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

[Philip Mötteli]

Am 26.10.2003 um 05:30 schrieb Jason Clouse:
> On 2003-10-25 21:32:57 +0200 Philip Mötteli <Philip.Moetteli@tele2.ch> 
> 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.


> > > Carbon,
> >
> > 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.


> Rendezvous?

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
> > competitors.
>
> 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.



Thanks
Phil