Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | > Tell me again why we should pay _any_ attention to you then? | | It's been suggested to me in a private email that I respond the | following link: | | http://www.lyx.org/news/2315.php3#editorial4 And? If you only could be as constructive now... -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:53:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > | As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the > | effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of which > | have been outlined on this list over the years without influencing the course > | of development. More knickers in a bunch than signs of renewed interest here. > > Tell me again why we should pay _any_ attention to you then? It's been suggested to me in a private email that I respond the following link: http://www.lyx.org/news/2315.php3#editorial4 I hope we can consider this sub-thread at an end?
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Kuba responded to three of my postings on this thread. Please Lars, can I | write a brief response without you trying to reignite a week-old flame war? You are reiterating what we have heard for the umph-teenth time. | As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the | effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of which | have been outlined on this list over the years without influencing the course | of development. More knickers in a bunch than signs of renewed interest here. Tell me again why we should pay _any_ attention to you then? | I'll probably confine my contributions to bug reports and opportunistic new | feature ideas, accepting that the canals dug by the developers in | recent years | are, for all practical purposes, layered over in concrete. Thanks for nothing. Now go away. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
Kuba responded to three of my postings on this thread. Please Lars, can I write a brief response without you trying to reignite a week-old flame war? As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of which have been outlined on this list over the years without influencing the course of development. More knickers in a bunch than signs of renewed interest here. I'll probably confine my contributions to bug reports and opportunistic new feature ideas, accepting that the canals dug by the developers in recent years are, for all practical purposes, layered over in concrete.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Things have turned out pretty much following the course that was clear to any | observer a couple of years ago. | | For myself and a (now pretty much dead) klatch of LyX users with different | ambitions for the software years ago, very little we cared about has changed. If you refuse to become a bit more concrete, instead of the vague abstract stuff you have been spewing, please just go away. You are not helping! -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:53:02AM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > > Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse > > > menu layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever > > > exceed the total number of new users plus the total number of users who > > > switch. > > Larry Marso wrote: > > Gadzooks! The greatest good for the greatest number? Strict > > utilitarianism! > > If it weren't for the utilitarian value of LyX, I'd be happy with vi editing > .tex files like I used to. Er, that's utilitarianism, as in John Stuart Mill, not Websters. See: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/milljs.htm > A tiny bit of advice from a lesson I had to learn over and over: agility and > adaptability will make you feel better, work better and live better. > > Once you get into that mode of thinking, menu changes won't bother you > anymore. And they shouldn't. Menu changes don't bother me, per se. But I offered them as an example of continuing differences of opinion about priorities. > After some time, you get used to things and they become plain boring. Exactly! Things have turned out pretty much following the course that was clear to any observer a couple of years ago. For myself and a (now pretty much dead) klatch of LyX users with different ambitions for the software years ago, very little we cared about has changed.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Let's say that a Qt/mingw/x11 solution for win32 would be much better > than xforms/cygwin (Claus H solution), and that as an added bonus > people can also compile that against qt/win and not need X11 (although > this one cannot be distributed). Would this one (if ever finished) help us? http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/ Juergen.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> > No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of > > 'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified by editing > > lib/ui/default.ui with a simple text editor before releasing 1.4 I don't > > think this change will do too much damage in the long run. > > It just makes me wonder, that such tweaking continues. Obsession with > perfecting existing function and its presentatino keeps one "inside the > box". As opposed to the commercial types, which just go in circles like hounds trying to catch rabbit on a pole. I guess that in my developer's mind I'd rather stay inside the box. Cheers, Kuba Ober
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On poniedziałek 07 lipiec 2003 09:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse > > menu layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever > > exceed the total number of new users plus the total number of users who > > switch. > > Gadzooks! The greatest good for the greatest number? Strict > utilitarianism! If it weren't for the utilitarian value of LyX, I'd be happy with vi editing .tex files like I used to. All the other values -- fulfilling developers' ambitions, for one, are secondary to me, because while I'm a programmer, my interaction with LyX is 99.99% that of a user. And I like reading lyx-devel list just for the sheer fun of it -- watching fellow developers do their work. I guess that life is short enough to either keep up with what the developers do, even if the ui changes seem contrary to "common sense". I don't mind that much. I find it refreshing to have changes. It's something I've learned only recently, and with help from my dear wife, I admit. After some time, you get used to things and they become plain boring. That's what I find. Personally, I keep my wheels turning just because every day I have to learn something new. Somehow many people are very keen on "keeping things the way the are" just because it hurts them so much to learn new things, and they get annoyed not finding things where they used to be. A tiny bit of advice from a lesson I had to learn over and over: agility and adaptability will make you feel better, work better and live better. Once you get into that mode of thinking, menu changes won't bother you anymore. And they shouldn't. Try to learn quickly where the new things are and your headache will be over in 15 minutes. These are all minor cosmetics, you can easily almost reverse them (classic.ui), and they are no indication of what's going on under the hood. People seem to be so much bound to think that UI change indicate internal changes, changes in the developer's "mode of thinking", big logical changes in approaches, etc. But they most often don't. Cheers, Kuba Ober
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On piątek 04 lipiec 2003 09:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:16:31AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Troll Tech business > > > model and licensing practices, which puts open source applications > > > under the GPL in this untenable position if developers wish to release > > > Windows versions. > > > > Rubbish. Troll Tech's business model is admirable. They rock in this > > respect. > > I'm interested in hearing an explanation of your perspective on this, John, > because I just don't understand it, and may have misunderstood the > situation. > > As you say below, users on the Windows platform building binaries linked to > the QT non-commercial windows toolkit, and distributing them, will be > breaking the LyX GPL license. > > Is there another option, that doesn't require *unrealistic* local builds? Yes. Stop the crap and finish the GPL port of Qt/Windows. That's *the* fastest, minimal-fuss way to get all those nice Qt/KDE apps, LyX included, into Windows. There is no other way. Period. People have spent tons of steam pushing all this "TrollTech bad", "GPL bad" etc. stuff around, and it's very unconstructive. Whoever thinks that making a GPL'd Qt port for Windows is unrealistic should look at LyX. AFAICT there's less Windows-specific code in Qt/Windows than overall code in LyX. So it is doable. And given that the design is already there, and all non-platform-specific bits are there too, it is a readily doable task. If you can support my graduate education and modest living, I'd be more than happy to spend a year doing that, and another year ironing the wrinkles out. I guess that many others, more skilled than I am, would readily avail themselves to such an offer. Cheers, Kuba Ober
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:27AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote: > Unless we can obtain a license to redistribute a (possibly tainted) Qt DLL > from Trolltech. That's true; I can't see them being ecstatic about it though regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:29:36AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:25:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote: > > > I understand that statical linking is a problem, but is dynamic linking > > also a problem? > > Not sure, but also requiring each user to take out a license so they can > have the Qt library doesn't seem to help much ;) But it would help Trolltech, wouldn't it? ;-) Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, John Levon wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:25:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote: > > > I understand that statical linking is a problem, but is dynamic linking > > also a problem? > > Not sure, but also requiring each user to take out a license so they can > have the Qt library doesn't seem to help much ;) Unless we can obtain a license to redistribute a (possibly tainted) Qt DLL from Trolltech. Regards, Asger
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:25:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote: > I understand that statical linking is a problem, but is dynamic linking > also a problem? Not sure, but also requiring each user to take out a license so they can have the Qt library doesn't seem to help much ;) regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, John Levon wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote: > > > Get a license of Qt for windows so that we can legally redistribute > > binaries. > > Nobody can legally distribute a GPLed app linked against > non-GPL-compatible libraries that do not form part of the standard > libraries for the target OS. That's the problem I understand that statical linking is a problem, but is dynamic linking also a problem? Regards, Asger
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup wrote: > Get a license of Qt for windows so that we can legally redistribute > binaries. Nobody can legally distribute a GPLed app linked against non-GPL-compatible libraries that do not form part of the standard libraries for the target OS. That's the problem regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
I'm surprised we do not once again consider the path of least resistance: Get a license of Qt for windows so that we can legally redistribute binaries. How do we do this? 1) Ask Trolltech for a free license. Matthias works there. 2) Ask Trolltech for a discount, and use some of the LyX founds to buy it. 3) Ask users to donate some money. Best regards, Asger
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "larry" == larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You conveniently forget that the Qt interface brought us a native >> Mac OS X interface (and perfectly GPL) with little or no effort. larry> Of course, I did not forget -- "conveniently" or otherwise -- larry> over two years ago about the Mac OSX QT interface. larry> IIRC, it didn't exist. ;-) OK, maybe my comment was not correctly worded. This native qt/aqua port was made possible by the big effort on making sure that LyX does not depend on X11 directly. This requires some time, actually... Concerning porting to qt directly instead of going the GUI-I way: actually, this has been tried and the result was named 'klyx'. So we had a real world occasion to see where the momentum was, and klyx lost. Why? I am not sure exactly, but I feel that this was an effort on having immediate visible 'sexy' results and that this is not enough to make a program go forward. We chose a way which is not the easiest one, asking to users to be patient while some underground work is going on, and it seems that we did not piss all of them off ... JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ruurd> I think it would even be possible to just switch .dll's, Ruurd> providing that the 'real' win32 .dll is available from Ruurd> somewhere. No relinking needed. But...let's see if I manage to Ruurd> create a mingw X11 qt lib first and start from there. That sounds like a good plan. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:53:45PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What do you propose be done if someone builds and posts binaries somewhere > else? Nothing at all. In fact, I'd be happy about it. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:31:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > [...] is bad because people might break the rules? > > Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard > practice is, indeed, bad. Building cars that can go at 200 km/h and selling them to a country with a speed limit of 130 km/h predictibly causes violation of this country's rules. Does that make the car builder a Bad Boy? Or rather the driver? What about a goverment of a country without speed limit? Only Bad Boys, as the car makers of this country are not forbidden to build fast cars? But it might be the street builder's fault. After all nobody would drive more than 130 km/h on a gravel road. > I have had other issues with GUII, code "clean-up", etc., which obviously and > vocally became priorities here, for an extended period of time, arresting much > new feature development. You do not seem able to make educated guesses what the situation was like before and what it is like now. Or, at least, your educated guesses differ from mine significantly. This is just embarassing. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:53:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > If it canot be said out in the open... is it then worth saying? > (as long as it concerns lyx?) Certainly, the LyX community should strive for an open atmosphere inviting of comment and feedback, where such an ethos can predominate.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse menu > layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever exceed the > total number of new users plus the total number of users who switch. Gadzooks! The greatest good for the greatest number? Strict utilitarianism!
