a camel is a horse designed by committee. Long, arduous debates do not guarantee a successful design.
Re:New File Dialog
by
.com+b4+.storm
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you press ctrl-l with the fileselector open you get a textentry box with tab-completion.
Why can't they have it work similarly to the (new in Panther, I believe) file dialogs in OS X? In most apps now, when you have an open dialog box open, and you start typing with a / or ~ character, a little prompt pops up allowing you to type the path. This, to me, seems a bit more pleasant than having to bother with a separate key combo when I could just start typing the path and let the dialog box figure it out.
-- "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Re:Separate windows are fine
by
Abcd1234
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because, as you don't seem to understand, having a widget toolkit implement a friggin' *windowing subsystem* in order to fit your MDI world view is exceedingly stupid. MDI is broken. User case studies have shown that it confuses users more than it helps them. Get over it.
Re:KDE compatibility?
by
pe1rxq
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Nah... Bloat would be if your program would actually need them both and a third redundant dependancy is introduced in the service pack. Gtk programs only use a subset of all those installed libraries, they are not bloated. Likewise QT programs don't use all those libraries so it is not bloated either. Compare the space needed to install two complete desktop environments including several office suites with just one typical windows install and you will see which one is bloated.
Jeroen
-- Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:Separate windows are fine
by
Abcd1234
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Okay, you don't get it. That's okay, why would you? After all, you clearly don't understand how X works...
Implementing MDI is highly *non-trivial*. It requires Gtk to implement a full windowing toolkit, along with everything that entails. So, what you're saying is that you want the developers to waste thousands of man-hours implementing something that is, in the end, broken by design? Yeah, brilliant idea.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't *you* go and implement MDI in Gtk. Then, when you're done, fix up The GIMP to use it, and voila! You'll be the hero of those "thousands of users"! Have fun!
Re:Any commerical companies using these?
by
sydb
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Re:C++ Interface?
by
Erwos
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yes, you still do.
However, I really wouldn't raise my nose at GTKmm - it's actually VERY nicely done, and for someone who was raised on C++ and the STL (ie, most coders coming out of college now), it's much more intuitive than some other toolkits.
Trust me - GTKmm is no sacrifice at all.
-Erwos
-- Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
It really depends on your setup. I've got a 133 dpi LCD, and I can definitely say it looks better. Cleartype hints far too aggressively for a display that has that many pixels to play with. For a medium-res CRT, I'd rather have non-anti-aliased, hinted output anyway. If you've got that bytecode hinter on, you'll get identical output (pixel-for-pixel) in that case. Screenshot of my desktop Note, unless you've got a 133 dpi display or higher, the fonts will look unusually large.
In any case, I think FreeType's anti-aliased output at medium resolutions is actually quite good. Read one of my rants on OSNews (search for title "Font comparo thread"). Note the attached screenshot, taken at a more sane resolution.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Slashdot Mirror
... like glib, gnet, gtk+ (hah! little! and now, brand new!) but you know what I mean - these were things that people needed, so they wrote. We all benefit, and so does linux and unix.
I guess one of the strengths of the unix development model is that my SGI and Sun boxes have all the linux libraries on them, and I don't think that's at all strange...
Unix (before linux became mainstream) didn't have as much work in the class libraries (which like it or loath it, VC++ provided quite well).... Now it does.
This release should clear the most litigious point against GTK+ : the file dialog.
Recent screenshots on gnomedesktop.org seem to prove they did the job right.
However, anyone knows if the WIN32 is far behind or up to date with this release ?
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Because, as you don't seem to understand, having a widget toolkit implement a friggin' *windowing subsystem* in order to fit your MDI world view is exceedingly stupid. MDI is broken. User case studies have shown that it confuses users more than it helps them. Get over it.
Nah... Bloat would be if your program would actually need them both and a third redundant dependancy is introduced in the service pack.
Gtk programs only use a subset of all those installed libraries, they are not bloated.
Likewise QT programs don't use all those libraries so it is not bloated either.
Compare the space needed to install two complete desktop environments including several office suites with just one typical windows install and you will see which one is bloated.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Okay, you don't get it. That's okay, why would you? After all, you clearly don't understand how X works...
Implementing MDI is highly *non-trivial*. It requires Gtk to implement a full windowing toolkit, along with everything that entails. So, what you're saying is that you want the developers to waste thousands of man-hours implementing something that is, in the end, broken by design? Yeah, brilliant idea.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't *you* go and implement MDI in Gtk. Then, when you're done, fix up The GIMP to use it, and voila! You'll be the hero of those "thousands of users"! Have fun!
The Kompany do proprietary QT products.
Don't know about GTK.
But please: proprietary software is evil
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
now I gotta update all that mess again...
gah.. a linux user's work is never done.
Yes, you still do.
However, I really wouldn't raise my nose at GTKmm - it's actually VERY nicely done, and for someone who was raised on C++ and the STL (ie, most coders coming out of college now), it's much more intuitive than some other toolkits.
Trust me - GTKmm is no sacrifice at all.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
It really depends on your setup. I've got a 133 dpi LCD, and I can definitely say it looks better. Cleartype hints far too aggressively for a display that has that many pixels to play with. For a medium-res CRT, I'd rather have non-anti-aliased, hinted output anyway. If you've got that bytecode hinter on, you'll get identical output (pixel-for-pixel) in that case. Screenshot of my desktop Note, unless you've got a 133 dpi display or higher, the fonts will look unusually large.
In any case, I think FreeType's anti-aliased output at medium resolutions is actually quite good. Read one of my rants on OSNews (search for title "Font comparo thread"). Note the attached screenshot, taken at a more sane resolution.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...