Comments on: 2 years of Gnomefiles and the state of Gnome/GTK http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:19:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: KCorax http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3427 KCorax Sun, 02 Jul 2006 01:46:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3427 > The difference is like Win 3.1 and WinXp. Is that an elaboration of the word abysmal ? Win16 apps run in emulation in XP, so… > The difference is like Win 3.1 and WinXp.
Is that an elaboration of the word abysmal ? Win16 apps run in emulation in XP, so…

]]> By: memsom http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3426 memsom Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:56:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3426 Eugenia, I have taken OpenStep code and ported it to Cocoa with no effort what so ever. So, um, no - you are wrong. The difference is like Win 3.1 and WinXp. The underlying API is the same, though there is more of it under OS X. You do generalise some times. Cocoa is based on the Openstep spec, not NextStep, so I guess if you coded on your Next box it would seem different, but code in OpenStep (and I have done so in 4.2, Rhapsody and Yellowbox for Windows) and OS X has in 70-80% of the time an identical class or at the very least an close analog. You must never have worked in an API over, say, a 10 year period. I use the VCL with Delphi on a daily basis and have done so since version 1. We’re now on version 10. The API is extremely different, but code from V1 can be made to compile with a small amount of effort and familiarity with the API. Eugenia, I have taken OpenStep code and ported it to Cocoa with no effort what so ever. So, um, no - you are wrong. The difference is like Win 3.1 and WinXp. The underlying API is the same, though there is more of it under OS X.

You do generalise some times. Cocoa is based on the Openstep spec, not NextStep, so I guess if you coded on your Next box it would seem different, but code in OpenStep (and I have done so in 4.2, Rhapsody and Yellowbox for Windows) and OS X has in 70-80% of the time an identical class or at the very least an close analog.

You must never have worked in an API over, say, a 10 year period. I use the VCL with Delphi on a daily basis and have done so since version 1. We’re now on version 10. The API is extremely different, but code from V1 can be made to compile with a small amount of effort and familiarity with the API.

]]> By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3425 Eugenia Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:13:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3425 The source code of OpenSTEP apps *is not* compatible with Cocoa’s new APIs, no. Apple has made many-many changes since then. You are dissilusion yourself if you think that sources are still fully compatible after 10 years of tinkering. And besides, who cares if something is source-compatible or not? Even 95% of the OpenSTEP developers don’t give a shit. Do you think that this would have any user impact? Users is what we are talking about here. The source code of OpenSTEP apps *is not* compatible with Cocoa’s new APIs, no. Apple has made many-many changes since then. You are dissilusion yourself if you think that sources are still fully compatible after 10 years of tinkering.

And besides, who cares if something is source-compatible or not? Even 95% of the OpenSTEP developers don’t give a shit. Do you think that this would have any user impact? Users is what we are talking about here.

]]> By: memsom http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3424 memsom Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:32:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3424 One line I forgot: And the jump between NextStep and OpenStep is no more complicated than the step to OSX from OpenStep. One line I forgot:

And the jump between NextStep and OpenStep is no more complicated than the step to OSX from OpenStep.

]]> By: memsom http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3423 memsom Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:30:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3423 Here’s me take… C# and .Net will play a big role in the future of Linux. Just a Wine has helped it a lot with getting bits of Windows working. Secondly… Um… since when has OpenStep source code *not* been compatible with OSX? If its in Objective C, it is about as compatible as any evolution of a single class library could be. You can take an OpenStep app, and convert the source to Project Builder for MacOS X 10.2.X really easily…. I’m sure the same is probably true for XCode, but I’ve never used it so I couldn’t be 100% sure. Here’s me take…

C# and .Net will play a big role in the future of Linux. Just a Wine has helped it a lot with getting bits of Windows working.

Secondly… Um… since when has OpenStep source code *not* been compatible with OSX? If its in Objective C, it is about as compatible as any evolution of a single class library could be. You can take an OpenStep app, and convert the source to Project Builder for MacOS X 10.2.X really easily…. I’m sure the same is probably true for XCode, but I’ve never used it so I couldn’t be 100% sure.

