Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #67862 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-05-28 18:11 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-05-29 19:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-28 18:11 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-28 19:18 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-28 23:40 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 02:55 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-28 23:47 -0400
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-29 05:48 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-29 02:04 -0400
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-29 18:30 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 09:36 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-29 11:06 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 09:42 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-29 12:22 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-29 19:13 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-29 21:24 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-30 01:48 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-30 09:55 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 09:45 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-30 13:24 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 14:42 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 16:08 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-30 18:08 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 19:42 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 22:25 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-31 07:29 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-31 06:49 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-31 09:04 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-31 08:27 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-31 10:59 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-31 12:43 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-31 12:07 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-31 14:03 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-31 23:44 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-06-01 10:49 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-01 13:58 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-01 19:52 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-01 22:46 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-02 05:23 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-02 08:37 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-02 07:47 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-02 09:02 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-02 10:51 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-02 12:57 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-02 14:58 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-02 15:38 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-02 14:59 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-03 07:17 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-03 11:58 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-06-06 18:33 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-07 02:22 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-08 03:39 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-06-02 09:58 -0700
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-02 18:05 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 09:06 -0700
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-03 07:22 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-30 18:05 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 14:40 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 22:23 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-29 19:11 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-29 12:07 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-29 13:47 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-30 08:41 +1000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 08:32 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-30 11:59 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-30 12:21 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-30 18:44 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-30 12:46 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-31 12:27 +1000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-31 02:42 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-31 13:39 +1000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-31 04:49 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-31 17:56 +1000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-31 08:25 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-31 11:02 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 09:13 -0700
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-03 00:24 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-03 07:24 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 09:21 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-03 11:01 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 10:26 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-03 12:35 +0200
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 12:37 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-03 18:32 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-04 04:23 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-04 12:01 +0100
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-04 00:19 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-04 00:18 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-03 12:05 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-03 17:00 +0200
GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 10:36 +0100
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 11:32 +0100
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-03 19:24 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-04 11:54 +0100
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-03 08:42 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 17:37 +0100
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-04 00:15 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-04 06:50 -0400
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-04 13:02 +0100
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-04 23:12 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-06-07 16:00 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-04 08:48 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-04 23:14 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 08:45 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-05 23:42 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 08:32 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 08:37 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-07 02:19 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-07 07:05 -0400
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-08 03:46 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-08 00:25 -0400