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | > - what all these NN people sympatize with | | It took me a minute to figure out what the blazes you are talking about. | | I'm not reposting private emails directed to me. But I found it kind of | interesting, and worth sharing, that the list is considered by so many a | not-entirely-comfortable place for open discussion. | | You shouldn't so readily dismiss off-mailing list discussions. When none of those mails are sent to me I dismiss them. All other is just hearsay. | They were a | significant phenomenon some years ago for LyX as well, though perhaps for | different reasons. If it canot be said out in the open... is it then worth saying? (as long as it concerns lyx?) | > I have no problems with the changes John has made, even if I am not | > quite familiar with them yet. | | If John has effective carte blanche to do what he will with the | menus, and even you aren't yet familiar with his efforts, then my | comments are premature. "familiar with" was the wrong expression... "used to" would have been more accurate. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:51:52AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > - feature requests As I said, over a period of weeks and months, if I decide to become more involved, I'll sift through my old archives and attempt to reintroduce some of the nifty but long-abandoned historical ideas/ambitions, and offer new suggestions when I have them. > - what all these NN people sympatize with It took me a minute to figure out what the blazes you are talking about. I'm not reposting private emails directed to me. But I found it kind of interesting, and worth sharing, that the list is considered by so many a not-entirely-comfortable place for open discussion. You shouldn't so readily dismiss off-mailing list discussions. They were a significant phenomenon some years ago for LyX as well, though perhaps for different reasons. > I have no problems with the changes John has made, even if I am not > quite familiar with them yet. If John has effective carte blanche to do what he will with the menus, and even you aren't yet familiar with his efforts, then my comments are premature.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:51:52AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > I have no problems with the changes John has made, even if I am not > quite familiar with them yet. (Not having recent documents at end of > the file menu was a problem...) I'm still a little split over my change here. On the plus side : o the new position is more commonly used in most apps (open office is the only one offhand that uses the old LyX way) o the Quit item is now more visually distinct o the File menu is a more reasonable size in general On the cons side : o it's harder to acquire a submenued target > So at least arguments on why the old way was better is required. Hopefully ones that extend beyond "the old way was used by all the users". Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse menu layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever exceed the total number of new users plus the total number of users who switch. Sometimes you just have to make a choice like that (of course, people are still accommodated by classic.ui, and I expect it to quickly become an FAQ on release ;) regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:12:40AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > | > And _who_ are you to tell people what they should use their spare time | > on? | > | > Put up or shut up, you are really beginning to annoy me now. | | Making fundamental UI changes, for functions that have been around for | what, six or seven years? In a manner that makes LyX unrecognizable? | | No one should raise questions? | | What exactly am I supposed to "put up"? - feature requests - what all these NN people sympatize with - code | In this case, I'd "put up" what's in | place and has been settled for years. Anything wrong with that? Not really, but if the argument is just "That is how it has always been" that it is a bit on the sparse side. I have no problems with the changes John has made, even if I am not quite familiar with them yet. (Not having recent documents at end of the file menu was a problem...) Most of the changes to the ui has been good. And the great difference from earlier is that this time all the placements in the menus have a reason and can be backed up with arguments. Earlier it was just "throw it in somewhere it seems to fit." So at least arguments on why the old way was better is required. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:12:40AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > And _who_ are you to tell people what they should use their spare time > on? > > Put up or shut up, you are really beginning to annoy me now. Making fundamental UI changes, for functions that have been around for what, six or seven years? In a manner that makes LyX unrecognizable? No one should raise questions? What exactly am I supposed to "put up"? In this case, I'd "put up" what's in place and has been settled for years. Anything wrong with that?
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote: | > | > Some content from Larry ! :) | | Very funny, John. | | > Any permutation is a distribution of some kind. This change in | > particular reflects the general move to an object-verb interface instead | > of a verb-object interface. Menus in general tend towards object-verb | > order. | > | > Similarly, frequency rate of functions are better grouped now. As by | > functionality: the "selection parameters" dialogs are grouped at the | > bottom of the Edit menu, in the context-sensitive area. | | While many or most of these may be good points, I just don't understand why | such basic UI elements are, after so many years, still being reorganized. | Certainly it's not new feature driven, as these are basic formating controls. Why are we not allowed to making existing features better? Or try to make them better? Are the only allowed features completely new ones? And _who_ are you to tell people what they should use their spare time on? Put up or shut up, you are really beginning to annoy me now. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:32:54PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > | > You have so far provided a lot of statements about the development of | > lyx and the lack of new features, about what has been done to the code | > and not, and what we have lost because of the drive for GUII. | | I've certainly said as much as I can on the subject. | | While the responses on the list have been pretty much knee-jerk, the emails | from less public voices have been interesting and sympathetic, full of detail | and giving context and and color to the various characters here. | | Maybe, with time, we can get the more thought provoking discussions back out in | the open and on a public forum. For now, it's not time, and maybe this will | just never be the place. Too much invested personality, in the eyes of this | humble observer. | | > So instead of the "Ha! Told you so!" attitude, please be a bit more | > constructive. | | John and, to a lesser extent, you have infused my comments with the veneer of | "I told you so". The fact is, I've been saying the same thing for years, as | have you (and others). | | I would hope that code clean-up and GUII have progressed to an extent that we | can move on to think, once again, about other things. | | It seems that it may be you having difficulty letting go of the question, "was | it all worth it?" If you only wish to welcome voices that are on exactly the | same page as you on this point, that's limiting for LyX. I cannot imagine why you are going round and round on this and all the time managag to stay utterly non-constructive. - What does these NN people say except just being "interesting and sympathetic". Please do as Kayvan told you: be concrete. And please drop all this references to the past and help pave the way for LyX feature, you are not helping now. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
What do you propose be done if someone builds and posts binaries somewhere else? Which is inevitable. On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:23:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > Well, distributing the sources of the native version without the > > binaries is really hypocritical, I think. If these source do not have > > any other use than building a binary that we do not want to see > > distributed, we are not sending a very clear signal. > > Why? > > The signal is very clear: We don't want to break the rules. Building the > thing is ok, but distribution not. We stay on the safe side.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > Some content from Larry ! :) Very funny, John. > Any permutation is a distribution of some kind. This change in > particular reflects the general move to an object-verb interface instead > of a verb-object interface. Menus in general tend towards object-verb > order. > > Similarly, frequency rate of functions are better grouped now. As by > functionality: the "selection parameters" dialogs are grouped at the > bottom of the Edit menu, in the context-sensitive area. While many or most of these may be good points, I just don't understand why such basic UI elements are, after so many years, still being reorganized. Certainly it's not new feature driven, as these are basic formating controls.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:32:54PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > You have so far provided a lot of statements about the development of > lyx and the lack of new features, about what has been done to the code > and not, and what we have lost because of the drive for GUII. I've certainly said as much as I can on the subject. While the responses on the list have been pretty much knee-jerk, the emails from less public voices have been interesting and sympathetic, full of detail and giving context and and color to the various characters here. Maybe, with time, we can get the more thought provoking discussions back out in the open and on a public forum. For now, it's not time, and maybe this will just never be the place. Too much invested personality, in the eyes of this humble observer. > So instead of the "Ha! Told you so!" attitude, please be a bit more > constructive. John and, to a lesser extent, you have infused my comments with the veneer of "I told you so". The fact is, I've been saying the same thing for years, as have you (and others). I would hope that code clean-up and GUII have progressed to an extent that we can move on to think, once again, about other things. It seems that it may be you having difficulty letting go of the question, "was it all worth it?" If you only wish to welcome voices that are on exactly the same page as you on this point, that's limiting for LyX.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:15:21AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > pursue their agenda. Maybe, finally, time was ripe to reinvigorate some of the > ambitions I've encountered around the world for LyX software, documented partly > in the LyX mailing lists, but perhaps more in some archived private emails and > a handful of personal recollections. > > The reception offered here is less than encouraging. You haven't come up with any innovations in this thread that I see. Include some content and perhaps the reception will be different. Content includes: o bug reports o feature requests o feature specifications o patches o testing o analysis of existing problems o funding I haven't seen *any* of these from you. In fact, you're distinguishing yourself. Where are all these innovative suggestions ? john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:10:54AM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote: > Do you have any examples? Be as specific as you can. Kayvan, I returned to evaluate whether to jump back into the LyX effort over a period of weeks and months (as I said in one of my first postings in 2003). Those focused on GUII and code cleanup -- efforts that I'm not very interested in, and that I always viewed as potential distractions -- have had *years* to pursue their agenda. Maybe, finally, time was ripe to reinvigorate some of the ambitions I've encountered around the world for LyX software, documented partly in the LyX mailing lists, but perhaps more in some archived private emails and a handful of personal recollections. The reception offered here is less than encouraging. > Can you be categorically sure that cleaning up and re-architecting was > not the fastest way to new features? (this requires some cost vs. benefit > analysis) I am categorical on the subject, because LyX has been in an effective "feature freeze" for a number of years. In fact, cleaning up and re-architecting was often promoted as the fastest way to new features, but several years have past. Seeing LyX's recent progress as a "feature freeze" is really a big-picture statement, reflecting a certain perspective, more than it is a "fact". One unfortunately can't make this observation without ruffling a lot of feathers, which was never my intention. If you don't share the perspective, I guess you just don't. > comparing the number of hours that would have been spent > maintaining and kludging bad architecture to add features with the > amount of time spent in "cleanup" efforts). Well, I think you'd have to acknowledge that a lot was accomplished kludging the "bad architecture". Whether it reached its limits, it's hard to say. Is history now, a part of the past. If LyX is not "bright, spanking and clean" internally by now, at least its internals should no longer forstall other improvements, right? And now Kayvan, for some reason you've dropped what reads like a legal due diligence checklist of questions, all focused on the past. I'm really not interested in that. > List the evil-red-text constructs that you would like replaced > by LyX features and how you would imagine it working. OK, that's about the future. That part of the discussion, which included UI replacements of ERT constructs, innovative templates, new environments and document classes, and lots more, goes back several years. Some of it on the lists, some not. The real question is whether the time is ripe to renew such discussion. The indications, so far (on the list at least) are, maybe, no.