[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: Philip Mötteli
Subject: Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:38:40 +0100

Am 26.10.2003 um 05:30 schrieb Jason Clouse:
On 2003-10-25 21:32:57 +0200 Philip Mötteli <address@hidden> wrote:
CoreFoundation is almost ported. Apart from that, it's very little used from
Cocoa developpers.

I seem to recall seeing it used by a lot of frameworks and other lower level stuff.

1. "Well, seem to recall" is not very convincing.
2. If those guys knew, that they will be able to deploy with very little effort also on Windows, I think, they would carefully think about using CF. 3. What is used from CF is essentially the CFMap. And we have an equivalent here in Gnustep. So porting this is not a problem.
4. CoreFoundation is almost ported to Linux.


That's a problem. But that's the reason, why I said Cocoa programs. Carbon is actually only used for old classic Mac programs. I don't think that a new
project would start by using Carbon. Would be suicide.

Again, I think I've seen stuff on Sourceforge et. al. that tries to use a little bit of Cocoa and a lot of Carbon.

Why don't give some examples?
I never said, nobody uses it. But the intention of Carbon is and was clear: Ease the transition from old MOS programs to MOSX – not start new one. Though some people do.

What about QuickTime?

Has already been mentionned. If the programming interface of Quicktime on Windows is (almost) the same. Then only the Linux version of GS would be left aside. That would be a pitty though.

Drawers, Toolbars, Sheets?

Would be a tweaking in IB, which you have to redo anyway.
I don't think this would any company stop from offering their product also to the Windows world.


If there's demand for it, I think, we soon gonna see a version for Linux. Wasn't that open-source?

Well, look at M$? Even with a heavily inferior environment to all their

Microsoft got to where they are by accident. They were in the right place at the right time. If Apple had provided the OS for the PC, they would be where Microsoft is now. Likewise, if Motorola had provided the processor for the PC, they would be where Intel is now. It certainly wasn't because DOS was better than all the alternatives; besides they planned on replacing DOS almost from the beginning anyway. They discovered they had a natural monopoly when nobody wanted to leave DOS because they had a vested interest with already-existing applications.

We all know that.
But the question was, if it is important to have companies on our side or not. M$ had that. Phil Roberts doubted, if that would help GS. He said, the hobbyists would be enough for GS to succed. And I said, if we have the companies on our side, we've almost won the battle.


reply via email to

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