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-08 08:25 -0400
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-08 18:25 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-09 08:47 -0400
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-08 23:05 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-10 01:10 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-10 07:44 +0200
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-10 14:14 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-06-10 09:16 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-10 23:45 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-06 21:02 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-06 15:03 +0000
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-06-06 00:09 -0400
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-05 10:46 +0100
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 08:54 -0700
Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-05 23:46 +0000
Re: Distros specifically designed for children rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-29 19:02 +0000
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-04 08:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <20250604084826.00004cfd@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #68283 |
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 00:15:36 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > I fired up GIMP 3 and had a quick look round at several dialogs. I > simply could not find any examples of what you’re talking about. I'll be damned - looks like they *finally* started paying attention to this in v.3. Only took 'em 27 years! > It does still take advantage of Fitts’ Law though, doesn’t it. Is > there some other point to context menus? Fitts' Law is exactly what makes such a thing comically redundant: the main menu is *already there,* right within mouse-flick range. Having a duplicate of it pop up when you right-click in the document area would be pointless even if it *weren't* so extensive as to be unwieldy when hanging off the mouse pointer. The true use of context menus is right there in the name: they should provide a contextually-appropriate selection of actions based on the thing clicked on (e.g. vertices of a polygonal-select outline) and/or the current mode (alternate operations for the current tool.) If you're not gonna bother doing that, it'd be more sensible to skip the menu altogether and just use right-click as a fixed alternate function for the current tool or somesuch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-04 23:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <101qk0o$13glj$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68336 |
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:48:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 00:15:36 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> I fired up GIMP 3 and had a quick look round at several dialogs. I >> simply could not find any examples of what you’re talking about. > > I'll be damned - looks like they *finally* started paying attention to > this in v.3. Only took 'em 27 years! *Yawn* Or more likely, you took one look at an early version of GIMP 27 years ago, dismissed it, and have been complaining about it without actually trying it again ever since. > Fitts' Law is exactly what makes such a thing comically redundant: the > main menu is *already there,* right within mouse-flick range. Only if it’s on the edge of the screen. Otherwise it is slow to get to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-05 08:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <20250605084547.00003f3a@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #68363 |
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 23:14:33 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > *Yawn* Or more likely, you took one look at an early version of GIMP > 27 years ago, dismissed it, and have been complaining about it > without actually trying it again ever since. That would be a convenient narrative for you, but no - I first picked it up with v.2 when I was looking for a *nix-native Photoshop alternative, and it was certainly the case then. I've been using it ever since (as the version of Photoshop I had was clunky under WINE,) but I gave up on getting any kind of comparable workflow going for digital art. That became irrelevant as I moved to more traditional media, which worked out for me, but it's illustrative of the GIMP team's overall approach to UI matters: blindly copy what better designers do in a surface approximation, without bothering to understand *why* or study the details to get things really *right.* Same can be seen with single- window mode, which came about as a response to Photoshop for Windows offering a multiple-document interface, but took a less-useful-but- easier-to-implement approach. "Minimum viable product to approximate feature parity" is just how they *do* things...which is why working professionals just trying to Get Shit Done are still willing to put up with Adobe's draconian bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-05 23:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <101ta0c$1qu8n$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68390 |
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 08:45:47 -0700, John Ames wrote: > ... but it's illustrative of the GIMP team's overall approach to UI > matters: blindly copy what better designers do in a surface > approximation, without bothering to understand *why* or study the > details to get things really *right.* You’re assuming that the ones who come up with the ideas are actually doing user-interface testing. You really think Adobe, Apple, Microsoft and others are doing that nowadays? When you’re saying “get things right” you just mean “get things the way I’m used to with Adobe products”. Or maybe it’s “Microsoft” or “Apple” products in some other case. > Same can be seen with single-window mode, which came about as a response > to Photoshop for Windows offering a multiple-document interface, but > took a less-useful-but-easier-to-implement approach. Not sure what you’re complaining about there. GIMP still offers the choice of multi-window mode, if that’s what you prefer. > ...which is why working professionals just trying to Get Shit Done > are still willing to put up with Adobe's draconian bullshit. I just think sometimes those “working professionals” are too lazy or unimaginative to realize that a computer is a universal machine, that you can program to do all the boring, repetitive tasks for you, so you don’t have to do them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-06 08:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <20250606083202.0000328e@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #68401 |
