[KDE Dot News]
 faq
 flatforty
 contribute
 subscribe
 configure
 search
 rdf
 main
 parent


Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
by sarang on Thursday 15/Mar/2001, @21:28
Cool.. but if Imlib is faster than Qt image loading, then why dosn't KDE use it everywhere? Even Qt can look at their code and make their code faster!

Also, wouldn't it be great if konqueror had an option "View the current directory using KuickShow" option! konqueror is pretty slow for directories with 100s of images IMHO.

good work!
  Related Links
 ·   Articles on Graphics and Art
 ·   Also by sarang
 ·   Contact author

Thread Threshold:

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
by Kirby on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @00:10
Yeah, why doesn't KDE use Imlib?

BTW, Gnome has developed Gdk-Pixbuf, which is even faster and superiour to Imlib.
Why doesn't KDE use Gdk-Pixbuf?
[ Reply To This | View ]
  • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
    by Guillaume Laurent on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @00:37
    > Yeah, why doesn't KDE use Imlib?

    You give a partial answer with your next question : because even Gnome has thrown it away. A more complete answer is that the API really really sucks, and trying to make a reasonable wrapper for C++ is a huge PITA.

    > Why doesn't KDE use Gdk-Pixbuf?

    Integration, code consistency, stability, documentation, etc...
    [ Reply To This | View ]
    • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
      by Kirby on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @06:00
      "because even Gnome has thrown it away."

      "Even"? Anyway, why does KuickShow use it if Imlib is too bad?

      "the API really really sucks"

      Then write a C++ wrapper with a good API.

      "Integration, code consistency, stability, documentation, etc.."

      What's wrong with the integration, code consistency and stability?
      Just because it's 0.x doesn't mean it's unstable. And what's wrong with the documentation?

      [ Reply To This | View ]
      • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
        by Guillaume Laurent on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @06:30
        > Anyway, why does KuickShow use it if Imlib is too bad?

        If I recall correctly it was ok if all you want to do is load and display images. Trying to manage pixmaps was quite more painful.

        > Then write a C++ wrapper with a good API.

        Be my guest.

        > What's wrong with the integration, code consistency and stability?

        What's wrong with using a library which depends ona whole slew of others, and has a completely different API than the rest of the KDE ?

        > And what's wrong with the documentation?

        Last time I looked (a long time ago), the little that existed sucked big time.
        [ Reply To This | View ]
        • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
          by Kirby on Saturday 17/Mar/2001, @00:57
          <I>"What's wrong with using a library which depends ona whole slew of others,"</I>

          GDK and Glib are the only dependencies.
          If you call 2 dependencies "a whole slew", then what do you call KDEBase's dependencies?

          <I>"Last time I looked (a long time ago), the little that existed sucked big time."</I>

          And just when was the last time you checked?
          [ Reply To This | View ]
          • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
            by Guillaume on Saturday 17/Mar/2001, @01:50
            You're correct, there aren't that many dependencies. However does including GDK and GLib in KDE really makes sense to you ?

            > And just when was the last time you checked?

            More than a year ago. But you're right, Raster probably found the time to write a great doc for it while writing imlib2. :-)
            [ Reply To This | View ]
            • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
              by Carsten Pfeiffer on Saturday 17/Mar/2001, @02:44
              Actually you don't need gdk or glib AFAIK. Imlib1 actually consisted of two libraries, one with GDK, one plain Xlib. I used the plain Xlib one.

              With Imlib2, I don't even see any GDK at all.
              [ Reply To This | View ]
              • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
                by Bernd Gehrmann on Saturday 17/Mar/2001, @08:44
                Apparently you lost track of the thread :-)
                The previous comments were about gdk-pixbuf,
                not imlib.
                [ Reply To This | View ]
                • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
                  by Guillaume Laurent on Sunday 18/Mar/2001, @03:30
                  Well, no, I actually thought Kirby was still talking about imlib1 :-).

                  Oh well. That doesn't change much. While I agree that any of imlib[12] or gdk-pixbuf might make sense for an image viewer, using any of them in KDE would be a huge blunder.

                  There. :-).
                  [ Reply To This | View ]
  • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
    by oliv on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @00:50
    BTW, Raster has developed Imlib2, which is even faster and superior to both imlib and gdk-pixbuf.
    Why doesn't KDE and Gnome use Gdk-Pixbuf? ;)
    [ Reply To This | View ]
  • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
    by oliv on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @00:51
    BTW, Raster has developed Imlib2, which is even faster and superior to both imlib and gdk-pixbuf.
    Why don't KDE and Gnome use Gdk-Pixbuf? ;)
    [ Reply To This | View ]
Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
by erotus on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @00:39
hmmm, that is an interesting suggestion. I would like to turn on "preview mode" for graphic files, but that would be too slow in large directories. I think if the kde folks could integrate imlib or kuickshow into the preview function, that would be great. I like the preview function now as it is... however, if there is something better then why not?
[ Reply To This | View ]
Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
by Jean-Christophe Fargette on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @03:30
I tried Imlib2 (final) for enlightenment-0.17 (alpha version) and I can tell you that it's a lot faster than gdk-pixbuf and imlib1.

Imlib2 is appreciate on my slow computer ;-)
[ Reply To This | View ]
  • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
    by Carsten Pfeiffer on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @06:14
    > I tried Imlib2 (final) for enlightenment-0.17 (alpha version) and I can tell you that it's a lot faster than gdk-pixbuf and imlib1.
    >
    > Imlib2 is appreciate on my slow computer ;-)

    Ohh, Imlib2 is already released? Not a beta? I will certainly use that in the next versions, then.

    Cheers,
    Carsten
    [ Reply To This | View ]
    • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
      by oliv on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @08:08
      Imlib2 1.0.0 was realeased on October 16, 2000.
      the latest one, Imlib2 1.0.2 was released on March 2, 2001
      More details here:
      http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment/
      and there
      http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2

      Also, avoiding Imlib (1) is good because it's not really maintained, and there has been a fork between Gnomers' version and Raster's version, so getting help for might not be easy in the future.
      [ Reply To This | View ]
      • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
        by Carsten Pfeiffer on Saturday 17/Mar/2001, @03:00
        Concerning speed of Imlib2... for Enlightenment it might make a difference, due to all the effects, animations etc., but in an imageviewer it does not make a big difference. I did a quick port of KuickShow to Imlib2 and it's not obviously faster.

        Don't get me started on the new API :-/

        Regarding Imlib1: I've been using many versions and the only requirement ever was to use a version >= 1.5. The Xlib version hardly got any changes at all. That said, I do have problems with 1.9.8 under Openwin (Solaris7) currently :}
        [ Reply To This | View ]
Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
by John on Friday 16/Mar/2001, @15:50
Because if you where selling an API you wouldn't want to use LGPL code in it, that's the same reason that Qt dosen't use OpenOffice's Open2D printing API.
[ Reply To This | View ]
  • Re: KuickShow for KDE 2.1
    by Hajdi on Tuesday 20/Mar/2001, @01:48
    Damn right!!!
    QT is GPL not LGPL.
    You must pay for using it for commercial purposes.
    [ Reply To This | View ]

 
The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
  "I guess my process varies from time to time." -- George Staikos
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.
[ home | post article | flat forty | subscribe | search | rdf ]