Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea)

[vinny]

As I see it , it seems we are going through mid way growth pangs. Sure
everybody likes to see finished products. But let us remember , it is the
path
taken to victory that is more important than the victory itself. By any
yardstick M$ has been victorious, but do we really acknowledge that ?. No we
dont , because their path was not the right one. I say we should have
confidence in ourselves that we are doing the right thing. Let us do our
best.
others will follow over time. Let us not waste bandwidth in trying to say
what everybody acknowledges. GNUstep's Window Manager should interact
better with gs. Full Stop. Let us see how we can make it, instead of
bombarding (which is a damned healthy sign that we are alive and kicking
:-)).

Greetings

Vinny
----- Original Message -----
From: Helge Hess <helge.hess@skyrix.com>
To: <richard@brainstorm.co.uk>
Cc: Philippe C.D.Robert <phr@projectcenter.ch>; <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea)


> Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> > I don't think there is any problem with the notion of sharing with other
projects in
> > principle, it's just not technically realistic due to basic
architectural differences...
> > With many toolkits there is just no reasonable way to share - we would
just have to adopt
> > the other toolkit and discard our existing work.  The problem with doing
that is that,
> > our existing toolkits are overall as good as, or better than the
toolkits we might
> > look at adopting, so while we would gain on some features, we'd lose out
overall.
>
> So in what time do you think gstep-gui will reach the same level of
> stability/feature-completeness as for example Qt ? After doing some
> *years* of gstep-gui development without a 1.0 result, may it not indeed
> be a good, even if hurting, decision  to swap to another toolkit ?
> This approach is taken by almost any scripting language with great
> success. On the other side Smalltalk's follow the GNUstep approach to
> make everything in one language with basically no success.
>
> > I looked at the gnome stuff, from a viewpoint of trying to integrate
with gstep-base
> > and it simply had nothing to offer.  However, special purpose libraries
(like libxml)
> > can reasonably be integrated, and I'm in favour of doing that where it's
feasable.
>
> I think this was already discussed one time in the past ;-) Using glib
> in gstep-base would at least easen using gtk+ in gstep-gui.
>
> > I'm not sure what the future is either - but I'm sure that the OpenStep
GUI design is
> > basically a damn good architecture - so I don't think that the
technological advantage
> > is completely gone, though it's much diminished.
> >
> > Our problem is lack of developers, not poorly designed libraries.
>
> The problem is the ratio between developers/design-quality. GNUstep has
> no developers and a good design and gtk+/Qt has masses of developers and
> a not mentionable worse design.
>
> We'll see ;-)
>
> Greetings
>   Helge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep