Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:57:15PM +0200, Robin Turner wrote: For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of GUI indepndence than in visible results. 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, that we should wait for it? Matej -- Matej Cepl, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 02143, (617) 623-1488 A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan. --Martin Luther King, Jr.
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:34:55PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote: Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, that we should wait for it? The Gnome frontend is far behind the Qt2 one at the moment. You can still use the Qt2 version under gnome don't forget. We need more developers ! regards john -- I went to set up a Yahoo ID for my dog. (Don't ask, but the DOG'S email was cluttering my inbox). - Ruthless Advisorette
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:34:55PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote: Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, that we should wait for it? The Gnome frontend is far behind the Qt2 one at the moment. You can still use the Qt2 version under gnome don't forget. We need more developers ! Or at least one or two that have a commitment to seeing a GNOME frontend. There is a strange historical truism developing here: gtk and GNOME requests have been about as common as Qt/KDE requests but we've never had anywhere near as many people interested in actually working on the gtk/GNOME frontend as we have for Qt/KDE. Speculation: GNOME is about as popular as KDE on LyX users desktops. LyX KDE are written in C++ while GNOME is C with the result that gtk/GNOME developers capable of working in a C++ environment are rarer still. There are several C++ GNOME apps available but they still represent a small fraction of the developer community. (Not that they really need that much C++ to work in the frontends/ area since a lot of the work is done for them as a result of Angus's MVC work) Result: Little or no hope for the gtk/GNOME frontend? Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:12:31PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: LyX KDE are written in C++ while GNOME is C with the result that gtk/GNOME developers capable of working in a C++ environment are rarer still. More likely a I hate C++ attitude ... Result: Little or no hope for the gtk/GNOME frontend? perhaps someone needs to point out that the competition are ahead. That usually galvanises the Gnome workforce :) john -- I went to set up a Yahoo ID for my dog. (Don't ask, but the DOG'S email was cluttering my inbox). - Ruthless Advisorette
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:57:15PM +0200, Robin Turner wrote: For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of GUI indepndence than in visible results. 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, that we should wait for it? Matej -- Matej Cepl, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 02143, (617) 623-1488 A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan. --Martin Luther King, Jr.
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:34:55PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote: Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, that we should wait for it? The Gnome frontend is far behind the Qt2 one at the moment. You can still use the Qt2 version under gnome don't forget. We need more developers ! regards john -- I went to set up a Yahoo ID for my dog. (Don't ask, but the DOG'S email was cluttering my inbox). - Ruthless Advisorette
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:34:55PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote: Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, that we should wait for it? The Gnome frontend is far behind the Qt2 one at the moment. You can still use the Qt2 version under gnome don't forget. We need more developers ! Or at least one or two that have a commitment to seeing a GNOME frontend. There is a strange historical truism developing here: gtk and GNOME requests have been about as common as Qt/KDE requests but we've never had anywhere near as many people interested in actually working on the gtk/GNOME frontend as we have for Qt/KDE. Speculation: GNOME is about as popular as KDE on LyX users desktops. LyX KDE are written in C++ while GNOME is C with the result that gtk/GNOME developers capable of working in a C++ environment are rarer still. There are several C++ GNOME apps available but they still represent a small fraction of the developer community. (Not that they really need that much C++ to work in the frontends/ area since a lot of the work is done for them as a result of Angus's MVC work) Result: Little or no hope for the gtk/GNOME frontend? Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:12:31PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: LyX KDE are written in C++ while GNOME is C with the result that gtk/GNOME developers capable of working in a C++ environment are rarer still. More likely a I hate C++ attitude ... Result: Little or no hope for the gtk/GNOME frontend? perhaps someone needs to point out that the competition are ahead. That usually galvanises the Gnome workforce :) john -- I went to set up a Yahoo ID for my dog. (Don't ask, but the DOG'S email was cluttering my inbox). - Ruthless Advisorette
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:57:15PM +0200, Robin Turner wrote: > > For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. > > There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, > > there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of > > GUI indepndence than in visible results. > > 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for > another year? Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job > was near done. Oh well. Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, that we should wait for it? Matej -- Matej Cepl, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 02143, (617) 623-1488 A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan. --Martin Luther King, Jr.
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:34:55PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote: > Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? > I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, > that we should wait for it? The Gnome frontend is far behind the Qt2 one at the moment. You can still use the Qt2 version under gnome don't forget. We need more developers ! regards john -- "I went to set up a Yahoo ID for my dog. (Don't ask, but the DOG'S email was cluttering my inbox)." - Ruthless Advisorette
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:34:55PM -0500, Matej Cepl wrote: > > > Is this poor prospect true even for us, who are using GNOME? > > I would love to get rid off xforms too. How long do you think, > > that we should wait for it? > > The Gnome frontend is far behind the Qt2 one at the moment. You > can still use the Qt2 version under gnome don't forget. > > We need more developers ! Or at least one or two that have a commitment to seeing a GNOME frontend. There is a strange historical truism developing here: gtk and GNOME requests have been about as common as Qt/KDE requests but we've never had anywhere near as many people interested in actually working on the gtk/GNOME frontend as we have for Qt/KDE. Speculation: GNOME is about as popular as KDE on LyX users desktops. LyX & KDE are written in C++ while GNOME is C with the result that gtk/GNOME developers capable of working in a C++ environment are rarer still. There are several C++ GNOME apps available but they still represent a small fraction of the developer community. (Not that they really need that much C++ to work in the frontends/ area since a lot of the work is done for them as a result of Angus's MVC work) Result: Little or no hope for the gtk/GNOME frontend? Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 01:12:31PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > LyX & KDE are written in C++ while GNOME is C with the > result that gtk/GNOME developers capable of working in a C++ > environment are rarer still. More likely a "I hate C++" attitude ... > Result: > Little or no hope for the gtk/GNOME frontend? perhaps someone needs to point out that "the competition" are ahead. That usually galvanises the Gnome workforce >:) john -- "I went to set up a Yahoo ID for my dog. (Don't ask, but the DOG'S email was cluttering my inbox)." - Ruthless Advisorette
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Robin Turner wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. They may not be sexy (what toolkit is?) but LyX looks a lot prettier than it did in 0.10.7 guise. And now you can change the colours to suit your environment. Sorry, no fancy gradients, pixmaps or other wierd textures available. Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:05:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking on LyX too long. Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. I suppose we should make clearer the status of the non-dialog code. Although it's not super-easy to estimate (I'd wager that XFormsView vs. LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) regards john -- Unless everyone else on earth is attending meetings I haven't been told about. - /. paranoia at its finest
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:05:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking on LyX too long. If I set the XForms widget colours to the light green that KLyX used to default to it looks very similar to that modern toolkit. So what am I missing? (the Feel of the menus is bad. Otherwise?) Maybe I'm not as fussy as some. Function over form that sort of thing. Maybe the rest of my desktop is a good indication: aterm with black backgrounds and yellow text (although shells on other computers are colour-coded but all are primary (ROYGBIV) colours on black), root window is solid black, WindowMaker dock is pale purple. Not much else on display: Opera-6tp2, Mozilla-0.9.7, xemacs-21.4.6 all with default colour/theme settings. As sexy toolkits go I liked the looks of Sun's HotJava browser which Mozilla is now copying to a certain extent. Can you point out any particular widget that causes your optic nerve distress? Any that make you twitch uncontrollably? The only thing LyX is missing, in terms of visual pleasantness IMHO, is anti-aliased text. Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. I suppose we should make clearer the status of the non-dialog code. Although it's not super-easy to estimate (I'd wager that XFormsView vs. LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) Have to start somewhere. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:45:16PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking on LyX too long. If I set the XForms widget colours to the light green that KLyX used to default to it looks very similar to that modern toolkit. So what am I missing? (the Feel of the menus is bad. Otherwise?) xforms restrictions have prevented us from improving the UI. The dialogs are buggy. The widgets are clunky. Keyboard navigability is awful. Resizing is broken. The widgets look awful, light green or not. Some widgets have no focus ability or highlighting. The textline chooser doesn't work with clicks properly. Radio buttons look like checkboxes. pop up menus feel icky. Tabs have known problems. No way to show disabled textboxes etc. latex preamble is broken in some versions. The default ask box has the buttons in a stupid order. Citation dialog has several problems. The file dialog is broken ... I could go on. Maybe I'm not as fussy as some. Function over form that sort of thing. Maybe the rest of my desktop is a good indication: aterm with It is a testament to the usefulness of LyX that people persist with the interface. particular widget that causes your optic nerve distress? Any that make you twitch uncontrollably? the checkboxes for one. ugly and unthemeable. and the menus. and the rest. The only thing LyX is missing, in terms of visual pleasantness IMHO, is anti-aliased text. that will be nice. I hope whoever it was who implemented this is working on a version good enough to apply ! LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) Have to start somewhere. sure ;) regards john -- Unless everyone else on earth is attending meetings I haven't been told about. - /. paranoia at its finest