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:45:42PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > I think you are now fudding all over the place. | | What I find most remarkable about this discussion, Lars, is the emails I've | received from sympathetic readers who don't want to have to deal with the | "ramifications" of posting their views to this list. I have always ignored posts by NN. | I've always wanted the best for LyX. As have the rest of us... | I'm sorry that certain participants | around here say, basically, that it's not worth their time to | respond with any substance, then suggest there is no substance to | the discussion (LOL) ... and IMHO thas has been the case... not a lot of substance but a lot of words... | seek to reject any observations with platitudes, then accuse others of | spreading FUD. It's a familiar, unfortunate rap. You have so far provided a lot of statements about the development of lyx and the lack of new features, about what has been done to the code and not, and what we have lost because of the drive for GUII. Most of that is at best misinformed, but it is borderline flat out wrong. So instead of the "Ha! Told you so!" attitude, please be a bit more constructive. And help define the way forward towards a better lyx instead of dwelling on the past and could-have-beens. (gjort er gjort og spist er spist). -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:18:29AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've always wanted the best for LyX. I'm sorry that certain participants > around here say, basically, that it's not worth their time to respond with any > substance, then suggest there is no substance to the discussion (LOL) ... and Say something meaningful and we'll answer it. john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:45:42PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > I think you are now fudding all over the place. What I find most remarkable about this discussion, Lars, is the emails I've received from sympathetic readers who don't want to have to deal with the "ramifications" of posting their views to this list. I've always wanted the best for LyX. I'm sorry that certain participants around here say, basically, that it's not worth their time to respond with any substance, then suggest there is no substance to the discussion (LOL) ... and seek to reject any observations with platitudes, then accuse others of spreading FUD. It's a familiar, unfortunate rap.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:31:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > [...] is bad because people might break the rules? > > Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard > practice is, indeed, bad. That's an indictment of Troll Tech's practices, not > LyX or QT development by any one developer here. (Unfortunately, such > criticism is being taken very personally). First off, let me state that I am a minor player in the LyX game. I mainly file bug reports, fix occasional bugs, and make sure that LyX compiles on my favorite OS and compiler combinations. I don't really have an agenda in any of the recent discussions and I believe I can be fairly objective. With that said, I don't see much that is being taken personally. There are some who keep saying, basically, what you are saying is either too vague to be useful or that your point of view is wrong in substance. > I have had other issues with GUII, code "clean-up", etc., which obviously and > vocally became priorities here, for an extended period of time, arresting much > new feature development. Do you have any examples? Be as specific as you can. Are there any features that could have been completed if the LyX team was not busy cleaning up and re-architecting the LyX code? Can you be categorically sure that cleaning up and re-architecting was not the fastest way to new features? (this requires some cost vs. benefit analysis, comparing the number of hours that would have been spent maintaining and kludging bad architecture to add features with the amount of time spent in "cleanup" efforts). Another factor to keep in mind in the analysis is that LyX, being essentially a non-commercial project, is not under the market pressures that supplant the need to "do the right things" in favor of "do the fast things". LyX developers do have the luxury of spending a bit more time fixing things or cleaning things up than a lot of us who work in large corporate environments. > In this context, a wide range of other ambitions for LyX faded, and > a number of users and contributors, included myself, distanced ourselves > from the project. Again, can you be specific about these "other ambitions"? > Part of my reason for wading in at this point was to see whether > the atmosphere had changed. What is "the atmosphere"? What do you mean exactly? > The stridency I've observed in just a handful of days on this list, and > 1.4.0cvs' reimagining of basic user interface controls like the "Layout" menu > -- in place for years -- without any real change in function, makes me wonder. How do you define stridency? For the most part, I have not seen it. Yes, there are people saying that you are flat wrong, but that seems to me to be about the substance of the discussion and not about any personal biases. Regarding the UI: The User Interface is immensely configurable. With just a little bit of work, the "classic" interface can be made to work seamlessly. > I've heard the canard of "feature bloat" from some. >From whom? What features, specifically are "feature bloat"? > I'd take a few more menu items over boatloads of Evil Red Text any day. Please be specific. List the evil-red-text constructs that you would like replaced by LyX features and how you would imagine it working. ---Kayvan -- Kayvan A. Sylvan | Proud husband of | Father to my kids: Sylvan Associates, Inc. | Laura Isabella Sylvan | Katherine Yelena (8/8/89) http://sylvan.com/~kayvan | "crown of her husband" | Robin Gregory (2/28/92)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:51:56AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find > > > > - Layout -> Document > > - Layout -> Paragraph > > - Layout -> Character > > > > very logical now. > > Interestingly, over my many years of using LyX, I've watched other word > processing programs consolidate their formatting functions under a > > "Format ->" > > menu item. The rest of the universe has been moving toward LyX's way of doing Some content from Larry ! :) Yes, the Format menu has become pretty widely used. My earliest designs involved such a change in name (the functionality of the menus really are fairly similar). In the end, though, I found we could avoid the extra top-level menu altogether, because there were moroe logical/useful places for all the items. > things, not distributing the functionality across the interface. Any permutation is a distribution of some kind. This change in particular reflects the general move to an object-verb interface instead of a verb-object interface. Menus in general tend towards object-verb order. Similarly, frequency rate of functions are better grouped now. As by functionality: the "selection parameters" dialogs are grouped at the bottom of the Edit menu, in the context-sensitive area. regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > Certainly not. But not shouting 'veto' does not mean it is unhearable. "Your objection has been noted", I said acerbically ;) > > There are technical reasons for the change. Again, you're too lazy to > > actually argue the points from what I can see. Every time I reply with a > > detailed rationale, you go quiet. I'm not stupid enough to try again. > > Betting the farm on that? OK, I admit, I probably am that stupid. > > For the last time, if *you* (or any other user) doesn't want to make the > > change, use classic.ui ! > > You mean the thing that won't show even a single item in the toolbar? > Maybe I am getting a bit too conservative nowadays, but I would not > consider this as 'no change'. Oops, I need to update that file. regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?alternative platforms
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:49:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > Fundamental changes sometimes cause problems during periods of > transition. This does not necessarily imply the change is bad. Of course not. But as an infrequent observer over a period of years, it's really striking to see that in 2003 there is serious discussion, and time wasted, on such basic UI elements for functionality in place for years.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find > > - Layout -> Document > - Layout -> Paragraph > - Layout -> Character > > very logical now. Interestingly, over my many years of using LyX, I've watched other word processing programs consolidate their formatting functions under a "Format ->" menu item. The rest of the universe has been moving toward LyX's way of doing things, not distributing the functionality across the interface.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I've heard the canard of "feature bloat" from some. | | I'd take a few more menu items over boatloads of Evil Red Text any day. I think you are now fudding all over the place. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Because LyX without the 'GUII effort' and further cleanups is in a state
> where adding new features is very difficult. Moreover, even if adding a
> new feature turns out to be possible it most likely adds to the current
> mess and makes adding a second feature even more difficult.
>
> So the way to go is to do the cleanups first.
I have of course seen this argument; it was all the rage a couple of years ago.
I stepped back in part because, as I didn't write the code, I was in no
position to debunk it convincingly.
However, I did argue that such an effort would take eons and, in the end,
*supplant* rather than facilitate new features. A point that seems vindicated.
> > Sure, LyX today is very nice, sparkling and clean, at least under the
> > hood.
>
> I wish it were. In fact such statements do not add much credibility to the
> other not-so-easy-to-follow statements.
As I said, I've been away from the community. But if after *all* *these*
*years*, LyX is not "very nice, sparkling and clean, at least under the hood"
-- strictly by comparison with a couple of years ago, of course -- then what
has been the point of the cleanups and GUII?
My use of the expression "feature freeze" obviously ruffled some feathers here.
> > diaspora throughout the user interface ("Edit->Paragraph Settings"
> > Seriously?)
>
> > Why such fundamental user interface elements are still being tweaked is
> > beyond me.
>
> No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of
> 'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified by editing
> lib/ui/default.ui with a simple text editor before releasing 1.4 I don't
> think this change will do too much damage in the long run.
It just makes me wonder, that such tweaking continues. Obsession with
perfecting existing function and its presentatino keeps one "inside the box".
