Fwd: [sac-dev] user interface

[Peter Goldstein]

Brian,

Although I haven't downloaded and tested what you've done, I like the 
concept and appreciate your efforts.

I'm not sure about the licensing issues, but from what I found on the 
GTK web site it sounds promising.
I'll check to see if our legal people would have any issues with this 
and get back to you.

Cheers,

Peter



At 11:42 AM -0500 11/15/05, Brian Savage wrote:
>George,
>
>I would argue strongly that this in *not* a step backwards in compatibility.
>
>1) GTK *is* network capable,  GTK is built upon the X11 framework, 
>which is network capable, and provides a wrapper around Xlib.  By 
>using GTK, you are using Xlib/X11, but creating a user interface or 
>even drawing to a window is much easier. This means you can run SAC 
>on one computer and view the interface on another, just as we could 
>in the past.
>
>2) GTK is distributed under the GNU LGPL, which allows for linking 
>with proprietary software or even BSD Licensed software.  The choice 
>of License for SAC will still be available to IRIS/LLNL/SAC 
>developers.
>http://www.gtk.org/faq/#AEN81
>
>GTK is not Tcl/Tk.  GTK is actively developed by a large number of 
>contributors and is also the base for many projects, including the 
>Mozilla web browser on Linux and the GNOME interface.  The 
>documentation for GTK is extremely good.  Changes from release to 
>release are documented in one place, and older deprecated functions 
>still work while issuing warnings about their use.
>
>I would say that we are not losing any features here. The command 
>line interface will still exist as will all of the underlying 
>processing capability.  I would even argue we would are providing a 
>stable base for more features to be added.
>
>http://www.mozilla.org/
>http://www.gnome.org
>
>Cheers,
>Brian
>
>George Helffrich wrote:
>>
>>This appears to be a breathtaking step backward in capability.  If 
>>I understand GTK properly, it is:
>>
>>1) not network capable like X11 (meaning you can't run SAC on one 
>>machine and display the graphics on another machine);
>>
>>2) would demand open source for SAC due to it coming under the GPL.
>>
>>(2) was the motive, I thought, for opting for the {Free,Net}BSD 
>>version of readline rather than GNU readline recently.
>>
>>(1) is a drastic limitation in capability, if I understand GTK 
>>rightly:  you have to run SAC on the same computer that your 
>>display is wired to.
>>
>>Finally, a word of caution/perspective.  GTK resembles Tcl/Tk in 
>>that it does not originate in an industrial consortium.  PASSCAL 
>>was burned by relying on Tcl/Tk for its PDB interface field apps: 
>>subtle differences in new releases led to user problems in the 
>>field.
>>
>>Is the feature loss, the open source implications, and the possible 
>>release troubles worth borrowing for a spiffier SAC look?
>>
>>                                 George Helffrich
>>                                 george at geology.bristol.ac.uk
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sac-dev mailing list
>>sac-dev at iris.washington.edu
>>http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/sac-dev
>
>_______________________________________________
>sac-dev mailing list
>sac-dev at iris.washington.edu
>http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/sac-dev


-- 

Peter Goldstein, Ph.D.      (925) 423-1231 (office) 
  L-103, PO Box 808        (925) 422-5844 (fax)    
  Livermore, CA 94551      peterg at llnl.gov (email) 
  web pages: http://earthscience.llnl.gov/peterg/
             http://www.llnl.gov/sac