Re: project goal Re: Release schedule

[Jeff Teunissen]

Björn Gohla wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2003-04-16 03:38, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> > Jason Clouse wrote:
> > > On 2003-04-15 06:26:07 +0000 Willem Rein Oudshoorn <woudshoo@xs4all.nl>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > I agree with most points raised by Helge.  From my limited point
> > > > of view superiority has nothing to do with becoming popular.
> > > > Filling a need seems to be the crucial factor.
> > >
> > > That's exactly my point.  There is NO way GNUstep can fill a need on X11
> > > because, with a few minor exceptions, all the major applications that
> > > people need are already available there.  That's why Fresco (and the
> > > easy portability between OS X and GNUstep) is a major opportunity.  With
> > > Fresco, there IS a serious need for a desktop system and applications.
> >
> > Assumes facts not in evidence...primarily, that there is a need for Fresco
> > in the first place, though that is by no means the only one. GGI is
> > garbage, GII is worse, KGI is never going to become part of the kernel
> > because Linus hates it, and even distributions that ship GNUstep stuff
> > don't really do anything about Berlin/Fresco/whatever.
> 
> afaik fresco is not exclusively bound to any of those graphics libs, and
> of course distributions would not ship software that is not usable yet.

It may not be "exclusively bound", but GGI/GII/KGI are what Berlin was
designed to use.

> > Further, GNUstep wouldn't fit in at *all* with their system. They put
> > the "widgets" into the display server, while GNUstep draws and handles
> > its own UI elements.
> 
> so what, they have an interface alot more sophisticated.

No, they don't...not by a long shot. Sophisticated means something
different than "complicated" does.

> > X is more than good enough, and from my perspective it's better on a
> > technical level than Fresco is...but then, most other things are as
> > well. But hey, that last part is merely an opinion.
> 
> well, x has been around for alot longer and been worked on and debugged.
> you will have to concede that the x interface is rather plain, and if
> you consider there being hundreds of widget sets, all mostly
> incompatible, the ultimate wisdom, then i can see that x is best for you
> ;).

I don't concede that "the x interface is rather plain", because there is
no "X interface" at all. In fact, you don't concede it either, because of
the "hundreds of widget sets, all mostly incompatible".

I don't have to use hundreds of widget sets, I only need one...but at
least I get to choose between dozens of them when deciding what I want.
With Fresco, it's more like "You'll take what we give you, because we know
better than you do". No thanks, I'll take the anarchy of X over the
regimented order of Berlin.

-- 
| Jeff Teunissen  -=-  Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing  -=-  deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A   7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B  161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project        http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux              http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/