Re: How other OSS projects advertise their stuff

[Gregory John Casamento]

TMC,

> Personally, 
I 
favor 
the 
approach 
suggested 
by 
Alex 
Perez: 
Let 
GNUstep
> include 
the 
"good" 
parts 
of 
Cocoa, 
and 
let 
an 
optional 
framework 
try 
to 
be
> 100% 
compatible. 
Unfortunately, 
his 
[PortabilityKit][1] 
never 
got 
off 
the
> ground. 
Part of the reason it never did take off was because it very quickly 
degenerated into a very unfruitful discussion over what was "good" and what was 
"bad".   What is good and bad?   It's highly subjective.   Also, it represents 
a semantic break with how things are done normally.  For example, if I'm a 
developer who needs class XYZ and it's in framework A, then I expect it to be 
in an analogous framework on GNUstep.   Putting it in another framework and 
expecting the developer to then find it and, worse, justifying to the developer 
that he/she now has an extra depenedency on yet another library because someone 
thought the class he/she is using is "bad" and should be put into the framework 
for "bad" classes sounds odd to me.

If we're to be an implementation of the Cocoa API (and that's what we're 
shooting towards these days) then we should be that.   While that is not to say 
that we shouldn't have our own extensions, when it comes to the core classes we 
should

Additionally, I really think it's high time we took complete stock of what's 
missing in GNUstep to get us to a point where we can make a statement that we 
are at some level of compatibility with Cocoa.

Later, GJC

--
Gregory Casamento -- Principal Consultant - OLC, Inc 
# GNUstep Chief Maintainer

----- Original Message ----
From: TMC <viiieighte@gmail.com>
To: Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 6:13:14 AM
Subject: Re: How other OSS projects advertise their stuff




Dr. 
H. 
Nikolaus 
Schaller 
wrote:
> 
> 
What 
does 
GNUstep 
substitute 
that 
is 
not 
"Free"? 
Cocoa? 
Windows? 
GTK?
> 
Qt?
> 
> 
-- 
hns
> 
GNUstep 
is 
a 
free 
replacement 
for 
OpenStep 
(and 
some 
parts 
of 
Cocoa, 
but 
not
others). 
This 
is 
unattractive 
to 
many 
people 
for 
two 
reasons: 
OpenStep 
is
not 
an 
environment 
they 
want, 
and 
GNUstep's 
Cocoa 
compatibility 
is 
not
complete. 

Personally, 
I 
favor 
the 
approach 
suggested 
by 
Alex 
Perez: 
Let 
GNUstep
include 
the 
"good" 
parts 
of 
Cocoa, 
and 
let 
an 
optional 
framework 
try 
to 
be
100% 
compatible. 
Unfortunately, 
his 
[PortabilityKit][1] 
never 
got 
off 
the
ground.

[1]: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/portabilitykit

--Tycho 
Martin 
Clendenny
-- 
View 
this 
message 
in 
context: 
http://www.nabble.com/How-other-OSS-projects-advertise-their-stuff-tp15399207p15409507.html
Sent 
from 
the 
GNUstep 
- 
General 
mailing 
list 
archive 
at 
Nabble.com.



_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep 
mailing 
list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep