What do you think of the "Pixel image editor"?

[Cyrille Berger]

> > MDI is only moving the problem of windows management from outside the
> > application to inside the application. That's why pixel's author has feel
> > the need to add a pager.
>
> Oh, I see. The lack of virtual desktops in windows or MacOS is a good
> reason to have a pager inside the app.
Next version of MacOSX will have virtual desktops (by default) ;) but most 
MacOSX application have an interface ala the gimp (with a menu at the top 
which avoid the crap of duplicated entry like in the gimp), but in MacOSX 
when switching between application, all the windows of an application are 
push to the front.

> Ugg... but this would be interesting to see on all koffice apps if they are
> to be ported to windows and macOS.
Except that koffice applications (except kexi) do not use MDI ;)

> > Yes the previous KMDI framework was broken, that's why it wasn't even
> > ported. And the reason MDI is not a good idea is that good windows
> > management is difficult to do right, and on linux and KDE we have a very
> > good external windows manager. The reason why MDI is so popular on
> > windows (and only on windows), is that windows window manager is a piece
> > of crap.
>
> Ok, maybe so. but it's more weird that krita 1.x has a FULL copy of the
> interface for each image it displays instead of 1 palette dialog, 1 tool
> dialog, 1 layer dialog, etc. for the entire application. Are there plans to
> make the interface more like gimp in this respect?
Not thate I know :) And personnaly I like it that way, the only drawback is 
for selecting a color in a different image (and keeping the full information 
colorspace/bit depth).

But the MDI vs SDI is a recurrent question about Krita.
-- 
Cyrille Berger