I'm sorry if any of this has caused any ill feelings. That was not my intention. I started with that particular premise because that is what the lead developer of the project communicated with me.
The GNUstep web site also communicates this message on one of the pages https://wwwmain.gnustep.org/information/aboutGNUstep.html I have seen some of the misconceptions that both Greg and that web page seem to be fighting out in the wild I also helped him review the recent STF grant application and there was never any mention of a desktop anywhere in there. It was pitched as a framework touting usage by 3rd party commercial developers to make popular apps. Even the page (which I had to find via search engine) which provided a link to download GWorkspace didn't actually provide an app. It is a link to the source code and users are expected to compile it. https://gnustep.github.io/experience/GWorkspace.html Between all that and the lack of any desktop ISO for users to download and install, I had no reason to believe that GNUstep was anything other than an app/platform building framework This was just the premise I was given. The slides were just my way of gathering my thoughts on how the current state of the web site is not consistent with that premise. I am of course happy to go with whatever messaging the project decides on. Let me know. Best regards, Damian On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:21 AM Ethan C <[email protected]> wrote: > You might find my previous documentation projects useful: > > https://github.com/ethanc8/NewDocumentation-Tutorials > > I might try making some prototype websites based on PyTorch's website. > They have a similar issue in that they need to manage manuals and API > docs for many different websites, but obviously PyTorch doesn't also > have the issue of providing parts of a desktop environment or being > widely used by end-users who need to configure it for the apps that > depend on PyTorch to integrate with their system. But I think PyTorch's > website design can be a good reference for us. > > On 7/11/24 08:12, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote: > >>> Well, Damianos points out that GNUstep is just a framework for > >>> developers. > >> I think the view is more nuanced than the word 'just' suggests. > > > > you are correct. At first, I had a very bad and harsh reaction at the > > slides, but this comment is perfect. > > Most premises found in the slides are true, but they are > > over-simplified and taken to the only starting points driving to - in > > my opinion - limiting and drastic conclusions > > > >>> Do we all agree on that? > >> Of course not .... but there's a clear majority who agree that our > >> primary focus is a developer framework, and that it makes sense to > >> present it that way. > >> Having looked at Damianos's presentation, I think it seems a pretty > >> good summary. Even the idea of a new logo (though I like the > >> existing one), makes sense. > > > > I oppose a new logo for gnustep - it is nice, recognizable and good. > > However we might find a way to distinguish "core" stuff from the rest, > > in terms of working and perhaps visual recognition. I don't know yet > > the boundaries... but e.g a summary like apple has "Foundation" > > "Cocoa" and "Xcode" all-catch words for a variety of stuff inside. > > We have core frameworks, dev apps, non-core frameworks, etc etc... all > > which are part of GNUstep. > > Referring e.g. referring to "gui" and "back" is useful for us, but > > confusing for most end-users. > > > >> > >> I have no problem with a website that's clearly driven by a tight > >> focus on the development framework, because that still allows for a > >> prominent link to a second site concentrating on a reference > >> implementation, since it's a simple point to make that there's a > >> synergy to multiple applications built with the same framework. > >> Having two distinct websites makes a lot of sense to me. > > > > I am more interested in the application part and I don't think two > > websites go for that, if not that we decide to have a full desktop, > > which we current don't have (and fine so, in my opinion). However we > > have apps, tools extra-frameworks. I don't think it is a good idea to > > split things in N websites. > > > > The current website has a quite deep distinction between "user" and > > "developer in organization terms. It is not so apparent because not > > all content was changed to emphasize that. Paradoxically, it actually > > the developer part which is very lacking. After having culled "old > > content"... it just contains some apps and frameworks and a bit of > > documentation. There is no coherence nor narrative. > > > > Some things practically exist only as downloads. I have tried some > > arbitrary grouping in "Core System" "Libraries" and "Development > > applications" but it is incomplete and not official and generic in > > working, I just did it to get some structure where it was missing. > > > > About having one or two sites, one site with two sub-parts, just > > sections, about the naming of the parts, we should reason (maybe some > > POCs), but careful not to reduce the GNUstep project to a tiny part of > > it. > > > > Riccardo > > > > > >
