On 2 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-11-02 at 21:57, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> > On 2 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2002-11-02 at 20:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > Oh please....
> > > > Wouldn't it be more helpful to iron the (few) small glitches out of the
> > > > qt based one than write a new one just because you don't happen to like
> > > > the library?
> > >
> > > Lota of installations have gtk but don't have qt.
> >
> > And a lot of installations have QT but not GTK... This feels like a vi vs
> > emacs discussion.
>
> It sort of is. The difference being its "do I send you a vi macro or an
> emacs macro", and the obvious answer in this case being that if someone
> wants go write both then we all win.
I'll go ahead and agree with you there. I just don't want to see one
being scrapped in favor of the other.
Pat
-- Purdue Universtiy ITAP/RCS Information Technology at Purdue Research Computing and Storage http://www-rcd.cc.purdue.eduhttp://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2040637020924.gif
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:27 EST
