Re: Re: gtk2?

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 14:32:50 +0100
Tom <tom_at_lemuria.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 12:48:27PM +0000, mallum wrote:
> > Its also worth remembering that the ipaq used to come with gtk and Xaw
> > libs which got removed and saved about a meg.
> *if* we ask the toolkit question anyway, we should to it fully. I'm
> still not convinced that gtk is the right tool for an embedded device.
> my current point of view is that it's "good enough", available and it
> works, but from the HCI side, it definitely isn't the right choice.
What is "HCI" supposed to mean? (sorry ;)

> once again, please take a look at the pixil (centurysoftware.com)
> screenshots. compare them to, say, mingle and ask yourself whether you
> have a snowballs chance in hell to sell a non-geek person mingle over
> the pixil address book.

Please keep in mind that pixil, nice as it is, uses FLTK. You could also
use FLTK on X11 but we have decided some time ago not to do it. Using FLTK
you can program and design GUIs in another way than GTK+ does. FLTK is
more like specifying everything, colors for every widget, fonts for every
widget, and even the position! It has not real means for themes (FLTK2
will have). It is not that far abstracted as GTK+ is. And thus it lacks
many features we would like to have. It makes it for example very
difficult to offer a consistant look and feel.

No, for me FLTK is still no choice.
And microwindows/nano-X neither. See how it performs, try it. It is nice
for very lightweight GUIs but IMHO not for our general purpose PDAs.

CU
  nils faerber

-- 
kernel concepts          Tel: +49-271-771091-12
Dreisbachstr. 24         Fax: +49-271-771091-19
D-57250 Netphen          D1 : +49-170-2729106
--