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | There is consensus amongst everybody except you. That includes Lars and | JMarc. If consensus include "I can live with it", then ok. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
--- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andre> I thought Ruurd offered (d) as a clean way for us but with less > Andre> hassle for the user than in the other 'clean' solution. I was > Andre> just trying to say that the hassle for the user is not much > Andre> less than to let him compile and link everything. > > Let's say that a Qt/mingw/x11 solution for win32 would be much better > than xforms/cygwin (Claus H solution), and that as an added bonus > people can also compile that against qt/win and not need X11 (although > this one cannot be distributed). > I think it would even be possible to just switch .dll's, providing that the 'real' win32 .dll is available from somewhere. No relinking needed. But...let's see if I manage to create a mingw X11 qt lib first and start from there. Ruurd __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:37:45AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > So what you are actually proposing is that the current developers or > whoever distributes LyX (including Kayvan, the Linux distributors etc) > take some legal risk just for the benefit of a random Windows user that's > neither able to compile LyX himself nor able to ask his colleague for help? I'm proposing nothing of the kind. Some posters here have used language suggesting that some kind of relicensing melarcky might go forward. I certainly hope not. As I said, it would be bad for LyX, the GPL and for open source in general. > So we agree and I seem to have missed your point entirely... Possibly. You might try rereading some of my postings skipping John Levon's responses, which have included paragraphs of mine that are confusing without the context.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > [...] is bad because people might break the rules? Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard practice is, indeed, bad. That's an indictment of Troll Tech's practices, not LyX or QT development by any one developer here. (Unfortunately, such criticism is being taken very personally). I have had other issues with GUII, code "clean-up", etc., which obviously and vocally became priorities here, for an extended period of time, arresting much new feature development. In this context, a wide range of other ambitions for LyX faded, and a number of users and contributors, included myself, distanced ourselves from the project. Part of my reason for wading in at this point was to see whether the atmosphere had changed. The stridency I've observed in just a handful of days on this list, and 1.4.0cvs' reimagining of basic user interface controls like the "Layout" menu -- in place for years -- without any real change in function, makes me wonder. I've heard the canard of "feature bloat" from some. I'd take a few more menu items over boatloads of Evil Red Text any day.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > larry> I was rather shrill about the QT effort, in particular. In > larry> light of Trolltech's dual support for Unix and Windows, the QT > larry> frontend has always seemed destined to run aground on precisely > larry> this issue of linking against non-commercial libraries. Well, > larry> here we are. > > You conveniently forget that the Qt interface brought us a native Mac > OS X interface (and perfectly GPL) with little or no effort. Of course, I did not forget -- "conveniently" or otherwise -- over two years ago about the Mac OSX QT interface. IIRC, it didn't exist. ;-)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:23:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz spake thusly: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:53:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: ... > > However, if it appears that Ruurd's code can help building a Mingw/X11 > > version of LyX (which would be lighter than a cygwin version and > > better than the xforms version we had), then we could distribute that. > > We could do than on top of providing the native sources. X11 under Windows > is a crutch and it just does not fit there. It's ok if it's your only > option but not some 'primary solution'. At least it was like that last time > I needed it - which has been a while ago now.. > > Moreover, the complete setup including some introduction to X11 for > newbies is not less work than providing a 'monkey see-monkey do'-style > description of a downloading lyx source + compiler + compliing the thing. > > Andre' Probably true. But on the other hand, it could be argued that making people install and see CygWin for themselves has intrinsic value... if you cannot make them switch to *nix, inflict *nix upon them. - Martin pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:57:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Andre> I thought Ruurd offered (d) as a clean way for us but with less > Andre> hassle for the user than in the other 'clean' solution. I was > Andre> just trying to say that the hassle for the user is not much > Andre> less than to let him compile and link everything. > > Let's say that a Qt/mingw/x11 solution for win32 would be much better > than xforms/cygwin (Claus H solution), and that as an added bonus > people can also compile that against qt/win and not need X11 (although > this one cannot be distributed). Fine with me. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:49:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > Entirely wasting my time, but ... > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > I guess you'd hear me as soon anybody tries to _release_ 1.4.0 like this. > > Are you seriously stating you'll veto this ? AFAIK you don't have this > right over the menus. Certainly not. But not shouting 'veto' does not mean it is unhearable. > > Groundwork? It has been like that all the time. People are used to it. > > If there is no technical reason for the change and if there is no > > consensus it should stay as it was. > > There is consensus amongst everybody except you. That includes Lars and > JMarc. If so I might not be able to change it. This still doesn't mean it goes unheard. > There are technical reasons for the change. Again, you're too lazy to > actually argue the points from what I can see. Every time I reply with a > detailed rationale, you go quiet. I'm not stupid enough to try again. Betting the farm on that? > > I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find > > > > - Layout -> Document > > - Layout -> Paragraph > > - Layout -> Character > > > > very logical now. > > The phrasing of this sentence makes my point perfectly I think. It was intended to be phrased like that. > For the last time, if *you* (or any other user) doesn't want to make the > change, use classic.ui ! You mean the thing that won't show even a single item in the toolbar? Maybe I am getting a bit too conservative nowadays, but I would not consider this as 'no change'. > [Detailed explanation elided as you will neither listen nor respond to > it] No problem. > Furthermore, I count *one* user complaining so far, plus Michael S. > asking about the rationale for the changes. So one of us should practise incrementing binary numbers with overflow ;-) Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andre> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:48:02PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Andre> wrote: Ok, but if some user want to 'change the library' he'd Andre> need to re-link LyX, doesn't he? And that would mean at least a Andre> working linker, which is less than a full-blown compiler + Andre> autotool + ..., but still more than you'd expect to be Andre> available on Grandma's Win95 box. >> Uh, yes of course. I think I do not understand what you meant. Andre> I thought Ruurd offered (d) as a clean way for us but with less Andre> hassle for the user than in the other 'clean' solution. I was Andre> just trying to say that the hassle for the user is not much Andre> less than to let him compile and link everything. Let's say that a Qt/mingw/x11 solution for win32 would be much better than xforms/cygwin (Claus H solution), and that as an added bonus people can also compile that against qt/win and not need X11 (although this one cannot be distributed). JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:48:02PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Andre> Ok, but if some user want to 'change the library' he'd need to > Andre> re-link LyX, doesn't he? And that would mean at least a working > Andre> linker, which is less than a full-blown compiler + autotool + > Andre> ..., but still more than you'd expect to be available on > Andre> Grandma's Win95 box. > > Uh, yes of course. I think I do not understand what you meant. I thought Ruurd offered (d) as a clean way for us but with less hassle for the user than in the other 'clean' solution. I was just trying to say that the hassle for the user is not much less than to let him compile and link everything. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
Entirely wasting my time, but ... On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > I guess you'd hear me as soon anybody tries to _release_ 1.4.0 like this. Are you seriously stating you'll veto this ? AFAIK you don't have this right over the menus. > > Especially as you are too lazy to do the groundwork to argue your case. > > Groundwork? It has been like that all the time. People are used to it. > If there is no technical reason for the change and if there is no > consensus it should stay as it was. There is consensus amongst everybody except you. That includes Lars and JMarc. There are technical reasons for the change. Again, you're too lazy to actually argue the points from what I can see. Every time I reply with a detailed rationale, you go quiet. I'm not stupid enough to try again. > I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find > > - Layout -> Document > - Layout -> Paragraph > - Layout -> Character > > very logical now. The phrasing of this sentence makes my point perfectly I think. For the last time, if *you* (or any other user) doesn't want to make the change, use classic.ui ! [Detailed explanation elided as you will neither listen nor respond to it] > And if you start arguing the math font changes: I can't remember anybody > complaining about them (there might be one or two, but I forgot), but there There were, though my memory is equally not so good. > have been strong technical grounds and 1.3.x has been out for a while now. > So it doesn't seem that bad. On the other hand the menu items of some > developer version confuses users every second week. Go figure. Fundamental changes sometimes cause problems during periods of transition. This does not necessarily imply the change is bad. Furthermore, I count *one* user complaining so far, plus Michael S. asking about the rationale for the changes. john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andre> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:04:55PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Andre> wrote: >> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Andre> How do you add some 'win32 window system library' without Andre> linking LyX? I.e. what's the benefit over 'just giving sources Andre> and compile instructions'? (Legally, it sound ok to me...) >> Qt/X11 for win32 is GPL. Andre> Ok, but if some user want to 'change the library' he'd need to Andre> re-link LyX, doesn't he? And that would mean at least a working Andre> linker, which is less than a full-blown compiler + autotool + Andre> ..., but still more than you'd expect to be available on Andre> Grandma's Win95 box. Uh, yes of course. I think I do not understand what you meant. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Contrary to the 'mathed font change nightmare', there seem to be users | (other than myself) complaining about the seemingly randomly shifted menu | items. If you check you might see a coincidence of most of my whining with | some user complaining about the very same thing. I have seen no other than "It is not in the place it used to be" complaints. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:18:31PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:11:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > Your constant (*far* too late) whining about this is starting to annoy > > > me, I must admit. > > > > Good. > > OK, then I shall ignore you entirely on this topic. I guess you'd hear me as soon anybody tries to _release_ 1.4.0 like this. > Especially as you are too lazy to do the groundwork to argue your case. Groundwork? It has been like that all the time. People are used to it. If there is no technical reason for the change and if there is no consensus it should stay as it was. I can't find anything anymore in 1.4.x. I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find - Layout -> Document - Layout -> Paragraph - Layout -> Character very logical now. Furthermore, all my other GUI apps have Edit->Preferences. We had that discussion already And if you start arguing the math font changes: I can't remember anybody complaining about them (there might be one or two, but I forgot), but there have been strong technical grounds and 1.3.x has been out for a while now. So it doesn't seem that bad. On the other hand the menu items of some developer version confuses users every second week. Go figure. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:11:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > Your constant (*far* too late) whining about this is starting to annoy > > me, I must admit. > > Good. OK, then I shall ignore you entirely on this topic. Especially as you are too lazy to do the groundwork to argue your case. john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:04:55PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andre> How do you add some 'win32 window system library' without > Andre> linking LyX? I.e. what's the benefit over 'just giving sources > Andre> and compile instructions'? (Legally, it sound ok to me...) > > Qt/X11 for win32 is GPL. Ok, but if some user want to 'change the library' he'd need to re-link LyX, doesn't he? And that would mean at least a working linker, which is less than a full-blown compiler + autotool + ..., but still more than you'd expect to be available on Grandma's Win95 box. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:56:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > That's really bad. > > > > No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of > > 'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified by editing > > lib/ui/default.ui with a simple text editor before releasing 1.4 I don't > > think this change will do too much damage in the long run. > > Your constant (*far* too late) whining about this is starting to annoy > me, I must admit. Good. [Concerning the 'far too late' part I still plead guilty as I wasn't paying UI stuff too much attention (I still don't) and I did not really expect insanity go through. But I should have thought about it a bit more and recognized that you who are the one who stopps most of my insanity won't be among the nay-sayers regarding your own stuff...] > Even I had the grace to shut up eventually about the mathed font change > nightmare Contrary to the 'mathed font change nightmare', there seem to be users (other than myself) complaining about the seemingly randomly shifted menu items. If you check you might see a coincidence of most of my whining with some user complaining about the very same thing. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andre> How do you add some 'win32 window system library' without Andre> linking LyX? I.e. what's the benefit over 'just giving sources Andre> and compile instructions'? (Legally, it sound ok to me...) Qt/X11 for win32 is GPL. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:46:22PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
> > I think there are only three clean solutions:
> >
> > (a) Provide detailed instruction how to build LyX/Qt on Windows, but do
> > not distibute prebuild binaries. No need to ask contributors for
> > that.
