Slashdot Mirror

I think you've just described GORM. It allows you to draw graphical components, and graphically connect Objective-C objects together. It is also possible to add SmallTalk scripts directly in GORM to tie the components together. Oh, and for the database access side, you can use GDL2 which provides an Object-relational mapping - a system for mapping Objective-C objects to rows in a relational database in a database- and schema-independent way. If you want something a little easier to use than GDL2, there is a CoreData implementation for GNUstep in course of construction which will include a graphical object-relational modeller. Oh, and the result will build happily on *NIX and Windows, and with a little tweaking on OS X.

Do yourself a favour, and download GNUstep and learn Objective-C. Use a language with real introspection built in, and not some horrible hacked-on incompatible version added by a toolkit. As an added bonus, you get source-compatibility with OS X, so your apps will look and feel like native Mac apps if you put a couple of hours into porting them. There's also been a lot of progress made with the Windows port of GNUstep recently, so you retain Windows compatibility.

Of course AppKit was ported to Windows (and other environments) back in the OpenStep days but likely the port hasn't been maintained much with the newer UI paradigm that Mac OS X has been using (sheets, etc)..

(I'm blowing away using mod points for this reply, but here goes anyway. :-) )

GNUstep is a mature project to clone openstep and some of the most important elements of the OS X API. It runs, not only on Linux and Unix, but also on Windows and even the Mac. (Though the windows version needs more beta testers.)

Given that NeXT was BSD based, that certainly would complete the clone...

I agree with this point given that GNUstep is the "other" GNU GUI next to GNOME but there are a few hangups that need to be resolved:

1. Apple has added "Objective-C++" to GCC but there appear to be problems using this outside of Darwin. (Ojb-C++ reportedly adds a few handy C++ routeines to Objective-C and it worth looking at.)

http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Use r/GNUstep/faq_1.html#SEC10

2. Problem 1. appears to be preventing Apple's KDE-based WebKit from being supported on GNUstep. Even though the first web browser was written on NeXT, GNUstep does not have one, limiting its functionality to put it mildy. For more info:

http://home.gna.org/gswebkit/

From there, it does not appear that OO.o will run on GNUstep, limiting its functionality to say...

I suggest anyone interested in this to try the GNUstep live cd. http://www.linuks.mine.nu/gnustep/

At one point the suggestions page included a request to use FreeBSIE... thus seconding your suggestion.

Michael.

I agree with you completely. However, I was thinking why Smalltalk is not in so wide use today. Largest problem of Smalltalk is, that it is too ahead, even at this time... People do not understand it, because it does not fit into "mainstream" technologies. I believe that Smalltalk or Smalltalk-like technology will emerge once again...

Btw. GNUstep is trying to bring back Smalltalk in other form than a whole stand-alone environment. It uses Smalltalk as a scripting language that glues objects together and creates not real, but illusion of single object environment. The Smalltalk thingy is included in the StepTalk scripting framework.

More information about Smalltalk based scripting can be found here and on a blog here

I agree with you completely. However, I was thinking why Smalltalk is not in so wide use today. Largest problem of Smalltalk is, that it is too ahead, even at this time... People do not understand it, because it does not fit into "mainstream" technologies. I believe that Smalltalk or Smalltalk-like technology will emerge once again...

Btw. GNUstep is trying to bring back Smalltalk in other form than a whole stand-alone environment. It uses Smalltalk as a scripting language that glues objects together and creates not real, but illusion of single object environment. The Smalltalk thingy is included in the StepTalk scripting framework.

More information about Smalltalk based scripting can be found here and on a blog here

I agree with you completely. However, I was thinking why Smalltalk is not in so wide use today. Largest problem of Smalltalk is, that it is too ahead, even at this time... People do not understand it, because it does not fit into "mainstream" technologies. I believe that Smalltalk or Smalltalk-like technology will emerge once again...

Btw. GNUstep is trying to bring back Smalltalk in other form than a whole stand-alone environment. It uses Smalltalk as a scripting language that glues objects together and creates not real, but illusion of single object environment. The Smalltalk thingy is included in the StepTalk scripting framework.

More information about Smalltalk based scripting can be found here and on a blog here

Let's have a look at programming languages http://www.linuks.mine.nu/gnustep/langs.txt

And an excerpt from a book (I can find you the title and ISBN if you want): Although both Objective-C and C++ derive from C, C++ is a systems-level language, whereas Objective-C is an applications-level language. The distinction can be summarized by saying that C++ was designed with program efficiency in mind, while Objective-C is geared more toward programmer efficiency. The difference is substantial--C++ is driven by a philosophy of efficiency and compatibility with existing C which, while necessary for a low-level language, proves quite restrictive in other contexts.