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:42:04 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > When you’re saying “get things right” you just mean “get things the > way I’m used to with Adobe products”. Or maybe it’s “Microsoft” or > “Apple” products in some other case. Again, they could certainly pick a *different* set of accelerators than Photoshop (and, while I didn't bother to compare, I imagine they did.) But until this revamp (which, I will reiterate, took them *almost three decades* to figure out,) they exhibited a fundamentally bone-headed mis- understanding of how keyboard accelerators are supposed to work in the first place. That's *not* a mistake Adobe made (or if they did, it'd been fixed by v.7, which was - *checks watch* - twenty-five years ago.) > Not sure what you’re complaining about there. GIMP still offers the > choice of multi-window mode, if that’s what you prefer. I don't prefer, actually! My beef with single-window mode is not that multi-window mode is better (maybe you like it better, maybe you don't, that's fine and it's good that they provide the option to switch) - it's that single-window mode is a *less useful* response to Photoshop's MDI interface. There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a real need: "But then in every discussion the concrete need for working side-by-side comes up. [...] Let’s not kid ourselves: the fact that users can work on several files inside a single application window, means that this application must offer a substitute for window management..." - https://gui.gimp.org/index.php?title=Single-window_mode_specification
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-06 08:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <20250606083757.00002dc6@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #68434 |
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > made (or if they did, it'd been fixed by v.7, which was - *checks > watch* - twenty-five years ago.) *checks watch* *winds watch* Twenty-*three* years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-07 02:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <10207jt$2k6uo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68434 |
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote: > There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in > SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a > real need ... So do it in multi-window mode. Remember that Microsoft’s whole MDI/SDI rigmarole is a consequence of the brain-dead architecture of the Windows GUI in the first place. There is no reason for an application that runs on *nix systems to be restricted to the same limitations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-07 07:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <10216ec$2vvi1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68473 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in >> SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a >> real need ... > > So do it in multi-window mode. Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP. > Remember that Microsoft’s whole MDI/SDI rigmarole is a consequence of the > brain-dead architecture of the Windows GUI in the first place. There is no > reason for an application that runs on *nix systems to be restricted to > the same limitations. -- "Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-08 03:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <102312q$3k3he$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68497 |
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote: >> >>> There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in >>> SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a >>> real need ... >> >> So do it in multi-window mode. > > Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP. As far as I know, multi-window mode has been present in GIMP since GIMP began. The "everything packed into a single window" mode is a newer add-on (and one that I have never enabled myself).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-08 00:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <uJKdnYSqCq97jdj1nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #68525 |
On 6/7/25 11:46 PM, Rich wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >> >>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>> >>>> There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in >>>> SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a >>>> real need ... >>> >>> So do it in multi-window mode. >> >> Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP. > > As far as I know, multi-window mode has been present in GIMP since GIMP > began. The "everything packed into a single window" mode is a newer > add-on (and one that I have never enabled myself). Multi-Window is USUALLY more useful - lets you tweak and re-tweak and FINALLY merge. However for some needs, single-window is just easier and more intuitive. In any case, I remind, GIMP is *freeware* - the Great Mission. So DON'T bitch a lot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-08 08:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <1023vgb$3r3op$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68525 |
Rich wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >> >>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>> >>>> There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in >>>> SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a >>>> real need ... >>> >>> So do it in multi-window mode. >> >> Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP. > > As far as I know, multi-window mode has been present in GIMP since GIMP > began. The "everything packed into a single window" mode is a newer > add-on (and one that I have never enabled myself). Since years, using GIMP, I was always presented with a single window. Oh well. -- Never have so many understood so little about so much. -- James Burke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-08 18:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <mam2rvFrj32U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68541 |
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:25:46 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Since years, using GIMP, I was always presented with a single window. It didn't calve off floating windows when you used it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-09 08:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <1026l4r$hj96$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68548 |
rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:25:46 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Since years, using GIMP, I was always presented with a single window. > > It didn't calve off floating windows when you used it? No. To be fair, it might have been my always-reused GIMP configuration. So many years ago I don't remember the original settings. -- A long-forgotten loved one will appear soon. Buy the negatives at any price.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-08 23:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <10254v9$38nl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68541 |
