On 06-Oct-04, 06:41 (CDT), Jeff Teunissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And developers writing with GNUstep recognize the same thing. The difference > is that we *have* to give enough information about an app using only two > pieces of information -- the name of the app and its icon.
"*Have*" to? Why? Other applications manage to provide unique names. Why does being a GNUstep application give you the right to claim generic names like "mail", "editor", etc. Claiming necessity doesn't make it so. If it's simply a convention of the GNUstep developer's, then your claim to have considered mixed systems is bogus. Note that I'm not promoting the idea that all GNUstep packages names must begin with "gnustep-". I find the ".app" convention sufficiently clear; in fact, I assume pretty much anthing with a "." in it's name GNUstep. If we are going to allow generic names, then obviously they would be applied to the most commonly used or "best for the novice" example, so I'm pretty sure that GNUstep apps aren't going to get them. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net