Re: Cocoa/Windows parallel dvlpmt

[Philip Mötteli]

Am 04.02.2004 um 12:51 schrieb Philippe C.D. Robert:
> Philip Mötteli wrote:
> > You underestimate marketing. A performant marketing can even sell a 
> > product, that is and will never exist. Just think about vapor-ware.
>
> No I don't, I agree with you about the power of marketing.

Of course, it doesn't work with you (though I think you just doesn't 
realize). But I'm talking about the masses and not specific 
individuals.
Why has the word vapor-ware been created? Because it didn't work?


> Unfortunately, as you already mentioned, the GNUstep project is not 
> very talented when it comes to marketing :-( Any ideas how to change 
> this?

That's not easy and I do not have the time to develop a marketing 
strategy for GS now. I'm not the expert in such things either, though I 
ahd some few classes about it.


> > > Additionally, why would a Cocoa developer want to port a GUI app 
> > > from Mac OS X to GNUstep if at the end there is no environment in 
> > > which the app would be integrated?
> > Well, I feel a huge interest here in using GNUstep as a porting means.
> > The problem is, as I already mentionned right in my first posting of 
> > the thread you mentionned, that GS needs to complete the Windows port 
> > as much as possible. That's actually the only frequent complaint I 
> > see. And
>
> Interesting to hear, could you explain this huge interest a little 
> more?

Have a look at all the people participating in the discussion. You 
think, they participate, because they are not interested?
Not to mention all the people, who publically said, they are interested 
in a Windows port of GNUstep.


> I at least do not see any concrete interest of any Mac OS X developer 
> to port real apps to GNUstep,

No, they don't want to port to GNUstep!!! They want to port to Windows. 
But many of them think, that it's not possible, becaue this Windows 
port is not enough complete for them.


> Besides, porting alone is not sufficient. In fact the possibility for 
> a port is just a prerequisite, there must be some potential user base 
> on the "other platform" in order to justify a porting effort. 
> Otherwise it just does not make sense to port, it would probably be a 
> wasted effort.

Wow! You really think so? They do not just port to satisfy their 
porting neurosis?


>  Unfortunately - for most Mac OS X developers - there is no or at 
> least it seems that there is no such user base (marketing?).

So the interest in a Windows port is pure auto-satisfaction. Aha.
No, in my eyes they say: The porting costs over the long run are too 
expensive to be covered by the supplementary revenue. But the moment, 
the porting costs are sufficiently low, they will start with it. That's 
the reason, why they all have a close eye on the Windows port of GS. 
Hoping, that somebody completes it and they – in the ideal case – would 
just have to recompile their software and putting it into an installer 
package.
What I try to motivate people, is to estimate the porting costs with GS 
over the long run and comparing that to the supplementary benefit from 
such a port.


> > I do agree with that. I just don't agree with people complaining and 
> > not wanting to help with one line of code. And I don't think, that
>
> Somestimes it is not possible to contribute code to a project due to 
> whatever reason. Still it should be OK to give feedback or post to 
> this list as

Then they shouldn't discourage others.


Re
Phil