Am 27.10.2014 um 11:26 schrieb Liam Proven <[email protected]>: > On 27 October 2014 00:28, Riccardo Mottola <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
