[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea)
From: |
Sungjin Chun |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea) |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:36:29 +0900 |
Hi,
But if GDK and linart is just a drawing engine like things then,
we need not to sacrifice our NeXTSTEP look and feel, and this
is what Philippe suggests as far as I understand.( for speed and
functionality? )
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicola Pero" <n.pero@mi.flashnet.it>
To: <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea)
> >>>>> "Philippe" == Philippe C D Robert <phr@projectcenter.ch> writes:
>
> Philippe> Richard Frith-Macdonald <richard@brainstorm.co.uk> wrote
> Philippe> (Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:49:47 +0000):
> >> > Well, that was exactly my idea when I started this
> >> thread...;-) Since nobody seemed to like > the idea to share
> >> foundations with other projects due to the superiority of GS,
> >> i.e. gtk+, I > thought it would be logic that the window
> >> manager - an important part in the X world - should > be based
> >> on that 'superior' tecyhnology as well, or at least make use of
> >> it - even if this > takes some more time to get to the point...
> >>
> >> I don't think there is any problem with the notion of sharing
> >> with other projects in principle, it's just not technically
> >> realistic due to basic architectural differences...
>
> Philippe> So it is not possible to use GDK and Libart instead
> Philippe> of/in xgps, for example?
>
> Ahm - I must say I fail to follow your reasoning.
>
> I find the proposals quite contradicting and confused.
>
> You argued that to be succesful, gnustep must reproduce in full the
> nextstep experience. You even propose to rewrite from scratch the
> window manager because in your opinion, being written in C, using its
> own little widget set, supporting well gnome/kde/X apps, it's not
> suitable for gnustep.
>
> Then, you are now proposing that we rewrite all the gnustep gui stuff
> basing it on gtk. How can you think we can reproduce the nextstep
> experience in that way ? We can't. Not a bit. Unless by the
> nextstep experience you mean a nextstep/openstep theme for gtk, in
> which case you may just simply use gtk with that theme and you are
> done. But then, I don't understand all your integralist threading
> about rewriting window maker in objective-C.
>
> In general, as tradition in this mailing list, I see two main extreme
> (and contradicting) positions repeating themselves in your posts:
>
> * <integralist> gnustep should clone nextstep totally. Whatever is
> slightly different from the holy nextstep 3.3 interface or
> environment is shit. No compromises, never: rewrite the entire
> system from scratch in Objective-C and Postscript.
>
> * <destructivist> gnustep is basically useless. Since most people in
> the real world are using gtk or qt, we should as well turn gnustep
> into an objective-c wrapper for gtk <or qt>.
>
> The first one is probably an impulsive reaction to the desire of
> having a very good environment. Following the first one seriously
> means the task will never be completed.
>
> The second one is an impulsive reaction to the desire of having it
> finished. Following the second one seriously means the task is
> completed immediately, by simply destroying all the work done and
> switching to another project.
>
> I think we should try to find a good balance. Which begins by
> answering to the magic question - why do we want gnustep in the first
> place ?
>
> And - do we still want gnustep even if we know that it will not be the
> predominant environment on gnu/linux in the next years ?
>
> I still do.
>
> And please note - we are not talking about isolating ourselves ! Not
> at all. Precisely because Window Maker supports so well gnome or kde
> applications, we can still run any gnome or kde stuff we want.
> Precisely because we are trying to make sure our applications can run
> in gnome or kde, they can be used by users and people who are actually
> run gnome or kde on their desktops.
>
> And precisely because Objective-C is such a nice and flexible language
> and gnustep such a nice environment, we can play to interface them
> with whatever is on the market. I worked on a java interface, and
> played with writing apache modules in objective-c using the gnustep
> base library. In both cases, I found Objective-C and gnustep enough
> flexible and well designed to allow us to interface with alien stuff
> quite well.
>
> We want to be open, we need to be open, this is not a competition,
> everything is free software.