> >
> > (b) Choose a new licence (like adding a Qt clause) and make all
> > contributors (past and recent) agree on it.
> >
> > (c) Choose a new licence (like adding a Qt clause) and make some
> > contributors (past and recent) agree on it. Cut off those parts
> > of LyX contributed by people who disagree or are not reachable.
> >
> > And I think (a) is the way to go as (b) and (c) are not feasible.
>
> OK! (a) is fine with me. The build instructions are included in my
> patches for 1.3.2.
So try to feed your patches to lyx-devel in small chunks, preferably
'uncontroversial' stuff first.
And maybe some explanation for things like:
Index: src/mathed/math_metricsinfo.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/lyx/lyx-devel/src/mathed/Attic/math_metricsinfo.h,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 math_metricsinfo.h
--- src/mathed/math_metricsinfo.h 2002/10/02 06:38:49 1.16
+++ src/mathed/math_metricsinfo.h 2003/05/18 20:44:26
@@ -52,7 +52,8 @@
};
-struct MathPainterInfo {
+class MathPainterInfo {
+ public:
///
MathPainterInfo(Painter & pain);
///
A class with evrything public is a struct after all.
> Does this mean 'cease & desist' for my current distribution channel?
I don't think so. I certainly won't sue anybody distributing LyX/Qt/Win
binaries, it's just that I don't want to do the same.
> Anyway, there's also scenario:
>
> d) Create a Win32 X11 Qt lib from the GPL'ed free edition. Use that for
> development & distribution. Let the user add the 'win32 window system' Qt
> library.
>
> How does that sound?
How do you add some 'win32 window system library' without linking LyX?
I.e. what's the benefit over 'just giving sources and compile
instructions'? (Legally, it sound ok to me...)
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ruurd> Anyway, there's also scenario: Ruurd> d) Create a Win32 X11 Qt lib from the GPL'ed free edition. Use Ruurd> that for development & distribution. Let the user add the Ruurd> 'win32 window system' Qt library. Ruurd> How does that sound? I think this one sounds good, since a mingw-based qt/x11 distribution would be already lighter and better than the old xforms port. And probably with the same code one can get the 'native' version. How much work do you think this is? JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > That's really bad. > > No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of > 'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified by editing > lib/ui/default.ui with a simple text editor before releasing 1.4 I don't > think this change will do too much damage in the long run. Your constant (*far* too late) whining about this is starting to annoy me, I must admit. Even I had the grace to shut up eventually about the mathed font change nightmare john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:53:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> I think we should distribute the source, but not the binaries. > Andre> ... of the 'native' version I mean. > > Well, distributing the sources of the native version without the > binaries is really hypocritical, I think. If these source do not have > any other use than building a binary that we do not want to see > distributed, we are not sending a very clear signal. Why? The signal is very clear: We don't want to break the rules. Building the thing is ok, but distribution not. We stay on the safe side. > However, if it appears that Ruurd's code can help building a Mingw/X11 > version of LyX (which would be lighter than a cygwin version and > better than the xforms version we had), then we could distribute that. We could do than on top of providing the native sources. X11 under Windows is a crutch and it just does not fit there. It's ok if it's your only option but not some 'primary solution'. At least it was like that last time I needed it - which has been a while ago now.. Moreover, the complete setup including some introduction to X11 for newbies is not less work than providing a 'monkey see-monkey do'-style description of a downloading lyx source + compiler + compliing the thing. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think we should distribute the source, but not the binaries. Andre> ... of the 'native' version I mean. Well, distributing the sources of the native version without the binaries is really hypocritical, I think. If these source do not have any other use than building a binary that we do not want to see distributed, we are not sending a very clear signal. However, if it appears that Ruurd's code can help building a Mingw/X11 version of LyX (which would be lighter than a cygwin version and better than the xforms version we had), then we could distribute that. And, yes, people could also recompile the sources against qt/win is they felt like doing it. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:17:49AM +0200, Andre' Poenitz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > That is how this discussion started. However, there is little point in > > hosting Ruurd's source and binaries if we do not want to distribute > > these binaries. Of course, if the goal changed to having a Qt/X11 > > binary for windows, we could host everything. > > I think we should distribute the source, but not the binaries. ... of the 'native' version I mean. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > That is how this discussion started. However, there is little point in > hosting Ruurd's source and binaries if we do not want to distribute > these binaries. Of course, if the goal changed to having a Qt/X11 > binary for windows, we could host everything. I think we should distribute the source, but not the binaries. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Michael" == Michael Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Michael> I would also like to see some native Windows port. With Michael> xforms and X-Window, we will never penetrate the Window Michael> world. Of course it would be nice. But I tend to think (after some hesitation) that we should just stick to the spirit of the GPL. Ruurd's port, as far as I understand, could also be used with Qt/X11. The price to pay, of course, is to install X11. But I guess that having cygwin is not necessary (does X11/mingw exist?). Michael> I would also like to see one site (i.e. www.lyx.org) that Michael> provides binaries for all platforms (Win, Unix, Mac). What wrong with ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/bin/1.3.2? Of course there are not many different platforms here, but I welcome any contribution... Michael> But what is even more important is to provide one source code Michael> base for all platforms. IMHO the current approach that Ruurd Michael> provides the Windows patches on his web site is not optimal Michael> in terms of distribution and probably also causes some Michael> overhead for him. That is how this discussion started. However, there is little point in hosting Ruurd's source and binaries if we do not want to distribute these binaries. Of course, if the goal changed to having a Qt/X11 binary for windows, we could host everything. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "larry" == larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: larry> The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Trolltech larry> business model and licensing practices, which puts open source larry> applications under the GPL in this untenable position if larry> developers wish to release Windows versions. Well we always have the Qt/X11 GPL version on windows. It is less convenient, but purely GPL. Actually, I guess that Ruurd's port could just run with that. larry> Almost two years ago (?) I raised questions on this list (with larry> strident language that I later came to regret; my apologies) larry> about all the time, effort and (IMHO) diversion from potential larry> enhancements, involved in making LyX "toolkit independent". larry> I was rather shrill about the QT effort, in particular. In larry> light of Trolltech's dual support for Unix and Windows, the QT larry> frontend has always seemed destined to run aground on precisely larry> this issue of linking against non-commercial libraries. Well, larry> here we are. You conveniently forget that the Qt interface brought us a native Mac OS X interface (and perfectly GPL) with little or no effort. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
Michael Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I would also like to see some native Windows port. With xforms and | X-Window, we will never penetrate the Window world. Has that ever been a goal? | I would also like to see one site (i.e. www.lyx.org) that provides | binaries for all platforms (Win, Unix, Mac). But what is even more | important is to provide one source code base for all platforms. IMHO | the current approach that Ruurd provides the Windows patches on his | web site is not optimal in terms of distribution and probably also | causes some overhead for him. Well... then he must work harder to push patches to us. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
John Levon wrote: > perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it Me too. I'm with Edwin and John for the practical reasons Edwin already pointed out. It might sound egoistic, but a native win port would just make my life much easier. So if you change your mind and need my ok you'll certainly have it. Juergen. BTW: I have installed both Ruurd's and Ronald's native ports and I am very impressed that they (apart from some minor glitches) "just work". I would also like to see some native Windows port. With xforms and X-Window, we will never penetrate the Window world. I would also like to see one site (i.e. www.lyx.org) that provides binaries for all platforms (Win, Unix, Mac). But what is even more important is to provide one source code base for all platforms. IMHO the current approach that Ruurd provides the Windows patches on his web site is not optimal in terms of distribution and probably also causes some overhead for him. Michael
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:55:51AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, there certainly have been major improvements in the source code,
> lots of "clean up", etc. The "GUII" effort, as you call it.
>
> But you'd be hard pressed to offer a host of significant new features,
> from the user's standpoint, introduced in the last two years.
Because LyX without the 'GUII effort' and further cleanups is in a state
where adding new features is very difficult. Moreover, even if adding a
new feature turns out to be possible it most likely adds to the current
mess and makes adding a second feature even more difficult.
So the way to go is to do the cleanups first.
> It's not just the GUII effort at fault here. It's just one chapter. LyX
> has suffered numerous efforts to circle back and clean up the code,
> rewrite "hacks" dependent on xforms, etc. The community has often seemed
> incapable of building on the foundation in place, rather than tearing it
> down and reconstructing it ad nauseum.
> Sure, LyX today is very nice, sparkling and clean, at least under the
> hood.
I wish it were. In fact such statements do not add much credibility to the
other not-so-easy-to-follow statements.
