discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: reincarnating nextstep


From: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr.
Subject: Re: reincarnating nextstep
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:31:25 +0800

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2005-11-18 16:57:58 +0800 David Ayers <address@hidden> wrote:

Chris B. Vetter schrieb:
On 11/18/05, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. <address@hidden> wrote:
[...]


Not intending to troll here, or start another OS-related flame-war,
but why base it on Linux?

I guess this is more of a general question, but why not focus on a
more 'original' clone and base it on Darwin? There are a couple of
aspects, that IMHO would make Darwin the more obvious choice,

[snip]

I think one important aspect is the support for frameworks by the tool
chain, which most likely will never happen in mainline GNU/Linux (or
GNU/Hurd).  I think GNU/Darwin should definitely be considered even
though I have no idea in what state it is in.

Cheers,
David


Is frameworks a nextstep or openstep feature? I have played with
frameworks and i think it easy to do but I dont think a consensus can
be reached on some of the issues. Maybe a patch would be more
appropriate since it clobbers the standard include file search paths.

I like the "Beyond Unix" design of mach but i dont think im ready to
actually dig into it fix it so i can have a system i can use everyday
and eventually release the next clone. (pun intended)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using the GPG bundle for GNUMail

iD8DBQFDfZ9tyihxuQOYt8wRAqyLAJ9Mx0tMC26wveEdTcmwWuxgjkUStQCffgdY
Pq+Muzlr0lnQY2vhdrAOE1w=
=MF9J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]