I loaded the 1.1.17 release the other day and today I did a print job. All
I get is a solid black output. I'm using an Epson Stylus Color 500 and the
printer worked fine in 1.1.15 (I didn't try 1.1.16).
Rob: if you need more info, let me know.
--
Michael J. Hammel |
The Graphics
From: "Michael J. Hammel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:56:17 -0700 (MST)
I loaded the 1.1.17 release the other day and today I did a print job. All
I get is a solid black output. I'm using an Epson Stylus Color 500 and the
printer worked fine in 1.1.15 (I didn't
From: "Michael J. Hammel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:56:17 -0700 (MST)
I loaded the 1.1.17 release the other day and today I did a print job. All
I get is a solid black output. I'm using an Epson Stylus Color 500 and the
printer worked fine in 1.1.15 (I didn't
From: "Michael J. Hammel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:56:17 -0700 (MST)
I loaded the 1.1.17 release the other day and today I did a print job. All
I get is a solid black output. I'm using an Epson Stylus Color 500 and the
printer worked fine in 1.1.15 (I didn't
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Raphael Quinet wrote:
My personal opinion: I'm all for using some of the GNOME things
(especially gnome-font, gtk-pixbuf and gnome-canvas) as long as they
do not have any dependencies on ORBit or other stuff that is difficult
to compile on non-Linux systems or stuff that
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GNOME claims GIMP as part of GNOME because GIMP is better than any of
the existing GNOME apps. They're trying to piggyback on our success.
Personally, I think this is odious, but hey...
This statement is ridiculous. They are
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:31:28AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are fantastic parsers available, no need to write any of those.
I'm not talking just parsers! A parser does exactly that -- it parses. You'd
still have to write handlers etc. for all the tags.
That's the hitting point,
On 2 Feb, Steinar H.Gunderson wrote:
In my illusion at least making tags from events and the
way back should be simpler...
The problem with Perl is the parsing step, not the recording step. We
already have well-working code for parsing/running Perl.
That sentence doesn't make a lot of
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:25:10PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I agree that we've got
well-working code for parsing/running Perl, well, that's Perl :)...
Yes, exactly.
The `problem' with Perl is that it can be amazingly complex at times.
That's the hitting point, if you want to use perl or script-fu here you
have to produce code for (possibly :)) highlevel languages which isn't
quite simple.
It must be quite simple. the perl plug-in can give you a detailed trace
output of all functions called, which is implemented with less
On 01 February, 2000 - Kelly Lynn Martin sent me these 0.4K bytes:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:24:35 -0600, "Shawn T . Amundson"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But hasn't Mozilla basically given up on this idea and just used
their own toolkit? Mozilla certainly looks crappy on the Mac at any
rate.
On 02-Feb-00 Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Why, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF USERS WHO WANT ALL THEIR APPS TO WORK THE
SAME, should the Gimp work different from their other apps?
I want a real, stable solution that I can use! :-)))
When I upgrade a library I don't want have to upgrade a lot of others
Hi,
Same impression here. I can't remember that I installed Gnome on
my desktop. And although I use Gimp for a long time now I never got
the impression that I was working with Gnome.
Eeek, even if we we use gnome-libs you will not have to install Gnome
on your desktop. People should have
On 1 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:
You don't seem to be very familiar with gnome-libs, especially not
with the progress that was/is being made towards the next release.
Uhm, not quite except that I'm trying to compile it every three days...
gnome-print for printing (preview, native printer
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 13:19:03 +0100, Torsten Rahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Of course I read on the
Gnome-Office-site that Gimp would be part of Gnome-Office. Well I was
quite surprised to read that as I didn't see any discussions about
this topic here.
GNOME claims GIMP as part of GNOME because
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea.
For example, you want cutpaste under both desktops. And kde has cooked
their own incompatible clipboard system.
Why would people using KDE
XML as a save format for configureations and even for scripts. This would make
macro recording possible...
Macro recording and XML are two *completely* orthogonal things. Macro
recording gets possible by programming it, not by using a difefrent format
to save config files.
I wonder where
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 13:19:03 +0100, Torsten Rahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
GNOME claims GIMP as part of GNOME because GIMP is better than any of
the existing GNOME apps. They're trying to piggyback on our success.
Personally, I think this is
On 1 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote:
Macro recording and XML are two *completely* orthogonal things. Macro
recording gets possible by programming it, not by using a difefrent
format to save config files.
You could use XML for saving macros. Of course you could also use
scheme BUT: There are
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:15:17 -0600 (CST), Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I agree that would be the best solution, but I'm afraid it's not that
easy. I've submitted quite a few very small portability patches
against ORBit from as far back as the 0.3.X days, and virtually every
one of my
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:09:14 +0100 (MET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) said:
This statement is ridiculous. They are not claiming that they wrote
the GIMP. They just state that it will be included as part of the
Gnome-Office suite.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:11:13 -0500 (EST), Glyph Lefkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
No, and it's their right not to. If you believe this should be a
requirement, it should be part of the license. GIMP is a part of Red
Hat Linux, why shouldn't it be a part of the GNOME office suite?
If I recall
On 1 Feb, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Well, we _do_ have gimp-perl available...
Uhm, yes...
