[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality contr
From: |
Philippe C . D . Robert |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control) |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:14:31 +0200 |
Hi Philipp,
this is not intended to be personal, sorry if it comes along this way.
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 01:04 Uhr, Philip Mötteli wrote:
2. Many programs do not use AppKit. E. g. servers and Web-programs.
I know, there is a shortage of GNUstep apps, but you gotta admit
that a LOT of progress has been made this year!
The hugest prograss is having WOF: GDL2 and GSWeb.
This is your opinion. There are others, of course.
If you have read my postings, than you have surely noticed, that I
started my posting with "just my 2c"? Ok. So if you excuse me of not
having repeated this in every second phrase for you. And in any case,
you don't need to remind me, that this is my opinion. Be assured, I
know that.
Why are you getting so angry? As I understand it you see GNUstep as a
clone of OpenStep (read: the API spec) plus some other libraries. Now
there are others which would like to see GNUstep as an OPENSTEP clone,
the environment based among other things on OpenStep - and on OPENSTEP
WO did not play an important role from a user's perspective, so you
might understand why I made my statement.
BTW OpenStep as such was never successful, SUN dropped their
implementation and NeXT almost went out of business...
Besides it is funny that you mention these 2, as they are not part of
OpenStep at all,
This is out of the context: I never said GDL or GSW are part of
OpenStep, but a big reason to make GS more widely known and used.
That's unfair to produce the impression, I could have said that. Are
you trying to let me look stupid?
No, but the context is what GNUstep should be, no? I got the impression
that you see GNUstep as a pure "OpenStep API spec" clone, this is why I
said this. It is as you'd say that because of gtk the gnu libc has
become more widely known, to put it to an extreme.
No, we do not have it on Windows, we have only parts of it working on
Windows, maybe we will have it at some point in the future. Maybe
not. So much about cross-platform API.
Again, have you read my postings? Please don't pronounce any opinion
under your name, if you didn't read what your talking about: I've been
initally talking about the most
I did.
(in my eyes (just for you Phil!)) important thing to do concerning
GS: completing and debugging GS on all platforms. With that, I
specifically meant the version for Windows.
I agree with you on completing the API, of course. But I do not agree
with the cross platform aspect. For you (and others) GS is AppKit +
FoundationKit and thus this is important from your perspective - and I
bet you are not even that much interested in the AppKit but more in the
FoundationKit, GDL2 and GSWeb, am I correct? :) I can understand the
reasoning behind it, but I do not share it - I just do not want to see
GNUstep going the same way NeXT did.
So for some of us the cross-platform aspect (=Windows) is probably not
very interesting. Some of us are not interested in a Windows port of
the API because what we want is the GNUstep enduser environment on top
of a Unix based OS, we just do not care about Windows. So personally I
think it is wasted effort to work on that. But then it is just my
view...
Basically that's why I made this statement: Before making whole GS
distributions and desktops and so on, we should complete, where the
real point of GS as an OpenStep implementation is. But you didn't read
that part, did you? But still making comments here? I don't feel good
in correcting such comments, that make me look so stupid. Makes me
aggressive, I'm sorry.
Gosh I did understand what you wrote, I just do not share the same
opinion. And maybe I did not like the way you have phrased your
comments, too. Sorry if I was a little picky then. But to me it just
looks like you cannot accept the fact that there are people on this
list who do not have the same vision or goals for GNUstep as you do. To
use the real point of GS is NOT the OpenStep spec conformance, it is
the environment (based on GS which is based on OpenStep and so on).
Moreover, how can an API only make sense if it requires tools like
pb-server? This indicates to me that it actually is more than an API.
Why? An API offers a functionality. That's perhaps the reason, why
it's not called a library.
Apart from that, if you don't agree with the naming, then ask NeXT or
Apple. They called it like that.
Yes, I had "library" in mind here, sorry. What I wanted to say actually
is that GS is an environment and not just a set of libraries because it
contains daemons and so on.
i'm making SimplyGNUstep
Nice, but how is the compatibility to the other managers like KDE?
Unfortunately, most of the programs I use, are made for Gnome or >>>
KDE.
Are you using them because you have no better alternative or are you
using them because they perfectly fit your needs?
I don't think that ever a program will perfectly fit my needs. It's
always the best alternative, that I choose. Everything is relative
here.
Yes, I agree, and thus it could also be a GS app, even if it is not yet
written, and maybe it would be an even better alternative :-)
-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), (continued)
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Chad Hardin, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Rogelio M . Serrano Jr ., 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Rogelio M . Serrano Jr ., 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Helge Hess, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Chad Hardin, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philippe C . D . Robert, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control),
Philippe C . D . Robert <=
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/23
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philippe C.D. Robert, 2003/10/23
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/23
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philippe C . D . Robert, 2003/10/23
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Patrick Coskren, 2003/10/23
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Chris B. Vetter, 2003/10/23
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Helge Hess, 2003/10/23
- Re[2]: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Manuel Guesdon, 2003/10/23
- Re: Re[2]: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Helge Hess, 2003/10/23
- Re: Re[2]: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Pascal J . Bourguignon, 2003/10/23