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: > Rich wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > >> Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>> >>>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:32:02 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is, AFAICT, still no way to view documents side-by- side in >>>>> SWM, despite GIMP's own internal dev wiki admitting that this is a >>>>> real need ... >>>> >>>> So do it in multi-window mode. >>> >>> Cool! I hadn't realized that existed in GIMP. >> >> As far as I know, multi-window mode has been present in GIMP since GIMP >> began. The "everything packed into a single window" mode is a newer >> add-on (and one that I have never enabled myself). > > Since years, using GIMP, I was always presented with a single window. > > Oh well. Perhaps the packagers of GIMP for your distro decided to default their package to be GIMP single window mode?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-09 15:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <20250609153429.00001271@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #68473 |
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 02:19:41 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > So do it in multi-window mode. > > Remember that Microsoft’s whole MDI/SDI rigmarole is a consequence of > the brain-dead architecture of the Windows GUI in the first place. > There is no reason for an application that runs on *nix systems to be > restricted to the same limitations. MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and complicated UX problem: how do you manage a single application with arbitrarily many documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch of other stuff open as well? The perfect solution would have the following properties: A. not clutter up the window list in the desktop environment, B. allow easy switching between documents in the application, C. allow easy switching to/from other applications, D. allow free arrangement of documents on the screen (side-by-side,) E. make efficient and orderly use of screen real estate. If there's a perfect solution out there, I've certainly never seen it - but let's compare the articles at hand. GIMP in multi-window mode allows easy switching and side-by-side work between documents, but clutters up the window list with one window per document (or more, if your WM doesn't take the hint to leave the "dock" windows out of the list,) which makes it a chore to go back and forth between another application and 2+ GIMP documents. Photoshop in MDI mode allows easy switching and side-by-side work between documents, and doesn't clutter up the window list, which makes switching between applications easy - but it does limit the placement of documents to the main-window area, meaning there's little point to running it non-maximized. GIMP in single-window mode allows easy switching between documents and doesn't clutter up the window list, but it has no provision at all for side-by-side work (despite, I will reiterate, GIMP's *own dev team* admitting that this is a real need) - and your "just switch modes" argument means forgoing what advantages it *does* have over multi- window mode. So: whether or not you personally consider MDI clunky or braindead, it *does* have concrete advantages over both GIMP modes - and, again, the GIMP team knows this, but they have not addressed it, because they don't really understand or care about UX matters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-10 01:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <10280ln$rmtv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68602 |
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:34:29 -0700, John Ames wrote: > MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and complicated > UX problem: how do you manage a single application with arbitrarily many > documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch of other stuff open as > well? We already have plenty of solutions to that. Look at the dual concepts of “virtual desktops” and “activities” in KDE Plasma 6.x, for example. That allows you to switch between entire suites of document/application windows in a single operation. MDI is inherently clunky because Microsoft chose to impose the stupid UI convention that there must be a top-level “application window” to contain all the application-specific “document windows”. No other GUI is built that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-10 07:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces (was: Re: Distros specifically designed for children) |
| Message-ID | <1028gnd$n6uc$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #68612 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:34:29 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and complicated >> UX problem: how do you manage a single application with arbitrarily many >> documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch of other stuff open as >> well? > >We already have plenty of solutions to that. Look at the dual concepts of >“virtual desktops” and “activities” in KDE Plasma 6.x, for example. That >allows you to switch between entire suites of document/application windows >in a single operation. That is something I have never understood, and have failed to find example use cases: All documentation I found handles this feature in half a paragraph, leaving it to the user to grasp the possible power of the two-dimensional concept. >MDI is inherently clunky because Microsoft chose to impose the stupid UI >convention that there must be a top-level “application window” to contain >all the application-specific “document windows”. No other GUI is built >that way. They did that 30 years ago and did pioneering work in this regard, just to reduce the blame we put on them today. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-10 14:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <1029ek5$19mj3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68619 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:34:29 -0700, John Ames wrote: >> >>> MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and >>> complicated UX problem: how do you manage a single application with >>> arbitrarily many documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch >>> of other stuff open as well? >> >>We already have plenty of solutions to that. Look at the dual >>concepts of “virtual desktops” and “activities” in KDE Plasma 6.x, >>for example. That allows you to switch between entire suites of >>document/application windows in a single operation. A feature (virtual desktops) which MS failed to provide natively until W10's release in July 2015 (easily about 20+ years after multiple X window managers provided the feature), and even then, in typical Microsoft fashion, they completely failed to understand the usefulness and built a half-assed amateur implementation. > That is something I have never understood, and have failed to find > example use cases: All documentation I found handles this feature in > half a paragraph, leaving it to the user to grasp the possible power > of the two-dimensional concept. Unfortunately, yes, the docs. are