[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality contr

From: thisguyisi
Subject: Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:53:53 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2

Rogelio M.Serrano Jr. wrote:
On 2003-10-22 14:06:51 +0800 Philip Mötteli <address@hidden> wrote:


Am Mittwoch, 22.10.03, um 04:41 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Adam Fedor:
On Monday, October 20, 2003, at 01:22 AM, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:
But to remain at least a little on-topic allow me to ask this question (as 
a simple user resp. programmer who needs to decide whether to use it or 
not): where will the GNUstep project be within 12 months (which will be 
more or less GUI 1.0)? What is the (realistic) roadmap for the GNUstep 
project anyway?

Well I've thought about that question a lot, obviously, but I don't have a 
really good answer. Most of my goals revolve around the concept of the 
GNUstep Desktop. That is, I can have a lot of individual goals about the 
GNUstep development platform, but it's hard to know what's really important 
without a consensus of what the "reference" GNUstep Desktop would look 
like. Will it be "all GNUstep", with our own Window Manager, or do we need 
to give up our small town mentality and try to integrate better with KDE 
and/or Gnome. What are the really important things that people want to 
accomplish with GNUstep?

I don't much care which way it goes.  I've been working on GNUstep for over 
10 years now, and I just keep going for the fun of it, not because I have 
any aspirations that it will become some wildly popular, unbeatable 
project. My one hope is that it will be useful before it becomes obsolete 
I dare adding my 2c… For me, Gnustep are first of all the libraries. Not a 
filemanager, nor a desktop, nor a system, nor development tools (apart of the 
libraries, obviously). So I personally regret a lot, that so much effort is 
spent in things, that are not especially unique, but are already implemented, 
maintained and evolved by so many others. I mean something like GDL2 is 
unique and just "insanely great", isn't it? But ProjectCenter compared to 
KDevelop is just way, way behind and unfortunately will probably never be 
even half the way of KDevelop. Though I would prefer having ProjectCenter, 
Gnustep-Filemanager, Gnustep-Desktop,… I just think, that we anyway don't 
have the resources to catch up with those people. So why not spend these 
resources more into what makes Gnustep unique and just invest, what we 
absolutely need, in order to reuse (KDevelop, KDE, Gnome,…) what others 
already have done? I mean the idea behind OO is reusability, not reinvent  
the wheel over and over again?
Don't misunderstand me: me too, I would prefer having a complete 
Gnustep-system, but we just do not have the needed resources for it, I'd say.

So in my eyes, the most important things would be:
1. Complete the already offered libraries. Especially in GDL2, where a lot is 
2. Debug them.
3. Improve the Windows port! (This is the second unique part of GS: Cross 
4. Implement some plug-ins or other ways to make KDevelop or any other well 
maintained development tool, compatibel with Gnustep.
5. Dito for a desktop environment. Preferably KDE.

Or to attack the same problem from another point of view: Why might somebody 
move to GS? I don't think many people do that because of a filemanager or a 
desktop. Especially not now and the future won't change that, because we just 
do not attract enough people so far to push such a project. I think the main 
reason, why GS might be used in the future, is because software companies, 
mainly from the Apple world, will want to sell/use their software on three 
platforms: MOSX, Linux et all. and Windows. This is a tremendous opportunity. 
The other reason, I can imagine, is that somebody knows, that OpenStep has 
great development libraries though unfortunately the rest of the development 
tools are missing…

Now of course, why I just don't do it myself? I would love to do it, but how 
do I survive? I'm doing a PhD without a boursery or any savings – and I just 
can't find a job in the GS world. There's just no time at all left. But I 
would love to!

Just my 2c!
(another) Phil

Discuss-gnustep mailing list


For me gnustep is the whole environment. Its a new way to develop applications. Its more than the desktop.
I believe that its the way to go. To make gnustep compatible with macosx is an immediate goal not the long term one.

ProjectCenter is the main attraction for me and I beleve that it cannot go on in a vaccum. We need a distro to keep it alive.
It is already usable as it is now and i intend to use it as much i could. Even if it is not complete it can be used to create a coherent featureful system. 

Discuss-gnustep mailing list

I agree with Rogelio. A distribution will do alot for the project. Both for the library development, and to the application environment. To put it this way: C took off because it was the language UNIX was built with. Cocoa is taking off because Mac OS X is built with it. GNUstep would become much more critical/valid to many users and developers out there if there were an end-to-end system/distribution where you needed to use GNUstep to modify it. It would also give GNUstep applications a "bona fide playground".

 For me, GNUstep is a set of libraries, the "core layers" upon which an entire GUI environment will blossom from. It is designed to comply with the OpenStep spec, and I would like to see an environment built with it that complies with the OpenStep User Interface Guidelines, and be an implementation of an operating system using OPENSTEP/Mach as a reference model.

Speaking of distributions, I don't know how many on this list are aware of Icepack Linux
but its configuration utilities are built using the WINGs toolkit upon which WindowMaker is built. For those that don't know, "WINGs" is an acronym for "WINGs Is Not GNUstep".

Now, I know that the config utilities, being built with WINGs, rather than actually being GNUstep-GUI (aka AppKit) applications leave much to be desired if the goal is a "OS Distribution using GNUstep's libraries and gui objects", but the WINGs toolkit _does_ comply with the GNUstep GUI appearance.

Sorry if that was messy. Let me simplify. When using WindowMaker, and opening up WPrefs, you get what appears to be an application built using the GNUstep Development Environment. However, WPrefs is actually not built using Objective-C at all, it is built in C using the WINGs toolkit.

So, while it does not use GNUstep-base, or GNUstep-gui, or GNUstep-back for any of its code, WPrefs does integrate into an all-GNUstep environment *visually* with the widgets supplied in the WINGs toolkit, which are a match for the widgets in GNUstep-gui.

What in the world am I blabbing on about? Well, Chad has given up on the original intended implementation of SimplyGNUstep (as has the LinuxSTEP team): a ground-up Linux distribution providing support for GNUstep to be implemented in a fashion like OPENSTEP/Mach. Too much effort, not enough manpower/userbase to accomplish the goal. So... why not work on Icepack Linux as a reference point to start with for a "visually and behaviorally cohesive GNUstep distribution"?

Start out grafting the GNUstep environment on top off Icepack Linux. This would make use of the added facility of the provided WINGs-based  configuration and management applications, since they match widgets with GNUstep-gui,  for a more end-to-end user experience. Eventually swapping-out the WINGs based applications with genuine GNUstep-base/gui based applications down the road.

Users would be able to "try out" a "GNUstep-looking" environment that currently works, runs all the "normal" Linux stuff, and would eventually "become" a totally "Powered By GNUstep" distribution.

Best Regards,

reply via email to

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