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Robin Turner wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. They may not be sexy (what toolkit is?) but LyX looks a lot prettier than it did in 0.10.7 guise. And now you can change the colours to suit your environment. Sorry, no fancy gradients, pixmaps or other wierd textures available. Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:05:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking on LyX too long. Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. I suppose we should make clearer the status of the non-dialog code. Although it's not super-easy to estimate (I'd wager that XFormsView vs. LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) regards john -- Unless everyone else on earth is attending meetings I haven't been told about. - /. paranoia at its finest
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:05:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking on LyX too long. If I set the XForms widget colours to the light green that KLyX used to default to it looks very similar to that modern toolkit. So what am I missing? (the Feel of the menus is bad. Otherwise?) Maybe I'm not as fussy as some. Function over form that sort of thing. Maybe the rest of my desktop is a good indication: aterm with black backgrounds and yellow text (although shells on other computers are colour-coded but all are primary (ROYGBIV) colours on black), root window is solid black, WindowMaker dock is pale purple. Not much else on display: Opera-6tp2, Mozilla-0.9.7, xemacs-21.4.6 all with default colour/theme settings. As sexy toolkits go I liked the looks of Sun's HotJava browser which Mozilla is now copying to a certain extent. Can you point out any particular widget that causes your optic nerve distress? Any that make you twitch uncontrollably? The only thing LyX is missing, in terms of visual pleasantness IMHO, is anti-aliased text. Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. I suppose we should make clearer the status of the non-dialog code. Although it's not super-easy to estimate (I'd wager that XFormsView vs. LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) Have to start somewhere. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:45:16PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking on LyX too long. If I set the XForms widget colours to the light green that KLyX used to default to it looks very similar to that modern toolkit. So what am I missing? (the Feel of the menus is bad. Otherwise?) xforms restrictions have prevented us from improving the UI. The dialogs are buggy. The widgets are clunky. Keyboard navigability is awful. Resizing is broken. The widgets look awful, light green or not. Some widgets have no focus ability or highlighting. The textline chooser doesn't work with clicks properly. Radio buttons look like checkboxes. pop up menus feel icky. Tabs have known problems. No way to show disabled textboxes etc. latex preamble is broken in some versions. The default ask box has the buttons in a stupid order. Citation dialog has several problems. The file dialog is broken ... I could go on. Maybe I'm not as fussy as some. Function over form that sort of thing. Maybe the rest of my desktop is a good indication: aterm with It is a testament to the usefulness of LyX that people persist with the interface. particular widget that causes your optic nerve distress? Any that make you twitch uncontrollably? the checkboxes for one. ugly and unthemeable. and the menus. and the rest. The only thing LyX is missing, in terms of visual pleasantness IMHO, is anti-aliased text. that will be nice. I hope whoever it was who implemented this is working on a version good enough to apply ! LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) Have to start somewhere. sure ;) regards john -- Unless everyone else on earth is attending meetings I haven't been told about. - /. paranoia at its finest
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Robin Turner wrote: > 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for > another year? I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. They may not be sexy (what toolkit is?) but LyX looks a lot prettier than it did in 0.10.7 guise. And now you can change the colours to suit your environment. Sorry, no fancy gradients, pixmaps or other wierd textures available. > Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near > done. Oh well. The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:05:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for > > another year? > > I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking on LyX too long. > > Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near > > done. Oh well. > > The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big > chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. I suppose we should make clearer the status of the non-dialog code. Although it's not super-easy to estimate (I'd wager that XFormsView vs. LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) regards john -- "Unless everyone else on earth is attending meetings I haven't been told about." - /. paranoia at its finest
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:05:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > > > 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for > > > another year? > > > > I still don't understand why people say the xforms widgets are ugly. > > And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking > on LyX too long. If I set the XForms widget colours to the light green that KLyX used to default to it looks very similar to that "modern" toolkit. So what am I missing? (the "Feel" of the menus is bad. Otherwise?) Maybe I'm not as fussy as some. "Function over form" that sort of thing. Maybe the rest of my desktop is a good indication: aterm with black backgrounds and yellow text (although shells on other computers are colour-coded but all are primary (ROYGBIV) colours on black), root window is solid black, WindowMaker dock is pale purple. Not much else on display: Opera-6tp2, Mozilla-0.9.7, xemacs-21.4.6 all with default colour/theme settings. As sexy toolkits go I liked the looks of Sun's HotJava browser which Mozilla is now copying to a certain extent. Can you point out any particular widget that causes your optic nerve distress? Any that make you twitch uncontrollably? The only thing LyX is missing, in terms of visual pleasantness IMHO, is anti-aliased text. > > > Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near > > > done. Oh well. > > > > The Qt2 dialogs are nearly done. There are still a couple of big > > chunks of the interface that aren't simple dialogs left to go. > > I suppose we should make clearer the status of the non-dialog code. > Although it's not super-easy to estimate (I'd wager that XFormsView vs. > LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) Have to start somewhere. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:45:16PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > And everyone else would say this is because you have been hacking > > on LyX too long. > > If I set the XForms widget colours to the light green that KLyX used > to default to it looks very similar to that "modern" toolkit. > > So what am I missing? (the "Feel" of the menus is bad. Otherwise?) xforms restrictions have prevented us from improving the UI. The dialogs are buggy. The widgets are clunky. Keyboard navigability is awful. Resizing is broken. The widgets look awful, light green or not. Some widgets have no focus ability or highlighting. The textline chooser doesn't work with clicks properly. Radio buttons look like checkboxes. pop up menus feel icky. Tabs have known problems. No way to show disabled textboxes etc. latex preamble is broken in some versions. The default "ask" box has the buttons in a stupid order. Citation dialog has several problems. The file dialog is broken ... I could go on. > Maybe I'm not as fussy as some. "Function over form" that sort of > thing. Maybe the rest of my desktop is a good indication: aterm with It is a testament to the usefulness of LyX that people persist with the interface. > particular widget that causes your optic nerve distress? Any that > make you twitch uncontrollably? the checkboxes for one. ugly and unthemeable. and the menus. and the rest. > The only thing LyX is missing, in terms of visual pleasantness IMHO, > is anti-aliased text. that will be nice. I hope whoever it was who implemented this is working on a version good enough to apply ! > > LyXView is just the start of that particular problem ;) > > Have to start somewhere. sure ;) regards john -- "Unless everyone else on earth is attending meetings I haven't been told about." - /. paranoia at its finest
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Hi all, I'm new on this list, and I would like to ask some questions (in the hope they can be answered :-)). 1) When will LyX v. 1.2 be released? 2) Which new features will there be in this new version? I've read tasks.php3 on the LyX site I found a plenty of information about what should be implemented in the future, a lot of wich is _very_ exiting (such as: online generation of new paragraph styles (or editing or old ones), which would make (my, and perhaps some other users) work more easy). Is there any plan about when these features are planned to born? 3) On Friday 04 January 2002 16:57, Robin Turner wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Does another year a new subversion of LyX appears cca a year after the previous one (which is difficult to immagine)? Best regards, Giovanni
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Giovanni Biczó wrote: Hi all, I'm new on this list, and I would like to ask some questions (in the hope they can be answered :-)). 1) When will LyX v. 1.2 be released? Check the developers page at www.lyx.org Last time I looked, no definite release date, but of course you can always get the latest snapshot via CVS if you can be bothered with things like that. There are also some RPMs available at ftp.sylvan.com , if I remember rightly. 2) Which new features will there be in this new version? I've read tasks.php3 on the LyX site I found a plenty of information about what should be implemented in the future, a lot of wich is _very_ exiting (such as: online generation of new paragraph styles (or editing or old ones), which would make (my, and perhaps some other users) work more easy). Is there any plan about when these features are planned to born? I'm not a developer, so I'm not sure, but would expect features wlike this will need to wait for 1.3. 1.2 is basically a nicer version of 1.* Graphics import, for example, is much better. The .lyx file format has been improved as well. 3) On Friday 04 January 2002 16:57, Robin Turner wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Does another year a new subversion of LyX appears cca a year after the previous one (which is difficult to immagine)? It varies. Development is generally pretty fast, though. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Hi all, I'm new on this list, and I would like to ask some questions (in the hope they can be answered :-)). 1) When will LyX v. 1.2 be released? 2) Which new features will there be in this new version? I've read tasks.php3 on the LyX site I found a plenty of information about what should be implemented in the future, a lot of wich is _very_ exiting (such as: online generation of new paragraph styles (or editing or old ones), which would make (my, and perhaps some other users) work more easy). Is there any plan about when these features are planned to born? 3) On Friday 04 January 2002 16:57, Robin Turner wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Does another year a new subversion of LyX appears cca a year after the previous one (which is difficult to immagine)? Best regards, Giovanni
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Giovanni Biczó wrote: Hi all, I'm new on this list, and I would like to ask some questions (in the hope they can be answered :-)). 1) When will LyX v. 1.2 be released? Check the developers page at www.lyx.org Last time I looked, no definite release date, but of course you can always get the latest snapshot via CVS if you can be bothered with things like that. There are also some RPMs available at ftp.sylvan.com , if I remember rightly. 2) Which new features will there be in this new version? I've read tasks.php3 on the LyX site I found a plenty of information about what should be implemented in the future, a lot of wich is _very_ exiting (such as: online generation of new paragraph styles (or editing or old ones), which would make (my, and perhaps some other users) work more easy). Is there any plan about when these features are planned to born? I'm not a developer, so I'm not sure, but would expect features wlike this will need to wait for 1.3. 1.2 is basically a nicer version of 1.* Graphics import, for example, is much better. The .lyx file format has been improved as well. 3) On Friday 04 January 2002 16:57, Robin Turner wrote: 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Does another year a new subversion of LyX appears cca a year after the previous one (which is difficult to immagine)? It varies. Development is generally pretty fast, though. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Hi all, I'm new on this list, and I would like to ask some questions (in the hope they can be answered :-)). 1) When will LyX v. 1.2 be released? 2) Which new features will there be in this new version? I've read tasks.php3 on the LyX site I found a plenty of information about what should be implemented in the future, a lot of wich is _very_ exiting (such as: "online generation of new paragraph styles (or editing or old ones)", which would make (my, and perhaps some other users) work more easy). Is there any plan about when these features are planned to "born"? 3) On Friday 04 January 2002 16:57, Robin Turner wrote: > 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for > another year? Does "another year" a new subversion of LyX appears cca a year after the previous one (which is difficult to immagine)? Best regards, Giovanni
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Giovanni Biczó wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm new on this list, and I would like to ask some questions (in the hope > they can be answered :-)). > > 1) When will LyX v. 1.2 be released? Check the developers page at www.lyx.org Last time I looked, no definite release date, but of course you can always get the latest snapshot via CVS if you can be bothered with things like that. There are also some RPMs available at ftp.sylvan.com , if I remember rightly. > > > 2) Which new features will there be in this new version? I've read > tasks.php3 on the LyX site I found a plenty of information about what > should be implemented in the future, a lot of wich is _very_ exiting (such > as: "online generation of new paragraph styles (or editing or old ones)", > which would make (my, and perhaps some other users) work more easy). Is > there any plan about when these features are planned to "born"? > I'm not a developer, so I'm not sure, but would expect features wlike this will need to wait for 1.3. 1.2 is basically a nicer version of 1.* Graphics import, for example, is much better. The .lyx file format has been improved as well. > > 3) On Friday 04 January 2002 16:57, Robin Turner wrote: > > 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for > > another year? > Does "another year" a new subversion of LyX appears cca a year after the > previous one (which is difficult to immagine)? It varies. Development is generally pretty fast, though. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Wayan wrote: On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Herbert Voss wrote: no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Yes, but there is one feature in KLyX could not be found in LyX, i.e. Document Structure... I prefer use KLyX and then finishing with LyX, at least until LyX 1.1.6. Yes, I enjoyed that feature when I was using KLyX. On the bright side, LyX 1.2 should have a KDE version, so eventually there will be no difference between LyX and KLyX. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Robin == Robin Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robin Yes, I enjoyed that feature when I was using KLyX. On the Robin bright side, LyX 1.2 should have a KDE version, so eventually Robin there will be no difference between LyX and KLyX. For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of GUI indepndence than in visible results. Also, having this document manager is rather independent of having a kde port. JMarc
