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

[Philip Mötteli]

I'm tired of that thread, becaue the longer it gets, the more people 
have problems to remember, what the subject actually is. So I just try 
to keep it short, in order to prevent the next misunderstandings:


Am Donnerstag, 23.10.03, um 10:14 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Philippe 
C.D. Robert:
> this is not intended to be personal, sorry if it comes along this way.

I know that. But by ripping things out of the context, you can put 
anything you want in someone elses mouth. And that is sometimes quite 
embarrassing.


> 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?

Because everybody knows, that this is my opinion and combined, with 
what you added as comments afterwards, I frankly didn't apreciate it.
Why didn't you just say right away, what you think? As in the following 
statement?

> As I understand it you see GNUstep as a clone of OpenStep (read: the 
> API spec)

I remind you of the following: "GNUstep is based on the original 
OpenStep specification provided by NeXT, Inc. (now Apple)." (About the 
first sentence on the first page of <gnuste.org>.

>  plus some other libraries.

No, that's not my understanding. Gnustep is an implementation of 
OpenStep. Without any additional library.


> 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.

Well there are infinite possible ways, how one possibly wants to see 
Gnustep. But the definition is clear (see the first page of its 
homepage. Those are individual ideas, that might or might not have 
something to do with reality.


> > > 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?

No. You yourself said, that you are a "little bit frustrated", that 
after 10 years, Gnustep still leads a life in the shadow and that you 
"would like to know, where Gnustep could be in, say, 12 months?" Didn't 
you say that? So the first poster said about, that he doesn't know and 
he doesn't care.
I dared to add my 2c, which were a proposition, how to bring Gnustep 
out of its shadow life, taking into account its biggest problem: 
Manpower. This was a direct answer to your question.


> I got the impression that you see GNUstep as a pure "OpenStep API 
> spec" clone,

No, not an API spec clone – an API implementation. An OpenStep API 
implementation. Originally probably only intended for the Linux 
platform, because at that time, there was already one for the other 
platforms.


> 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.

So this whole thread says the following: "Please complete the missing 
parts of the Windows port of Gnustep" and you answer: "We have only 
parts of the Windows port of Gnustep".
Don't you think, that you so apparently didn't understand the subject? 
I thought, you just didn't read it.


> >  (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? :)

Of course. Usually GSWeb and AppKit in the same program are redundant 
together. But that's only for my case. It is by far not true for 
others! And it's not a problem at all anyway. Every user of Gnustep or 
any other library is usually interested in just a part of it. But by 
using it, the userbase as a whole gets bigger and with that the 
potential manpower.


> 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.

That's an interesting point! May you elaborate that?


> So for some of us the cross-platform aspect (=Windows) is probably not 
> very interesting.

Of course.


> Some of us are not interested in a Windows port of the API because 
> what we want is the GNUstep enduser environment

This is not an official aim of Gnustep. The official aim is to 
implement the OpenStep API. Which is btw. (mostly) also true for Apples 
Cocoa, which should show you, that an "enduser environment", based on 
OpenStep can take a lot of different forms.
So if this should really become an official goal of the Gnustep 
comunity, then it's about time to define, how this thing should look 
like. At the moment this seems to be mostly a copy of the NeXTstep GUI.


> we just do not care about Windows.

But you do care about manpower, don't you? Because you need that for 
such bold goals!


> 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.

Ohh, I can accept that easely! I even said myself, that people either 
use Gnustep for the fun of it and then it's more fun to implement a 
desktop, than to complete the Windows port. Or they use it 
professionally and then they just implement what they need for the task 
at hand. That this leads to an almost uncoordinatable way of 
progressing is logic in my eyes. So my propositions were in any case 
(at least in my eyes) purely theoretic. It was a strategy based on the 
hypothetical assumption, that the Gnustep community would act like an 
enterprise. But this assumption had (in my eyes) to be made in order to 
answer your question. Otherwise the real correct answer would have been 
the one you got from the first poster: "I don't know".


> 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).

Please read the official definition again: "GNUstep provides an 
Object-Oriented application development framework and tool set for use 
on a wide variety of computer platforms. GNUstep is based on the 
original OpenStep specification provided by NeXT, Inc. (now Apple)."

Does it talk or even imply an "enduser environment"? Not in my eyes.
If you want to change the officially phrased goal, please make a 
proposition to the community. But until then I think my idea of GS is 
way closer to the official definition, than yours.


> > > > > 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 :-)

I do completely agree with you! So please write it! Ah, you don't have 
the time! I do understand. But surely others will have the time? Ah, 
no. Pitty. So no-one ever will write that. Hm. So we will stay with 
this little bunch of very small little tools like ImageViewer and 
thelike (with some few exceptions). So how will we attract more 
developer to implement good applications, which will finally end up in 
your enduser environment? Ah, one possibility would be, by offering the 
unique features, that already saved NeXT. Then, what was this thread 
already all about?

(PS: Don't misunderstand me: I APRECIATE, even adore everything that 
has been made so far in the GS context!
Programs as libraries! Also your ProjectCenter, Philip! I couldn't have 
done it better! Regarding the time you invested! We would just need to 
have some money and time, give them to you and you would come up with 
an insanely great tool (Xcode++)! I would bet my right hand! But it 
doesn't happen. Why? Manpower.)



Re
Phil