]]> By: Lumbergh http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3422 Lumbergh Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:22:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3422 I’ve been saying most of what you said for years. The biggest mistake for the linux desktop was that there was two major desktops instead of just one and a few anklebiters to keep the big guy honest. I agree with your assessment that someone with money (like Google) would have to come along and start from the bottom-up (kernel) and produce something new and innovative. Gnome/KDE slapped onto X and the kernel is going nowhere. KDE had the right idea but the Qt license alway hurt it. Gtk+ had an “ok” license and the corporate support, but the Gnome folks never pushed C++ bindings, never came up with a decent IDE like KDevelop, and failed with the Bonobo architecture. I don’t think anyone is going to do anything like you suggested with the linux kernel. First of all, the GPL has too much baggage. I suspect someone would grab a BSD, sign NDAs with Nvidia and ATI for the register level specs, ditch X alltogether (which is still way too crufty and is uneeded with modern Remote Display tech, and build from the ground up. But I just don’t see that happening in the near future. Nobody has the balls and/or the money to take on Microsoft. The only hope I really have is for Apple’s marketshare to keep on sinking and they finally realize that they need a partner (Dell?). But for the time being (5+ years at least), it’ll probably the status quo. Really, the prime opportunity for linux was this whole time during the XP phase. Now Vista is right over the horizon and it’s new graphics system absolutely spanks anything in the X world, and is quite a bit superior to what Apple has. Year 2000 and the fanboys screamed “year of the linux desktop”. It’s 2006 and too late for the old Gnome/KDE/X/linux distros game. P.S. the whole concept of distros was and is retarded. Everything from the kernel to all tools and the desktop should have been one group. I’ve been saying most of what you said for years. The biggest mistake for the linux desktop was that there was two major desktops instead of just one and a few anklebiters to keep the big guy honest.

I agree with your assessment that someone with money (like Google) would have to come along and start from the bottom-up (kernel) and produce something new and innovative. Gnome/KDE slapped onto X and the kernel is going nowhere. KDE had the right idea but the Qt license alway hurt it. Gtk+ had an “ok” license and the corporate support, but the Gnome folks never pushed C++ bindings, never came up with a decent IDE like KDevelop, and failed with the Bonobo architecture.

I don’t think anyone is going to do anything like you suggested with the linux kernel. First of all, the GPL has too much baggage. I suspect someone would grab a BSD, sign NDAs with Nvidia and ATI for the register level specs, ditch X alltogether (which is still way too crufty and is uneeded with modern Remote Display tech, and build from the ground up.

But I just don’t see that happening in the near future. Nobody has the balls and/or the money to take on Microsoft.

The only hope I really have is for Apple’s marketshare to keep on sinking and they finally realize that they need a partner (Dell?).

But for the time being (5+ years at least), it’ll probably the status quo. Really, the prime opportunity for linux was this whole time during the XP phase. Now Vista is right over the horizon and it’s new graphics system absolutely spanks anything in the X world, and is quite a bit superior to what Apple has.

Year 2000 and the fanboys screamed “year of the linux desktop”. It’s 2006 and too late for the old Gnome/KDE/X/linux distros game.

P.S. the whole concept of distros was and is retarded. Everything from the kernel to all tools and the desktop should have been one group.

]]> By: Ludovic Hirlimann http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3420 Ludovic Hirlimann Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:19:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3420 How do you define that an application is active or not ? How do you define that an application is active or not ?

]]> By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3421 Eugenia Wed, 21 Jun 2006 04:04:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3421 If it hasn’t been updated for more than 1-2 years. If it hasn’t been updated for more than 1-2 years.

]]> By: Bryan Bell http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3417 Bryan Bell Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:41:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3417 I was reminded of why Linux on the desktop still doesn’t work, it took me most of the day to change over from Fedora 2 to 5. The wireless card was a pain in the ass since the I had to install the ndiswrapper, then I had to add a config file so redhat’s network tool would pick up the card. Similarly installing the nvidia driver didn’t just work. I tried yum and that failed, so I used the driver installer installer from nvidia which did. The upshot is that something as basic as a driver doesn’t just work, you have to fiddle, find out that the driver isn’t allowed because of SELinux, and numerous other annoyances. I was reminded of why Linux on the desktop still doesn’t work, it took me most of the day to change over from Fedora 2 to 5. The wireless card was a pain in the ass since the I had to install the ndiswrapper, then I had to add a config file so redhat’s network tool would pick up the card.
Similarly installing the nvidia driver didn’t just work. I tried yum and that failed, so I used the driver installer installer from nvidia which did.

The upshot is that something as basic as a driver doesn’t just work, you have to fiddle, find out that the driver isn’t allowed because of SELinux, and numerous other annoyances.

]]> By: KCorax http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3419 KCorax Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:03:00 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2006/06/19/2-years-of-gnomefiles-and-the-state-of-gnomegtk/#comment-3419 > I was reminded of why Linux on the desktop still doesn’t work… Try paying for a distribution like Xandros of Linspire. It helped me loose the esteem I had for the top 5 of <a href='http://www.distrowatch.org' rel='nofollow'>www.distrowatch.org</a> . > I was reminded of why Linux on the desktop still doesn’t work…
Try paying for a distribution like Xandros of Linspire. It helped me loose the esteem I had for the top 5 of www.distrowatch.org .

]]>