not so great regarding usecases. From the fvwm2 man page it is described as: Fvwm provides both a large virtual desktop and multiple disjoint desktops which can be used separately or together. The virtual desktop allows you to pretend that your video screen is really quite large, and you can scroll around within the desktop. The multiple disjoint desktops allow you to pretend that you really have several screens to work at, but each screen is completely unrelated to the others. And a bit further on: THE VIRTUAL DESKTOP Fvwm provides multiple virtual desktops for users who wish to use them. The screen is a viewport onto a desktop which may be larger than the screen. Several distinct desktops can be accessed (concept: one desktop for each project, or one desktop for each application, when view applications are distinct). Since each desktop can be larger than the physical screen, divided into m by n pages which are each the size of the physical screen, windows which are larger than the screen or large groups of related windows can easily be viewed. The (m by n) size (i.e. number of pages) of the virtual desktops can be changed any time, by using the DesktopSize command. All virtual desktops must be (are) the same size. The total number of distinct desktops does not need to be specified, but is limited to approximately 4 billion total. All windows on a range of desktops can be viewed in the FvwmPager, a miniature view of the desktops. The pager is an accessory program, called a module, which is not essential for the window manager to operate. Windows may also be listed using the WindowList command or the FvwmIconMan module. Fvwm keeps the windows on the desktop in a layered stacking order; a window in a lower layer never obscures a window in a higher layer. The layer of a window can be changed by using the Layer command. The concept of layers is a generalization of the StaysOnTop flag of older fvwm versions. The StaysOnTop and StaysPut Style options are now implemented by putting the windows in suitable layers and the previously missing StaysOnBottom Style option has been added. Sticky windows are windows which transcend the virtual desktop by "Sticking to the screen's glass". They always stay put on the screen. This is convenient for things like clocks and xbiffs, so you only need to run one such gadget and it always stays with you. Icons can also be made to stick to the glass, if desired. The 30 second elevator pitch is it provides some portion of the advantage of multiple monitors, whether or not one has multiple monitors connected. In Fvwm2's version, it also adds the ability to pretend to have a much larger monitor surface than one really has (was more useful back in the day when photo viewers did not include "resize to screen" as an automatic default). The use I put them to (I have my Fvwm2 config providing six copies of my two monitors, arranged in the pager as a 2 wide by three tall rectange. And the individual copies of the pair of monitors loosely have different "work" occurring in each. I do a fair amount of video editing, so one virtual desktop has all the windows/apps used for that task on it. A second contains most of my Firefox windows (although Firefox windows get opened in other desktops as needed). A third desktop has my Firefox windows and other terminals/apps for eBay and Craigslist sales. So if I'm just 'web browsing' I'm usually on the virtual desk with most of the Firefox windows (with none of the video editing or eBay/Craigslist windows in the way). But if I'm video editing, I switch to the video editing desktop, and all the 'general web browsing' windows disappear and all the video editing tools windows appear (each left where I placed it). I.e., it reduces the total "clutter" by giving you seperate "monitor copies" upon which to park groups of related windows for a given task, and then quickly switch back and forth. A virtual version of the hobbiest who does both woodworking and electronics, and has one workbench setup only for woodworking, and a second workbench setup only for electronics. Except in that world that requires two physical workbenches and the space to set them up. The equivalent in the virtual world would be like the hobbiest having a pair of buttons on the front of a single workbench, push one button and the workbench would transform into "wood working workbench" (somehow), push the other button and the workbench would transform into "electronics workbench". But none of the woodworking tools are in the way while using the electronics bench, and none of the electronics tools are in the way when using the woodworking workbench. >>MDI is inherently clunky because Microsoft chose to impose the stupid UI >>convention that there must be a top-level “application window” to contain >>all the application-specific “document windows”. No other GUI is built >>that way. > > They did that 30 years ago and did pioneering work in this regard, > just to reduce the blame we put on them today. I chalked it up to them being 30 years too late in finally copying yet another good idea from Xwindows window managers into their crappy OS product. Much of what is there since Win95 has been nothing more than them ripping off ideas from Xwindows window managers, and then half assing their version by failing to understand the full usefulness in most instances.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-10 09:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <1029loc$195ok$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68632 |
On 6/10/25 07:14, Rich wrote: > Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:34:29 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>> >>>> MDI is one of several solutions to an inherently clunky and >>>> complicated UX problem: how do you manage a single application with >>>> arbitrarily many documents, in a desktop environment with a bunch >>>> of other stuff open as well? >>> >>> We already have plenty of solutions to that. Look at the dual >>> concepts of “virtual desktops” and “activities” in KDE Plasma 6.x, >>> for example. That allows you to switch between entire suites of >>> document/application windows in a single operation. > > A feature (virtual desktops) which MS failed to provide natively until > W10's release in July 2015 (easily about 20+ years after multiple X > window managers provided the feature), and even then, in typical > Microsoft fashion, they completely failed to understand the usefulness > and built a half-assed amateur implementation. > >> That is something I have never understood, and have failed to find >> example use cases: All documentation I found handles this feature in >> half a paragraph, leaving it to the user to grasp the possible power >> of the two-dimensional concept. > > Unfortunately, yes, the docs. are not so great regarding usecases. > From the fvwm2 man page it is described as: > > Fvwm provides both a large virtual desktop and multiple disjoint > desktops which can be used separately or together. The virtual > desktop allows you to pretend that your video screen