Re: Frameworks integration

[Chris B. Vetter]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:40:15 -1100
Nicolas Roard <nicolas@roard.com> wrote:
> On 2004-02-27 18:21:53 +0000 Chris B. Vetter <chrisv@web4inc.com> 
> wrote:
> > And you musst admit you can't really blame them for that.
> I'm not blaming them, but I think it's a very revealing point that 
> something is clearly wrong :)

Yes, but again, one reason is that we do not suffiently distance GNUstep
from Window Maker. At least insofar, that we (do not) point out that
they are NOT related (anymore).

> > For one, we say "window maker is the standard WM for GNUstep".
> > Personally, I think we should get rid of the 'standard'.
> agree. But at the same time, it's *still* the best solution under 
> X11...

Unfortunately true. Well, there's still IWM, but interest (from users,
not developers) in it kinda slowed down. Not pointing fingers here, of
course. Another reason is that some of the developers had, let's just
say, private/personal problems/issues that had to be dealt with and took
precedence, like moving, hard drive crashes, etc.
But I'm sure development will pick up again soon.

> > Second, Window Maker says "it was originally designed for GNUstep".
> > That may well be -- originally. But since then, they moved off to
> > God knows where...
> > And third, they DO look similar.
> yes. Which could be interesting in the end for gnustep, as many people
> were in contact with WindowMaker look and feel and loved it...

OTOH, take a look at comments on OSNews (or any other site that sports
an article about GNUstep for that matter) A lot of comments are about
the "look" and bitch about the "boxy" appearance.

Ironically, the same people use KDE or GNOME... ;-)

-- 
Chris