Re: reincarnating nextstep

[Rogelio M. Serrano Jr.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2005-11-18 16:57:58 +0800 David Ayers <d.ayers@inode.at> wrote:

> Chris B. Vetter schrieb:
> > On 11/18/05, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. <rogelio@smsglobal.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > Not intending to troll here, or start another OS-related flame-war,
> > but why base it on Linux?
> >
> > I guess this is more of a general question, but why not focus on a
> > more 'original' clone and base it on Darwin? There are a couple of
> > aspects, that IMHO would make Darwin the more obvious choice,
>
> [snip]
>
> I think one important aspect is the support for frameworks by the tool
> chain, which most likely will never happen in mainline GNU/Linux (or
> GNU/Hurd).  I think GNU/Darwin should definitely be considered even
> though I have no idea in what state it is in.
>
> Cheers,
> David

Is frameworks a nextstep or openstep feature? I have played with
frameworks and i think it easy to do but I dont think a consensus can
be reached on some of the issues. Maybe a patch would be more
appropriate since it clobbers the standard include file search paths.

I like the "Beyond Unix" design of mach but i dont think im ready to
actually dig into it fix it so i can have a system i can use everyday
and eventually release the next clone. (pun intended)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using the GPG bundle for GNUMail

iD8DBQFDfZ9tyihxuQOYt8wRAqyLAJ9Mx0tMC26wveEdTcmwWuxgjkUStQCffgdY
Pq+Muzlr0lnQY2vhdrAOE1w=
=MF9J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----