is really quite > large, and you can scroll around within the desktop. The multiple > disjoint desktops allow you to pretend that you really have several > screens to work at, but each screen is completely unrelated to the > others. > > And a bit further on: > > THE VIRTUAL DESKTOP > Fvwm provides multiple virtual desktops for users who wish to use them. > The screen is a viewport onto a desktop which may be larger than the > screen. Several distinct desktops can be accessed (concept: one > desktop for each project, or one desktop for each application, when > view applications are distinct). Since each desktop can be larger than > the physical screen, divided into m by n pages which are each the size > of the physical screen, windows which are larger than the screen or > large groups of related windows can easily be viewed. > > The (m by n) size (i.e. number of pages) of the virtual desktops can be > changed any time, by using the DesktopSize command. All virtual > desktops must be (are) the same size. The total number of distinct > desktops does not need to be specified, but is limited to approximately > 4 billion total. All windows on a range of desktops can be viewed in > the FvwmPager, a miniature view of the desktops. The pager is an > accessory program, called a module, which is not essential for the > window manager to operate. Windows may also be listed using the > WindowList command or the FvwmIconMan module. > > Fvwm keeps the windows on the desktop in a layered stacking order; a > window in a lower layer never obscures a window in a higher layer. The > layer of a window can be changed by using the Layer command. The > concept of layers is a generalization of the StaysOnTop flag of older > fvwm versions. The StaysOnTop and StaysPut Style options are now > implemented by putting the windows in suitable layers and the > previously missing StaysOnBottom Style option has been added. > > Sticky windows are windows which transcend the virtual desktop by > "Sticking to the screen's glass". They always stay put on the screen. > This is convenient for things like clocks and xbiffs, so you only need > to run one such gadget and it always stays with you. Icons can also be > made to stick to the glass, if desired. > > The 30 second elevator pitch is it provides some portion of the > advantage of multiple monitors, whether or not one has multiple > monitors connected. > > In Fvwm2's version, it also adds the ability to pretend to have a much > larger monitor surface than one really has (was more useful back in the > day when photo viewers did not include "resize to screen" as an > automatic default). > > The use I put them to (I have my Fvwm2 config providing six copies of > my two monitors, arranged in the pager as a 2 wide by three tall > rectange. And the individual copies of the pair of monitors loosely > have different "work" occurring in each. I do a fair amount of video > editing, so one virtual desktop has all the windows/apps used for that task on > it. A second contains most of my Firefox windows (although Firefox > windows get opened in other desktops as needed). A third desktop has > my Firefox windows and other terminals/apps for eBay and Craigslist > sales. > > So if I'm just 'web browsing' I'm usually on the virtual desk with most > of the Firefox windows (with none of the video editing or > eBay/Craigslist windows in the way). But if I'm video editing, I > switch to the video editing desktop, and all the 'general web browsing' > windows disappear and all the video editing tools windows appear (each > left where I placed it). > > I.e., it reduces the total "clutter" by giving you seperate "monitor > copies" upon which to park groups of related windows for a given task, > and then quickly switch back and forth. > > A virtual version of the hobbiest who does both woodworking and > electronics, and has one workbench setup only for woodworking, and a > second workbench setup only for electronics. Except in that world that > requires two physical workbenches and the space to set them up. The > equivalent in the virtual world would be like the hobbiest having a > pair of buttons on the front of a single workbench, push one button and > the workbench would transform into "wood working workbench" (somehow), push > the other button and the workbench would transform into "electronics > workbench". But none of the woodworking tools are in the way while > using the electronics bench, and none of the electronics tools are in > the way when using the woodworking workbench. > >>> MDI is inherently clunky because Microsoft chose to impose the stupid UI >>> convention that there must be a top-level “application window” to contain >>> all the application-specific “document windows”. No other GUI is built >>> that way. >> >> They did that 30 years ago and did pioneering work in this regard, >> just to reduce the blame we put on them today. > > I chalked it up to them being 30 years too late in finally copying yet > another good idea from Xwindows window managers into their crappy OS > product. Much of what is there since Win95 has been nothing more than > them ripping off ideas from Xwindows window managers, and then half > assing their version by failing to understand the full usefulness in > most instances. You guys forget Xerox PARC, which Apple acknowledged and the Amiga which was way ahead of the rest but got left behind because of the people who took it away from Jack Tramiel who then bought Atari. But I was an Amigan as soon as the used prices fell into my financial range and it had preemptive multi-tasking and its own graphics chips. The person who took it away from Tramiel was a financier and sold off the stock and plants. Plants were contaminated by the chemicals used in those days as is a good part of the Silly Valley. But even before the WWW was accessible to us the Amiga was like having an extra room in my studio apartment. BBSes were handy and we had a lot in calling range then. bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.06- Linux 6.12.32-pclos1- KDE Plasma 5.27.11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-10 23:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GIMP and Photoshop user interfaces |
| Message-ID | <102ag3f$1icjg$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68639 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:16:11 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > You guys forget Xerox PARC, which Apple acknowledged and the Amiga > which was way ahead of the rest but got left behind ... The Amiga had multiple “desktops”, which were really just different screen modes because different apps wanted to run in different modes and this was the only way to let them coexist. The “Copper” display chip was clever in being able to switch modes between one scan line and the next, but that limited the desktop stacking to only being doable vertically. In other words, it worked the way it did because of hardware limitations, not because it was a good way to design a UI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web