>
> About the gnustep gui library, the library is perfectly usable, we
> only have few developers writing apps using it. Which is a pity in my
> opinion, because the gnustep gui library is very nice. And it's very
> easy to extend and interface it with other libraries or environments.
> It doesn't make any sense to drop it at this point, when it works.
>
> If people are using gtk or qt and not moving en masse to gnustep-gui
> now that you can use it is not because gtk and qt are better. It's
> because they are used to them. They know them well, possibly they
> like them, and they like to use C and C++ and don't want to learn
> objective-c. They probably are in love with their projects as much as
> we are with ours. Most of them very likely don't care that gnustep
> gui is finished or not. Or if they care, it's because they think we
> are competitors to the projects they love, and so they'd prefer
> gnustep gui to be never finished. They already have tools to write
> gui apps, and don't want to spend time learning new stuff, and don't
> want to leave their beloved projects.
>
> But this doesn't mean we should throw away all our work and gnustep
> gui, or attempt at rewriting the gui basing it on gtk. This would
> make most of us unhappy, and reduce the project to something nearly of
> no interest. And it wouldn't attract developers - why learning a new
> language - Objective-C - to use a wrapper around your own widget set
> if you can already program your widget set directly in your own
> language (C or C++). The project looses any sense then.
>
> We can attract developers - and have a reason to remain ourselves -
> only if we offer a different environment. Yeah - *different* - that's
> the reason why gnustep exists. Not yet another C or C++ widget set.
> Something different, something better. And we have it. Compare
> writing a gnustep makefile with preparing an automake/autoconf
> package. Compare loading a bundle with setting up manually dynamic
> library loading to look up symbols etc. Compare our nice objects with
> theirs. And still, yes, we must be practical and get to the concrete
> stuff now - applications.
>
> In a certain sense, we have never been so attractive to developers as
> now. Because our things have never worked as much as now. But it is
> a slow process to get more developers.
>
> The `competition' between different projects is getting `harder'.
>
> GNOME people are constantly looking at KDE progresses with fear. KDE
> people are constantly looking at GNOME progresse with fear. IMO this
> is mostly because there is money in the game now.
>
> The more we (GNUstep) are able to keep calm and don't get hysterical
> because of this competition, and don't disperse energies in mad
> projects (rewrite window maker in objective-c, throw away gnustep gui)
> but get to the concrete stuff <applications and stuff that can be
> delivered>, the more we can be happy. I guess there are many people
> in the GNOME and KDE who are bored by continuous wars and changes of
> APIs and chaos and unstable ugly changing complex stuff. We can
> reasonably hope to attract some of them by offering our simple,
> well-designed, consistent, stable API and environment, which comes
> from a long tradition. After all, that's precisely how I got here.
>
> And we need to think about cooperations with other projects without
> this having to mean that we destroy all work done up to now (by us,
> or, in the case of window maker, by them).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>
>
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), (continued)
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Nicola Pero, 2001/01/07
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Philippe C . D . Robert, 2001/01/07
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Nicola Pero, 2001/01/08
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Nicola Pero, 2001/01/08
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Philippe C . D . Robert, 2001/01/08
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Nicola Pero, 2001/01/08
- GUI 'bugs', Philippe C . D . Robert, 2001/01/11
- Re: GUI 'bugs', Nicola Pero, 2001/01/16
- Re: GUI 'bugs', Philippe C.D. Robert, 2001/01/17
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Philippe C . D . Robert, 2001/01/08
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea),
Sungjin Chun <=
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Nicola Pero, 2001/01/08
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Sungjin Chun, 2001/01/08
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Dan Pascu, 2001/01/08
- Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Sungjin Chun, 2001/01/08
- Window Focus Problem (was Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea)), Adam Fedor, 2001/01/08
- Re: Window Focus Problem (was Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: I dea)), Dan Pascu, 2001/01/09
- Re: Window Focus Problem (was Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: I dea)), Sungjin Chun, 2001/01/09
Re: GNUstep Window Manager (was RE: Idea), Gregory Casamento, 2001/01/07