> One that particularly struck me was the elimination of the Layout menu
> and its diaspora throughout the user interface ("Edit->Paragraph
> Settings" Seriously?)
That's really bad.
> Why such fundamental user interface elements are still being tweaked is
> beyond me. It must reflect the kind of dramatic differences in goals and
> objectives I mentioned above.
No, I think this is just a new superficial mess completely independent of
'real' internal changes. However, as this can be rectified by editing
lib/ui/default.ui with a simple text editor before releasing 1.4 I don't
think this change will do too much damage in the long run.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:41:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As you say below, users on the Windows platform building binaries > linked to the QT non-commercial windows toolkit, and distributing them, > will be breaking the LyX GPL license. You are right, but the critical point is 'distribution'. Everybody can have a native LyX/Qt on Windows without breaking any rule. Now look at the alternative: For a licence change you need the nod of every contributor. This means more than a hundred people worldwide. Not all of them are known anymore, not all of them are reachable and not all of them would bother to respond. So it is highly unlikely that the licence can be changed cleanly. Now if the 'current folk' just changes the licence without asking everybody, they will break the rules. So what you are actually proposing is that the current developers or whoever distributes LyX (including Kayvan, the Linux distributors etc) take some legal risk just for the benefit of a random Windows user that's neither able to compile LyX himself nor able to ask his colleague for help? Well. Even at Chrismas not every wish will be fulfilled... > Other contributors to this thread note the potential for LyX on the > Windows platform is in the "millions" (probably overstated). It seems > hard to escape the conclusion that a significant percentage -- probably a > majority -- of Windows installations will be binaries built in > contravention of the GPL. So what? Millions of people cheat with their taxes worldwide. Not my business at all. > Why? Because it is easily forgotten that coders on GPL projects are > often not only introducing "new" code, but also creating "derivative > works" of earlier contributions. Anything less than 100%, *very* formal > responses to relicensing--next to impossible--would leave the entire > project suspect. So we agree and I seem to have missed your point entirely... Andre', confused.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What will happen, in reality, is that a handful of users will build linked > binaries and distribute them to others. Some of this may fall within the > dubious inside-the-same-organization GPL "exemption", but most will not. > You can't deny this with a straight face. Certainly not. But I don't have to, do I? But I don't really get your point. Without the GUII effort there wouldn't even be the possibility to have a native LyX on Windows. For everybody. No less! So you argue GUII is bad because Qt is bad because people might break the rules? Andre'
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:47:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote: | | > Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground ... | > It's frankly a waste of my time ... | > You obviously have no conception ... | > You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything... | > You're arguing against a chimera I'm afraid ... | > Random whining ... | | > If you want me to take you seriously ... | | John, I'm frankly not that concerned about having you, specifically, take my | comments to heart, especially after a posting like that! Sheesh. You do have a lot of facts wrong... | It's a pity that you feel the need to jump all over someone making | a few observation for the first time in YEARS, rather than let them | settle in, and maybe to get some broader community reaction. It is a pity that those observations does not really hold its ground. | 1.4.0cvs, and the tone of your comments, John, reinforce my sense | that it might | be premature to start thinking about renewed innovation in LyX. What kind of innovation? -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Do you recall the attempt -- five years ago or more? -- to do a major rewrite | that was scuttled? The coding effort reverted back to the in-place, | functional--hack-laden--code, in the interests of continuing to improve LyX | over a reasonable time frame. Do you also remember that I did almost all of that work, and I did it so fast and badly that we had to ditch the whole thing? | Sure, LyX today is very nice, sparkling and clean, at least under the hood. That would have been nice... | Why such fundamental user interface elements are still being tweaked | is beyond | me. It must reflect the kind of dramatic differences in goals and | objectives I mentioned above. Perhaps we do not only want to be laden with features, we also strive to do things right. | For what it's worth, this "new" LyX, doesn't look so familiar to me. How long does it take to become familiar? And why should it be a goal to lyx to stay that way? (at all costs?) | A casual attitude toward the GPL is how licenses work? I don't | understand your | point. And many consider the GPL a good, not an unfortnate, necessary evil. I do not want to be casual, but I see the need to be a bit pragmatic. -- Lgb
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:46:23PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's a pity that you feel the need to jump all over someone making > a few observation for the first time in YEARS, rather than let them > settle in, and maybe to get some broader community reaction. I don't walk into a saloon, comment on how crap the saloon is, and refuse to talk specifics. Perhaps you shouldn't either. You're reminding me of this guy : http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182221 This thread is wasting everybody's time and I regret trying to extract something useful from it. > when I observed the surprising, fundamental UI changes cropping up between > 1.3.2 and 1.4.0cvs. The focus on rebuilding existing function, rather than > extending it, regretably seems very much alive. Please try and make some positive contributions again. It would be welcome. > Why you take this so personally, I don't quite fathom. Huh? Who is taking anything personally? john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:47:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground ... > It's frankly a waste of my time ... > You obviously have no conception ... > You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything... > You're arguing against a chimera I'm afraid ... > Random whining ... > If you want me to take you seriously ... John, I'm frankly not that concerned about having you, specifically, take my comments to heart, especially after a posting like that! Sheesh. Your efforts on "GUII", as you call it, I'm personally not very interested in. I'm much more concerned with the progress of LyX's feature set as a document processor, which I fear has been treading water for some time now. It's a pity that you feel the need to jump all over someone making a few observation for the first time in YEARS, rather than let them settle in, and maybe to get some broader community reaction. In fact, I may have been mistaken in thinking that the diversions (from my standpoint) of the past couple or more years have matured. I supected this when I observed the surprising, fundamental UI changes cropping up between 1.3.2 and 1.4.0cvs. The focus on rebuilding existing function, rather than extending it, regretably seems very much alive. 1.4.0cvs, and the tone of your comments, John, reinforce my sense that it might be premature to start thinking about renewed innovation in LyX. Or, as I also suggested, maybe it's time to put aside some of the ambitions that have cropped up from time to time here (but still seem fresh for those of us with long memories). I'll keep my ears to the ground and, hopefully, learn I'm wrong about that. > > Do you recall the attempt -- five years ago or more -- to do a major rewrite > I wasn't there then. It's understandable, then, that you demonstrate a lack of historical perspective about my comments, which arise from being around the LyX community longer (if itinerantly) to observe the ebbs and flows of development. Why you take this so personally, I don't quite fathom.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:55:51AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My head is not "in the ground". We obviously have longstanding, dramatic > > But you'd be hard pressed to offer a host of significant new features, from the > user's standpoint, introduced in the last two years. Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground. Peek above the water table and have a look at things. It's frankly a waste of my time to list stuff, I'm not even going to bother trying. > It's not just the GUII effort at fault here. It's just one chapter. LyX has > suffered numerous efforts to circle back and clean up the code, rewrite "hacks" suffered ? Evidence please. (That's right, evidence - I don't know if that's cute or not). > dependent on xforms, etc. The community has often seemed incapable of building > on the foundation in place, rather than tearing it down and reconstructing it > ad nauseum. You obviously have no conception of the vast majority of LyX code changes. > GUII has been one more excuse not to "settle" with the code in place, but to go > back and rewrite it, in the process of separating it from GUI elements. Wrong. If you want me to take you seriously, I'd like you to quote cvs logs from just *one* case where this has actually happened with GUII. The GUII stuff was built on refactoring slightly the existing code. 99% of the work was pretty much based on moving code around. There was no "rewrite". You're arguing against a chimera I'm afraid. > Do you recall the attempt -- five years ago or more? -- to do a major rewrite > that was scuttled? The coding effort reverted back to the in-place, I wasn't there then. > Sure, LyX today is very nice, sparkling and clean, at least under the hood. rotfl ... good one ! :) > But I believe that my publicly expressed fears that this would be a long, drawn > out process -- much longer than anyone thought -- while the ground moved from > under LyX, has indeed been vindicated. You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything... > Why such fundamental user interface elements are still being tweaked is beyond > me. It must reflect the kind of dramatic differences in goals and objectives I > mentioned above. You're welcome to actually do a bit of research and read the mailing list archive. You're even welcome to report bugs and make suggestions. Random whining, though, is just going to edge towards my procmailrc. > A casual attitude toward the GPL is how licenses work? I don't understand your > point. And many consider the GPL a good, not an unfortnate, necessary evil. I'd rather that humanity had the grace to abide by the spirit of the GPL without the technical limitations regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:25:58PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> This isn't true: the licensing scheme is clearly documented. We were and
> are well aware of its drawbacks.
I didn't exactly start questioning the QT effort yesterday, as you well know.
No one would doubt your understanding of the documented license and its
drawbacks. But you say "we were aware". Comments here indicate that some
community members are contemplating the issues for the first time.
> > My point two years ago was that a major toolkit independence effort would
> > effectively bring about a "feature freeze" in LyX.
>
> Yeah, right. You must be keeping your head in the ground. I won't even
> bother listing the huge amounts of new features and improvements that
> has happened concurrently with the GUII effort, or the large benefits to
> the source code itself.
My head is not "in the ground". We obviously have longstanding, dramatic
differences in our goals and objectives for LyX. You shouldn't ignore or
dismiss these differences.
Yes, there certainly have been major improvements in the source code, lots of
"clean up", etc. The "GUII" effort, as you call it.
But you'd be hard pressed to offer a host of significant new features, from the
user's standpoint, introduced in the last two years.
> One specific example of where innovation has been hindered by the GUII
> framework would be nice.
You want an example of innovation that would have occurred, "but for"? Cute,
John.
It's not just the GUII effort at fault here. It's just one chapter. LyX has
suffered numerous efforts to circle back and clean up the code, rewrite "hacks"
dependent on xforms, etc. The community has often seemed incapable of building
on the foundation in place, rather than tearing it down and reconstructing it
ad nauseum.
