On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 01:23, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 01:17:21AM +0100, Erwin Rol wrote:
> > Is a GTK-1 GUI still needed ? I mean all (WIN32 included) systems have
> > the GTK-2 libs by now, don't they ?
>
> "Have" in what sense?
>
"Have" as in, is possible to compile it for that system. (Just like
Windows does not _have_ GTK, but it is possible to compile it for
Windows).
> Not all of them have it installed; I don't have it installed on most of
> my systems at home - I tried, once, but it was a real pain getting all
> the bits of software it needed installed and usable in the build
> process. (I am running FreeBSD 3.4 on my main home machine, although if
> we don't care about BSDs that old, I could probably upgrade at some
> point.)
>
This might (well not for you, since you of course need to be able to
compile it) be solved like the windows way by delivering the libraries
with the installer.
> Also, there may still be performance issues with Ethereal using GTK+
> 2.x.
>
OK this is something that has be worked on. And of course it can only be
solved when people work on it :-)
> > I would like to see (and will not be to lazy to program it ;-) A
> > interface a-la gimp , where the 3 parts of the main window are separate
> > top level windows. This would make things easier for multi-monitor
> > setups. In general a option where you can select the layout of the
> > windows, top to bottom (like now) , multi-window etc. would be nice.
>
> That's OK, as long as it's an *option*.
Yes, that was the idea, don't want to force people in a certain layout.
But the current layout it bad for when your screen is much wider than it
is tall, like with wide screen monitors or multi-monitor setups.
>
> > Trying to follow the HIG http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/1.0/
> > as much as possible might not be a bad thing.
>
> We've been picking up at least some of the suggestions from there.
>
> > What also would be very nice is being able to use proportional fonts but
> > still draw them with a fixed width.
>
> Are you certain that wouldn't look Really Strange?
Not for the "hex dump" window, and not for the flags fields ( ..1.0.. ).
In those two cases it is more important that things are aligned correct
than the real "look".
>
> > A way to compare two packets (like a file diff) would also be nice. For
> > example comparing two packets and than display the differences in red or
> > so.
>
> That's on the wishlist, but without a specification as to what it means.
> Are you talking about something that looks like a diff between the
> protocol tree displays?
An exact definition is hard, since it depends on what you want to
compare i guess. Two protocol trees side by side would be good when the
protocols are the same and only the values differ. OK this might be more
complicated than i thought :-)
--
Erwin Rol Software Engineering - http://www.erwinrol.com/