Re: What would be the most complete GNUStep system?

[Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Am 27.10.2014 um 11:26 schrieb Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com>:

> On 27 October 2014 00:28, Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mottola@libero.it> wrote:
> 
>> Other applications to get a more complete environment you can pick among the
>> two major desktop projects, GAP and Etoilé,
> 
> What is this GAP? I’ve not heard of it.

http://www.nongnu.org/gap/

> 
>> 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.
> 
> Agreed. ElementaryOS has something somewhat OS X-like, but it's based
> off GNOME 3, sadly. Maybe if they knew of GNUstep they would have used
> it instead. :'(
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That's a good insight. It is also a real problem for the ROX Desktop
> project, my *other* favourite obscure Linux desktop. ;¬)
> 
> ROX just (!) invented its own packaging system to get around this -- 0launch.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I am also not 100% sure it would be a good idea. I really love
> Debian's APT, as used in Ubuntu etc. It is far far better than the OS
> X way of doing things. I just don't like the way it scatter-guns
> components all through dozens of inscrutably-named little directories
> buried in a cryptically-named filesystem hierarchy built on the
> principles of 1970s-1980s server maintenance good practice.
> 
>> So for your specific question I don't think one OS will be better than
>> another
> 
> Well, me, I would say 1 of 2 ways offers potential.
> 
> [1] run it on Ubuntu and put up with the weird Linux FHS. That way you
> get a solid, widely- and well-supported OS
> 
> [2] Get involved, help get GNUstep running on Gobo, and get a
> sensible, readable, understandable filesystem hierarchy with clean
> separation between packages and versions, but it's going to require
> work to get it to ready-for-prime-time.

AFAIK in the past there have been Life Images (CD) with GNUstep on
them. So that could have been a “welcome to the desktop” experience.

BR,
Nikolaus