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of GUI indepndence than in visible results. 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. Also, having this document manager is rather independent of having a kde port. True, but I would have thought it would make it easier to include if anyone wanted it hard enough. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Wayan wrote: On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Herbert Voss wrote: no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Yes, but there is one feature in KLyX could not be found in LyX, i.e. Document Structure... I prefer use KLyX and then finishing with LyX, at least until LyX 1.1.6. Yes, I enjoyed that feature when I was using KLyX. On the bright side, LyX 1.2 should have a KDE version, so eventually there will be no difference between LyX and KLyX. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Robin == Robin Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robin Yes, I enjoyed that feature when I was using KLyX. On the Robin bright side, LyX 1.2 should have a KDE version, so eventually Robin there will be no difference between LyX and KLyX. For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of GUI indepndence than in visible results. Also, having this document manager is rather independent of having a kde port. JMarc
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of GUI indepndence than in visible results. 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. Also, having this document manager is rather independent of having a kde port. True, but I would have thought it would make it easier to include if anyone wanted it hard enough. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Wayan wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Herbert Voss wrote: > > > no, only disadvantages when using klyx. > > Yes, but there is one feature in KLyX could not be found in LyX, i.e. > Document Structure... I prefer use KLyX and then finishing with LyX, at > least until LyX 1.1.6. Yes, I enjoyed that feature when I was using KLyX. On the bright side, LyX 1.2 should have a KDE version, so eventually there will be no difference between LyX and KLyX. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
> "Robin" == Robin Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Robin> Yes, I enjoyed that feature when I was using KLyX. On the Robin> bright side, LyX 1.2 should have a KDE version, so eventually Robin> there will be no difference between LyX and KLyX. For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of GUI indepndence than in visible results. Also, having this document manager is rather independent of having a kde port. JMarc
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > For the kde (actually qt2) version, you will have to wait for 1.3.0. > There have been little improvements on this fron for 1.2.0. Actually, > there have been a lot of improvement, but more in infrastructure of > GUI indepndence than in visible results. 1.3.0? Wah - you mean I'm stuck with those ugly xforms widgets for another year? Looking at the GUI compatibility page, I thought the job was near done. Oh well. > > > Also, having this document manager is rather independent of having a > kde port. > True, but I would have thought it would make it easier to include if anyone wanted it hard enough. Robin
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
J.S. wrote: I'm just curious; are there any advantages and/or disadvantages (for a beginner) by using KLyX instead of LyX? no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Herbert -- http://www.lyx.org/help/
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Herbert Voss wrote: no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Yes, but there is one feature in KLyX could not be found in LyX, i.e. Document Structure... I prefer use KLyX and then finishing with LyX, at least until LyX 1.1.6. Regards, Wayan
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
J.S. wrote: I'm just curious; are there any advantages and/or disadvantages (for a beginner) by using KLyX instead of LyX? no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Herbert -- http://www.lyx.org/help/
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Herbert Voss wrote: no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Yes, but there is one feature in KLyX could not be found in LyX, i.e. Document Structure... I prefer use KLyX and then finishing with LyX, at least until LyX 1.1.6. Regards, Wayan
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
J.S. wrote: > I'm just curious; are there any advantages and/or disadvantages (for a > beginner) by using KLyX instead of LyX? no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Herbert -- http://www.lyx.org/help/
Re: KLyX -- am I missing something?
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Herbert Voss wrote: > no, only disadvantages when using klyx. Yes, but there is one feature in KLyX could not be found in LyX, i.e. Document Structure... I prefer use KLyX and then finishing with LyX, at least until LyX 1.1.6. Regards, Wayan
