[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: 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 :-)

Philippe C.D. Robert

reply via email to

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