GUII has been one more excuse not to "settle" with the code in place, but to go
back and rewrite it, in the process of separating it from GUI elements.
In fact, I'm not necessarily the one lacking historical perspective, John.
Do you recall the attempt -- five years ago or more? -- to do a major rewrite
that was scuttled? The coding effort reverted back to the in-place,
functional--hack-laden--code, in the interests of continuing to improve LyX
over a reasonable time frame. (I had, at the time, written a passionate piece
advocating just such a reversion, in the interests of continuing innovation).
I consider what's happened in recent years (probably more than two, in fact) to
be another instance of the same phenomenon as that earlier rewrite. But this
time, the impetus to reinvent the wheel won out.
Sure, LyX today is very nice, sparkling and clean, at least under the hood.
But I believe that my publicly expressed fears that this would be a long, drawn
out process -- much longer than anyone thought -- while the ground moved from
under LyX, has indeed been vindicated.
One reason for my renewed interest in the LyX community was a sense that,
finally, a code foundation and GUII may have matured to the point that new and
creative thinking "outside the box" might begin to thrive again. (Although I
think far too much time has passed, unfortunately, for the more outrageous
ambitions many of us once held for LyX to ever come to fruition).
It was interesting for me to jump in again and start using LyX 1.3.2. Heck,
John, I've even been using the QT version(!)
It was nice to see the ERT inset, the preferences dialog, new and improved ways
of presenting various menu items, which still seem familiar to me. Nice new
visual cues for some of the embedded formating.
It was somewhat distressing, though, to look at 1.4.0cvs (qt build). It's made
me question whether LyX has, in fact, stabilized and put aside its incessant
reinvention of itself. Once again, it seems that that all sorts of changes are
afoot in the various menus and controls.
One that particularly struck me was the elimination of the Layout menu and its
diaspora throughout the user interface ("Edit->Paragraph Settings" Seriously?)
Why such fundamental user interface elements are still being tweaked is beyond
me. It must reflect the kind of dramatic differences in goals and objectives I
mentioned above.
For what it's worth, this "new" LyX, doesn't look so familiar to me.
> > What bothers me the most is the prospect of a casual attitude toward the GPL
> > and so-called "relicensing" procedures. I believe that there is insufficient
> > attention to the fact that a small handful of "no responses" or outright
> > rejections from individual developers would tarnish the entire effort.
>
> This is how licenses work. Licenses are an unfortunate necessary evil.
A casual attitude toward the GPL is how licenses work? I don't understand your
point. And many consider the GPL a good, not an unfortnate, necessary evil.
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
John Levon wrote: > > perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it > > Me too. I'm with Edwin and John for the practical reasons Edwin already pointed out. It might sound egoistic, but a native win port would just make my life much easier. So if you change your mind and need my ok you'll certainly have it. Juergen. BTW: I have installed both Ruurd's and Ronald's native ports and I am very impressed that they (apart from some minor glitches) "just work".
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:41:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is there another option, that doesn't require *unrealistic* local builds? No, there isn't. That does *not* make Troll Tech the bad guys. For starters, they've released a pretty damn good toolkit under the GPL for two major platforms. > If I understand the licensing issue correctly, Troll Tech has put GPL projects > that want to move over to windows ports using the QT toolkit in a predicament This isn't true: the licensing scheme is clearly documented. We were and are well aware of its drawbacks. > > > "toolkit independent". > > > > It was nonsense then, it's nonsense now. > > My point two years ago was that a major toolkit independence effort would > effectively bring about a "feature freeze" in LyX. > > I would say that this prediction has pretty much been vindicated. Yeah, right. You must be keeping your head in the ground. I won't even bother listing the huge amounts of new features and improvements that has happened concurrently with the GUII effort, or the large benefits to the source code itself. The fact we're still missing some (hard to do) things has very little to do with GUII. > Thanks for saying so, John. I hope to renew my involvement and craft a > positive role for myself with LyX, in future months. Good ! :) > My comments back then were concerned mainly with diversion from innovation and > new features for LyX. With foresight then and in hindsight now, unfortunately > I must stand by them. I'm baffled by this. One specific example of where innovation has been hindered by the GUII framework would be nice. I can't think of one, and I did the majority of this actual work (FSVO majority anyway) > What bothers me the most is the prospect of a casual attitude toward the GPL > and so-called "relicensing" procedures. I believe that there is insufficient > attention to the fact that a small handful of "no responses" or outright > rejections from individual developers would tarnish the entire effort. This is how licenses work. Licenses are an unfortunate necessary evil. regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:16:31AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Troll Tech business model and > > licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this > > untenable position if developers wish to release Windows versions. > > Rubbish. Troll Tech's business model is admirable. They rock in this > respect. I'm interested in hearing an explanation of your perspective on this, John, because I just don't understand it, and may have misunderstood the situation. As you say below, users on the Windows platform building binaries linked to the QT non-commercial windows toolkit, and distributing them, will be breaking the LyX GPL license. Is there another option, that doesn't require *unrealistic* local builds? Other contributors to this thread note the potential for LyX on the Windows platform is in the "millions" (probably overstated). It seems hard to escape the conclusion that a significant percentage -- probably a majority -- of Windows installations will be binaries built in contravention of the GPL. If I understand the licensing issue correctly, Troll Tech has put GPL projects that want to move over to windows ports using the QT toolkit in a predicament requiring so-called "relicensing". Or completely unrealistic scenarios of local machine compiles that, in the real world, will rarely happen. (I've really only investigated this to the extent of reading the summaries on the Troll Tech web page including http://www.trolltech.com/download/qt/noncomm.html, which explicitly discusses the need to relicense GPL applications that wish to port to windows QT non-commercial). Is this not unfortunate? How, in this specific respect, does Troll Tech "rock"? Instead of characterizing my perspective as "rubbish", perhaps you could explain the contrary point of view. With you having dealt with the toolkit more than anyone else here, perhaps you could provide us with your insights or correct any fundamental mistake I'm making about the license. > > Almost two years ago (?) I raised questions on this list (with strident > > language that I later came to regret; my apologies) about all the time, effort > > and (IMHO) diversion from potential enhancements, involved in making LyX > > "toolkit independent". > > It was nonsense then, it's nonsense now. My point two years ago was that a major toolkit independence effort would effectively bring about a "feature freeze" in LyX. I would say that this prediction has pretty much been vindicated. (My tone at the time, which regrettably bordered on the shrill, set the stage for my withdrawing from the community for a time. I felt so much was at stake that, admittedly, I was beside myself, I regret ruffling anyone's feathers, particularly yours, John. When my comments largely fell on deaf ears, I knew I should take some time away from LyX.) My view two years ago was that a period of innovation and creativity was at hand--that LyX had an opportunity to make a great leap forward in functionality and establish itself as one of the crown jewels of Linux on the desktop. Looking back over the period, certainly some nice new tidbits have been introduced, including my own personal pet feature, the ERT inset. (Whose fruition **in no way** involved coding contributions on my part, but is entirely the fantastic work of others. Kudos.) Frankly, my impression is that the number of palpable new features and creative extensions tapping the raw power of LaTeX, have been few in number. Please do not misunderstand my intention. I am just pointing out that LyX had several directions to go, and the community chose a direction I did not favor. One that has, from my own point of view, been in some senses regrettable. Now we are learning of an impetus to break the GPL and "relicense", brought about largely by LyX's efforts at "toolkit independence"--so much the focus of recent years--and the availability of QT on the Windows platform. I am personally neither surprised, nor enthused at the prospect. Just one user, and a minor contributor, offering his point of view. > History shows that you've made several positive contributions to LyX Thanks for saying so, John. I hope to renew my involvement and craft a positive role for myself with LyX, in future months. And John, you've clearly made some of the most significant contributions to LyX. > this was not one of them. I said it then, I'll say it again. Your comments > were fundamentally misplaced. My comments back then were concerned mainly with diversion from innovation and new features for LyX. With foresight then and in hindsight now, unfortunately I must stand by them. > In particular, somebody can still contribute a Win32 front-end that uses > the platform-provided API without license problems *whatsoever*. Maybe I haven't sorted through the issues as carefully as I should. Putting aside the generic case of "some" Win32 f
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And it provides another example of the GPL failing to meet the requirements of > evolving software applications -- more grist for those critical of open source. Yes, the GPL has problems. The GPL is not an ideal license in many ways. There is no such ideal license. > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Trolltech business model and > licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this > untenable position if developers wish to release Windows versions. Rubbish. Troll Tech's business model is admirable. They rock in this respect. > Almost two years ago (?) I raised questions on this list (with strident > language that I later came to regret; my apologies) about all the time, effort > and (IMHO) diversion from potential enhancements, involved in making LyX > "toolkit independent". It was nonsense then, it's nonsense now. History shows that you've made several positive contributions to LyX, this was not one of them. I said it then, I'll say it again. Your comments were fundamentally misplaced. In particular, somebody can still contribute a Win32 frontend that uses the platform-provided API without license problems *whatsoever*. > What will happen, in reality, is that a handful of users will build linked > binaries and distribute them to others. Some of this may fall within the They are breaking the license. Despite having personally put forth the majority of the work for the Qt port, and being happy to adjust the license, I must accept that other contributors feel differently. This I am happy with. People are very much entitled to see their code used as they see fit. At the very least, Andre, who is undoubtedly extremely important, is unhappy with it. So fine, it's not going to happen. regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Some context: Ruurd would like us to distribute this port (the binaries for > now), but this is only possible if we change our license to explicitly allow > for linking against Qt non-commercial binary-only version. Unless I'm grossly mistaken about the wide range of code contributions received over LyX's many, many years, it is not feasible to "change" the license in a manner clean and comprehensive enough to pass muster. All it does is raise questions about whether the LyX community is serious about enforcing rights under the GPL. That hurts the community, and it does harm to the GPL generally. And it provides another example of the GPL failing to meet the requirements of evolving software applications -- more grist for those critical of open source. The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Trolltech business model and licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this untenable position if developers wish to release Windows versions. Almost two years ago (?) I raised questions on this list (with strident language that I later came to regret; my apologies) about all the time, effort and (IMHO) diversion from potential enhancements, involved in making LyX "toolkit independent". I was rather shrill about the QT effort, in particular. In light of Trolltech's dual support for Unix and Windows, the QT frontend has always seemed destined to run aground on precisely this issue of linking against non-commercial libraries. Well, here we are. The "distribution without linking" to Windows users seems like a copout. What will happen, in reality, is that a handful of users will build linked binaries and distribute them to others. Some of this may fall within the dubious inside-the-same-organization GPL "exemption", but most will not. You can't deny this with a straight face.
