Missing features in linux version?

Questions, suggestions, and answers for XnView on all Un*x platforms (Linux, HP-UX, AIX, ...)

Moderators: XnTriq, xnview

Eyolf

Missing features in linux version?

Post by Eyolf » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:00 pm

XnView has been my default image viewer under Windows - it's great: quick, feature-rich, and it looks nice.
I finally managed to install it under Linux (mepis 3.3.1/kde 3.4.2), but I'm slightly disappointed. It looks ugly (because it's not a kde-tuned app?), and it doesn't seem to have the same functionality in all respects. Or am I wrong?
What annoys me most, is that there doesn't seem to be any tab option: in windows, I have the browser in one tab and all individual images open in separate tabs. In the linux version, they open in separate windows instead (or even worse: a popup window...). It's a minor grievance, of course, but I don't like it. Is there a way around it?
The version I have, is 1.70 Libformat version 4.51

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 31881
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Missing features in linux version?

Post by xnview » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:15 am

Eyolf wrote:XnView has been my default image viewer under Windows - it's great: quick, feature-rich, and it looks nice.
I finally managed to install it under Linux (mepis 3.3.1/kde 3.4.2), but I'm slightly disappointed. It looks ugly (because it's not a kde-tuned app?), and it doesn't seem to have the same functionality in all respects. Or am I wrong?
What annoys me most, is that there doesn't seem to be any tab option: in windows, I have the browser in one tab and all individual images open in separate tabs. In the linux version, they open in separate windows instead (or even worse: a popup window...). It's a minor grievance, of course, but I don't like it. Is there a way around it?
The version I have, is 1.70 Libformat version 4.51
Yes currently XnView is not the same as the windows version. But perhaps a QT version for next year....
Pierre.

Guest

Post by Guest » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:34 pm

Uh... Qt, that's expensive. Especially if used on multiple platforms. It can be 5000€ and up... This is not a joke.

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 31881
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by xnview » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:40 pm

Anonymous wrote:Uh... Qt, that's expensive. Especially if used on multiple platforms. It can be 5000€ and up... This is not a joke.
Yes, i know but it is the better GUI
Pierre.

User avatar
1coldbeer
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: Amherst, NY USA

Post by 1coldbeer » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:41 pm

Hi,
I think XnView is just fine under Linux. I have Puppy linux with XnView on a 128 meg jumpdrive for my pics on-the-go and XnView on my Mepis linux desktop box as the default viewer/editor. It does a great job!
Visit the WaltonPond cam site. Try Mepis Linux today!

Guest

Post by Guest » Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:43 pm

xnview wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Uh... Qt, that's expensive. Especially if used on multiple platforms. It can be 5000€ and up... This is not a joke.
Yes, i know but it is the better GUI
I disagree.

I thinkt Qt is not the best GUI, in fact I think it is one of the worst GUI. It uses too much memory because its C++ source code is a real mess. And the main I think xnview should not use Qt, is because Qt is the slowest GUI on the Linux world.

The main advantage of xnview on the other image visualization programs is that xnview is the faster program. If it becomes Qt, it will be one of the slowest and more memory consuming image visualization programs. Motif and/or GTK are the best options for Linux GUI when considering memory and speed.

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 31881
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by xnview » Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:22 pm

Anonymous wrote:
xnview wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Uh... Qt, that's expensive. Especially if used on multiple platforms. It can be 5000€ and up... This is not a joke.
Yes, i know but it is the better GUI
I disagree.

I thinkt Qt is not the best GUI, in fact I think it is one of the worst GUI. It uses too much memory because its C++ source code is a real mess. And the main I think xnview should not use Qt, is because Qt is the slowest GUI on the Linux world.

The main advantage of xnview on the other image visualization programs is that xnview is the faster program. If it becomes Qt, it will be one of the slowest and more memory consuming image visualization programs. Motif and/or GTK are the best options for Linux GUI when considering memory and speed.
Hum not sure, i think that GTK is very slow. And QT exist for windows & Mac :-)
Pierre.

Guest

Post by Guest » Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:17 pm

xnview wrote:Hum not sure, i think that GTK is very slow.
Maybe, maybe not - it's possible to discuss that very long, but I don't think it's useful to do so. ;) But resizing windows, for example, is really slow with GTK.
xnview wrote:And QT exist for windows & Mac :-)
This is the most important point. Qt is really the only library that supports all three platforms decently. Only wxWidgets offers the same, but it's really slow and unfortunately very buggy and incomplete.

god dropped the soap

Thank you

Post by god dropped the soap » Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:56 pm

Yes please make QT version

Thank you looking forward to your work on the Unix/Linux version of XnView in 2006.

cRoMo

Post by cRoMo » Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:41 pm

I belive that if Xnview was about to be rewrote in QT that would be a 4.1 version which is much, much faster that ver.3 you guys probable have on your minds. Also, it's free (GPLed) since 4.0 version for both Windows and Linux, but if Xnview is supposed to stay freeware only there migh be some issues with licensing. That's because Using GPL licensed parts (i.e. QT libraries) in your code would require to GPL your sourcecode too, but I might be wrong here, especially when comes to QT that license might ba a GPL with some modifications.
Anyway, I think the best choice would be a... FOX toolkit which seems to be a great choice for such an app like XnView is. Just take a look at its website here. It's been already ported to many architectures, it's fast, small, and AFIK convinient to use for devs. As it's LGPL licensed you are AFIK welcome to stay with freeware licensing for XnView. This toolkit is also a great soultion for WinXP and you might consider rewriting both Windows and Linux version into one portable application based on FOX toolkit only.

Also, there is a FLTK toolkit, it's also a LGPL and is working on many platforms, too.

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 31881
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by xnview » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:20 pm

cRoMo wrote:Also, there is a FLTK toolkit, it's also a LGPL and is working on many platforms, too.
I know FLTK, but i don't like it
Pierre.

cRoMo

Post by cRoMo » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:54 pm

What about FOX?

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 31881
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by xnview » Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:12 pm

cRoMo wrote:What about FOX?
Seems to be great, but QT is really a good toolkit...
Pierre.

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:13 am

cRoMo wrote:What about FOX?
FOX is a nice solution for UNIX and Win32, but it requires X11 to run on Mac OS X. Many Mac users just don't accept X11 applications the same way as "native" ones.

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 31881
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by xnview » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:28 am

Anonymous wrote:
cRoMo wrote:What about FOX?
FOX is a nice solution for UNIX and Win32, but it requires X11 to run on Mac OS X. Many Mac users just don't accept X11 applications the same way as "native" ones.
So not a good solution for me, QT is best
Pierre.

Post Reply