discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What would be the most complete GNUStep system?


From: Riccardo Mottola
Subject: Re: What would be the most complete GNUStep system?
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:28:33 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0 SeaMonkey/2.30

Hi Asiga,

sorry for top-post replying, but your email is somehow a big single-cell HTML table and I can't reply inline. Thank you for your interest in GNUstep. I understand how you feel, because I think similarly. lso I don't like most other FLOSS desktop projects Windows >= 8.. and that keeps my interest in GNUstep alive!

GNUstep is a little more than a framework: GNUstep "core" is the actual framework. Then you get a set of development tools (Gorm, ProjectCenter, Thematic), additional frameworks (some of which very useful), some essential applications (GWorkspace, SystemPreferences). Other applications to get a more complete environment you can pick among the two major desktop projects, GAP and Etoilé, plus other assorted single apps (like PRICE or GNUMail). Although no project has at the moment something really complete.

What you ask, however, is more: tight integration with an OS. That's tricky. I can tell you that GNUStep runs, when compiled from source, quite well on most major free operationg systems. Most flavours of Linux (I test Debian and Gentoo) and NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD. However, GNUstep has many configuration options, so the official packages of these OS's may be configured differently, usually to be more linux and FHS compliant. If you want a Mac like experience, none of them is your choice, really.

To get the most Mac-like experience, you need to configure with the GNUstep-layout and with a root as /, so that you get directories like /System/Applications. I'd say that all cited operating systems right now are quite well supported.

Bundles? Yes, we do have them. For apps, frameworks, loadable bundles, themse and also documents (like RTFD) in pure OpenStep/Mac style. Most distributions, for example ebian, try to break these bundles up however, since they are alien to the typical file system layout enforced by various policies. It may work, but it is not what you are looking for.

I don't know if we support "Fat bundles" and especially how sense they have in the more fragmented OS environment which, for example, many different Linux OS's.

As for DMGs, I know that you feel they are convenient and how they very easily can be virtually monuted, burned onto optical media or (in old times) to floppies. I don't think we have support for that though and how it could be implemented in a portable way.

So for your specific question I don't think one OS will be better than another and most OS will work just fine currently if you compile from sources. If you use packages, then well, you are at the will of the packager and if your tastes match the way he did it. There are several configure options and combinations!

Riccardo

Asiga Nael wrote:
Hi,

I've been using OSX as my everyday OS for over a decade, mostly for software development (but not with Xcode, as I'm a die-hard Terminal user, and I'm a Makefile-type user).

Now I've become quite worried about OSX, because I don't like its current direction, making it heavier and heavier, with no real improvements for power-users, while gradually dropping useful features, not to mention I dislike the latest Mac hardware compared to the Macs they used to make.

But OSX has very useful stuff I don't find anywhere else. Mostly:

1-Application bundles (seeing apps as directories is one thing I cannot live without it anymore) 2-Great management of disk images with support for creating and mounting images of different file systems. So great, that disk images is the preferred way for packaging OSX apps. 3-Fat binaries (yes, some people don't like the space they take, but I find it very convenient to have a 32bit executable and its 64 bit version on the same file).

From what I've read, it seems GNUStep implements all or most of NeXTSTEP, while also adding some new Cocoa additions from OSX. But it's not an Operating System, just a framework. It seems you can install it on a lot of OSs, although I found it confusing to understand how each OS supports it.

Isn't there any OS that considers GNUStep as the most important part of the OS while supporting the 3 features that I love from OSX (app bundles, dmg-like support, fat binaries)?

If such OS exists, please tell, as it would be my natural move from OSX.

Thanks!

asiga



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




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]