RE: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
who says (c) is unfeasible, it all depends on who agrees edwin -Original Message- From: Andre Poenitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 04/07/2003 14:29 To: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Cc: LyX Mechanics; Ruurd Reitsma; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:11:44PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> Even if so, this would not be a problem. LyX still works with
> Andre> xforms, doesn't it. In this case the Qt code may be dead
> Andre> ballast, but nobody forbids me to write 'void foo() {} int
> Andre> main() {}' which happens to contain unused code and links
> Andre> against virtual any non-free library out there.
>
> This link is somewhat similar to our problem:
> http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/378/1999/5/0/2167147/
Yes, looks like it with LyX == readline.
I think there are only three clean solutions:
(a) Provide detailed instruction how to build LyX/Qt on Windows, but do
not distibute prebuild binaries. No need to ask contributors for that.
(b) Choose a new licence (like adding a Qt clause) and make all
contributors (past and recent) agree on it.
(c) Choose a new licence (like adding a Qt clause) and make some
contributors (past and recent) agree on it. Cut off those parts
of LyX contributed by people who disagree or are not reachable.
And I think (a) is the way to go as (b) and (c) are not feasible.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:49:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
>> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
Andre> _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and
Andre> using such a thing privately?
>>
Andre> If not, ignore the rest of this post.
>> I am not sure that one is allowed to distribute under the GPL code
>> that only works with a non-gpl library. But I do not have any link
>> to justify this.
Andre> Even if so, this would not be a problem. LyX still works with
Andre> xforms, doesn't it. In this case the Qt code may be dead
Andre> ballast, but nobody forbids me to write 'void foo() {} int
Andre> main() {}' which happens to contain unused code and links
Andre> against virtual any non-free library out there.
This link is somewhat similar to our problem:
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/378/1999/5/0/2167147/
JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:23:45PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: > perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it Me too. There is a huge market for LyX on Win32 and we currently have serious barriers to adoption. LyX alone is not likely to cause any significant migration from Windows to Linux or another free OS (or Mac OS X !). Thus the question is what good does it do LyX: the answer is, a lot IMHO. Of course, the practicality is impossible: we can never locate all LyX's copyright holders anyway. regards john
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:49:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
> Andre> _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and
> Andre> using such a thing privately?
>
> Andre> If not, ignore the rest of this post.
>
> I am not sure that one is allowed to distribute under the GPL code
> that only works with a non-gpl library. But I do not have any link to
> justify this.
Even if so, this would not be a problem. LyX still works with xforms,
doesn't it. In this case the Qt code may be dead ballast, but nobody
forbids me to write 'void foo() {} int main() {}' which happens to contain
unused code and links against virtual any non-free library out there.
> I do not know whether trolltech has a faq on Qt vs. GPL.
In any case, the GPL is about distribution, not usage. So if I opt for
'let the user do it' everything is fine.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:37:52PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: > On Fri Jul 4 2003 12:25, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has been in there all > > the time and all code was contributed to GPL + xforms exception, not to > > GPL + Qt exception. > > i wasn't referring to the legal difference but to the (lack of a) moral > difference You did not make that clear. > > The moral difference is that the xforms exception enables LyX on a lot of > > *nix, the Qt exception is a special favour for MS Windows alone. > > this is not a moral but a practical difference. In my opinion this is a moral difference. If your focus is on practical differences we are back on legal differences... > another way of looking at this is that the xforms exception enables lyx > for thousands of people on a lot of *nix, where the qt exception would > enable lyx for millions of people. This surely has to be taken into consideration. > moreover, many of these *nix are as proprietory as windows Certainly. As I said with regard to Trolltech's licencing, I have no problems with proprietary software as such. > so really, i don't see a moral difference between the xforms exception > and extending the license to have an exception for qt-win Well, you see no differences, but I see some. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the Andre> _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and Andre> using such a thing privately? Andre> If not, ignore the rest of this post. I am not sure that one is allowed to distribute under the GPL code that only works with a non-gpl library. But I do not have any link to justify this. What I found is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs I do not know whether trolltech has a faq on Qt vs. GPL. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri Jul 4 2003 12:25, Andre Poenitz wrote: > The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has been in there all > the time and all code was contributed to GPL + xforms exception, not to > GPL + Qt exception. i wasn't referring to the legal difference but to the (lack of a) moral difference > The moral difference is that the xforms exception enables LyX on a lot of > *nix, the Qt exception is a special favour for MS Windows alone. this is not a moral but a practical difference. another way of looking at this is that the xforms exception enables lyx for thousands of people on a lot of *nix, where the qt exception would enable lyx for millions of people. moreover, many of these *nix are as proprietory as windows so really, i don't see a moral difference between the xforms exception and extending the license to have an exception for qt-win just my 2c, edwin
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
> "Edwin" == Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Edwin> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it i don't really see a Edwin> difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win, yet Edwin> there is an exception for xforms in the license The xforms license was rather: ``do whatever you want with the binaries you produce (sell them, ...), but you won't get the source of our library'' (because they have been pissed off with early linux users distributing modified versions of the FORMS library riddled with bugs). And there as never been any way to pay to get access to xforms source. So the intent is quite different. JMarc
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:23:45PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: > perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it > > i don't really see a difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win, > yet there is an exception for xforms in the license The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has been in there all the time and all code was contributed to GPL + xforms exception, not to GPL + Qt exception. The moral difference is that the xforms exception enables LyX on a lot of *nix, the Qt exception is a special favour for MS Windows alone. > then a practical reason that concerns myself is that i moved to paris, > and at the institute where i am based everything is windows and there is > no getting around it :-( yet all my work is in lyx, and i would like to > continue writing with lyx, i also like to take my files from the office > and work on them at home on my linux machine. also, most of my collegues > are using windows. i'd love to be able to exchange my lyx files when > working on a joint project I think you can do this if you link your LyX for Windows yourself. I might be wrong though. If I am wrong, I will surely reconsider the issue once I am corrected. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it i don't really see a difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win, yet there is an exception for xforms in the license then a practical reason that concerns myself is that i moved to paris, and at the institute where i am based everything is windows and there is no getting around it :-( yet all my work is in lyx, and i would like to continue writing with lyx, i also like to take my files from the office and work on them at home on my linux machine. also, most of my collegues are using windows. i'd love to be able to exchange my lyx files when working on a joint project edwin
Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Lars is not sure that he agrees with such a change, since we may not > want to allow the use of LyX under a non-free toolkit and OS (Lars, > correct me if I'm wrong). I am not sure where I stand myself. Same for me. Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and using such a thing privately? If not, ignore the rest of this post. If so, an obvious solution would be to provide detailed instructions how to get a native Windows/Qt binary (starting from downloading the sources, development tools etc ...) I understand that this is a major pain for the user, but this is a one-time-activity and he will be able to use it as long as he wants. > Ruurd's port is certainly very useful for the users, but the moral > issue is important too. Indeed. To Ruurd's message: > I'd be a pity if a solution that is technically superior would not be > used. It is my understanding that the native port _can_ be _used_. If so, this is not a valid point. > The use of a non-free library gives rise to a lot of practical > issues like availability, bug-fixing etc. Those can be overcome. We do > have to appreciate the fact that Trolltech cannot make enough money on > service alone, and has to sell a product to stay alive. Moreover, they > have made a very big contribution to the open-source world. I have no political or religious problems whatsoever with Trolltech's business strategy. In fact, I appreciate what they are doing. > As for support of a non-free os: There's a difference between supporting > the OS as such and supporting applications that run on the OS. Now we are coming to the crucial point. Applications _are_ critical. Guess why "Linux is not 'ready' as long as it can't read/write .doc". It's all about applications. > It's OK to try to evangelise an open source OS by keeping a few killer > apps tied to that OS. However, not everybody has a choice, and most > people don't have a distant chance in influencing somebody else's choice. I don't see this as critical. First of all, some people have the choice, some would have it if they asked and some simply think they don't have one. Latest Knoppix comes with LyX for instance. Providing these people with an easy way out (i.e. simply using pre-cooked native LyX) does not create incentives to try harder. > Anyway, the same applies to the cygwin port. More use of open source > software, still on a non-free OS. Virtually all open source 'flagship' > applications have a win32 port, and I believe that's a very good thing. Not distributing the Win32 port does not mean there isn't one. > Consequenly, it more or less revolves around the use of a non-free > library. No. It's all about using a non-free OS. If Qt was non-free for *BSD you'd get my 'go' for a licence change to allow linking there at the moment you ask. > It is highly unlikely anyone will ever create another frontend > that is based on a cross-platform toolkit. It would not be needed IMNSO. - Well, maybe my objections are just based on some nasty thought of retaliation. It's about ten years now that I have to adjust the way I work to make people using "the industry standard" happy. People requiring an application to run on NT, doing the actual tests on Win98 and blaming me for faults caused by their "standard setup". People providing documentation as .doc only without giving all necessary fonts as it "works" on their "standard setup". People telling me that I am stupid to use *nix, as this could not even get trivial things like "reading documentation" right. People telling me that I am stupid using *nix as there aren't any applications available... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