With XML, we'd have to write _both_ loader and saver
There are fantastic parsers available, no need to write any of those.
-- with gimp-perl (or Perl-Fu, whatever name
you like best), we'll
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:16:42PM +, "Steinar H. Gunderson"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could use XML for saving macros. Of course you could also use
scheme BUT: There are libraries e.g. libxml which allow very simple
loading and saving of XML files while we would possibly have to
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 02:58:29PM -0600, Tim Mooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In most cases, the response was along the lines of "your compiler is broken,
it builds and works fine for me".
Hey, that's exactly the same argument kde people used to use ;-
BTW, I enjoy this flamewar very much,
Thus spoke Robert L Krawitz
From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea.
Actually, it's an eminently sensible idea. For KDE, having an image
editing program that follows the KDE UI guidelines and all the other
good
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 09:44:47AM -0700, Michael J. Hammel wrote:
But they wouldn't have to maintain anything if they just left the UI alone.
I'm with Sven on this one. Two UI's accomplishes little.
The point is not just KDE vs. GNOME, is it? Isn't BeOS doing their own port
of GIMP, using the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:22:35PM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
The KDE v Gnome issue is somewhat specious, but the Windows issue is
not. Using Windows native UI functionality would probably result in a
stabler, faster program as well as a program that users will
understand better.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:24:35 -0600, "Shawn T . Amundson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But hasn't Mozilla basically given up on this idea and just used
their own toolkit? Mozilla certainly looks crappy on the Mac at any
rate.
I was referring to the commercial Netscape product, rather than
Mozilla. I
From: "Michael J. Hammel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:44:47 -0700 (MST)
Thus spoke Robert L Krawitz
From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea.
Actually, it's an eminently sensible
First, I am not a coder:
I'd argue that except for gconf and MAYBE gnome-canvas none of this
stuff belongs in GNOME at all; these are all very generic facilities
that shouldn't depend on any of the IPC, desktop, etc. stuff.
Otherwise we wind up with the same kind of confusion and versioning
On 1 Feb, Shawn T . Amundson wrote:
But hasn't Mozilla basically given up on this idea and just
used their own toolkit? Mozilla certainly looks crappy on the
Mac at any rate.
Not yet... at the moment it's possible to use even gtk or qt for the
UI but they are slowly migrating to their
GIMP's a lot lighter than gnome-libs. I would substantially oppose
any serious dependence on gnome-libs in GIMP. Especially since
gnome-libs appears to depend on a library that is only available if
you have RPM installed.
Kelly, please don't spread FUD. People build gnome-libs on
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:33:53PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the GIMP would gain a lot from using the core GNOME libraries;
Just to throw in my opinion: gimp is _NOT part of gnome, other than in a
technical way, and I personally think it is important that
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:32:38AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now, tell me why we should recode all this on our own. It would not only be
ridiculous to do so, I can also assure you that it is beyond our limits due
to limited resources of good developers willing to spend
On 31 January, 2000 - Robert L Krawitz sent me these 4.1K bytes:
From the user's perspective The Gimp is part of GNOME. For 1.2 this
won't be really true, but only because of lack of development time to
handle the changes. Is there serious concern here that user's will
NOT want a
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:18:54AM +, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the user's perspective The Gimp is part of GNOME. For 1.2 this
won't be really true, but only because of lack of development time to
handle the changes.
Maybe I am misinformed... I have a different impression,
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:33:53 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Kelly, please don't spread FUD. People build gnome-libs on Debian
boxes, old broken Slackware boxes, FreeBSD, Solaris, and other
beasts. What library are you talking about?
popt. If you read gnome-hackers
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 01:18:54 +, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
From the user's perspective The Gimp is part of GNOME.
There's no good reason for users to have this perception, though,
since the only relation GIMP has with GNOME is that GNOME uses GIMP's
custom-developed widget set, and
In regard to: Re: Print plug-in, Michael J. Hammel said (at 9:55pm on Jan...:
GNOME-enabled is one thing. GNOME-dependent is another. Requiring GNOME
libs on non Linux platforms may not be appreciated. If GNOME dependency is
added, a determination on the difficulty on getting GNOME libs
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:03:32 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
(As for footprint, well, the GIMP is not terribly lightweight either)
:-)
GIMP's a lot lighter than gnome-libs. I would substantially oppose
any serious dependence on gnome-libs in GIMP. Especially since
We might also choose to use the upcoming Gnome Print System if it turns
out to fit our needs and appears to be portable to non-Linux systems.
As long as it doesn't require actually running Gnome (works with bare
X, KDE, etc.) and its footprint is reasonably light, that sounds
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:03:32 -0500
From: Federico Mena Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a GNOME program does not run under "bare" X or KDE, then it is
broken and should be fixed. Do you have any examples of such
programs?
No; I just wanted to make
, etc.) and its footprint is reasonably light, that sounds like
a reasonable thing to do.
BTW: Could you please provide a patch that upgrades the Print plug-in in
CVS to the most recent 3.0.x version?
Sure, in a separate message.
On 27 Jan, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
diff -rc print/README /tmp/print/README
Please use diff -u for further patches to preserve readability and
attach them to prevent line wrapping to slash the patch
--
Servus,
Daniel
45 matches
Mail list logo