And now, the almighty Allen-Booze study: Quote of the Booz-Allen Study

* took 100+ senior programmers and trained them on NeXTstep, then asked them to write the same app on both NeXT and their previous system.
* First application written was written 2 - 5 times faster.
* Savings were 90%
* 83% less lines of code in the NEXTstep version
* 82% said NeXTstep was better in ALL categories
* It isn't faster to code on NeXTstep; you just have to write less of it. The revolution is "getting rid of software".

more about all this stuff, here: http://livecd.gnustep.org/

• Pick your hardware support carefully. NetBSD is good for this as things either work really well (usually the case), or they aren't supported at all. (I can configure NetBSD to use my Atheros wireless card out of the box using ifconfig. In Linux I have to know to download a beta "Mad Wifi" driver.)
• Concern yourself with building the building block app kits like Apple has done. One of Apple's programming examples is TextEdit, which ships with the OS! Apple is agile because they have all the tinker toys, they just need to glue them together now.
• Work on the Gui integration bits (i.e. wireless network controls, network profiles, video resolutions, printer management, etc) but do it with a cleanly abstracted design. Make sure that each item works flawlessly with a common set of hardware before expanding hardware support or adding features.
• Build a community of app developers who like consistent look and feel and adhere to UI guidelines.
• Take advantage of cross pollination from Apple. Allow app developers to build for StepBSD and Apple reasonably easily.

GNOME and KDE are application development frameworks as much as they are 'Desktops'. It's is therefore ironic that the GNU version of the highly respected Openstep/NeXTSTEP application framework, which by the way is now of course the foundation of Apple's Cocoa/Mac OS X stuff, receives so little coverage or interest.

It seems to me that GNUstep (http://www.gnustep.org/) offers the cleanest framework for application design in Open Source land with a totally Kick-arse development environment etc. etc. etc. Am I the only person that finds it rather odd that so few people use it?

Strangy strangy...

Woah, there's a load of difference between developers supporting a platform and developers releasing a bunch of new binaries to existing customers without charge. Sure, Apple developers are going to recompile their apps, and some of them are going to take advantage of the opportunity to add a few features and make your Intel-native version a paid upgrade. Users who find the overhead incurred by Rosetta are going to come up with the extra cash ( or pirate the native version while cursing the developer, or find a cheaper competing product ).

Either way, few, if any, current OS X developers are going to look at the Intel transition and say "this is way too hard to do with my existing code base, I don't see opportunity here, I'm going to go code for ( Windows/Linux/Solaris/BeOS/SCOUnix/etc ) instead."... That's all that matters for Apple in the long term. In the short term, it's a little annoying for users, and it's an opportunity for enterprising developers to snatch business from competing products by offering better product or cheaper prices to users faced with a paid upgrade, and/or gain user loyalty by providing free Intel Native updates, like some are already doing.

NeXT had OpenStep which was originally going to be pushed forward with OS X, as "Yellow Box" - theoretically, a set of runtime DLLs could have been installed on a Windows box, and the same code could run on either platform. (I don't remember if it was a common binary, fat binary, or recompile).

OpenStep is a specification. GNUStep is an implementation of that specification, which works on Intel now- even Windows if you're willing to use Cygwin or MingW and don't mind an app that doesn't look like a windows app. I never got into OpenStep Toolkit for Windows development ( I *think* that was the implementation ), but if there are DLLs involved, they're probably for windowing and other such similar basic functionality that would be used by any app? The app itself would be a binary, 'fat' only if compiled for multiple platforms of course. If you were careful enough not to use Apple-only features, you could do the same thing with GNUStep today.

Certainly code written in Carbon is going to have no common technology with NeXT. Maybe apps written with Cocoa code take advantage of what used to be Yellow Box.

Other than Altivec code ( which, espeically if older, will almost always need a complete rewrite), Carbon code is going to be the toughest to port to Intel, from what I understand. I'm not talking about single-line carbon library calls, those are probably no problem, I'm talking about Carbon windows, controls, and real serious amounts of legacy stuff. On the other hand, if Microsoft can move Office, everyone else can get going and start moving that Carbon code to Cocoa. It's not hard. Hire me to do it for you. Really. What are you waiting for... I don't waste THAT much time posting to /., I swear...

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing fewer apps with weird Carbon behavior that mistakenly claim the computer is out of memory and don't know the right path name. They're actually pretty rare already, and I'm not going to miss them.

Camaelon 2 brings theme support to GNUstep... check my blog :-)

The Nesedah theme by Jesse Ross is quite nice imho :)

Ok, at the moment Camaelon 2 is not officially released -- that is, I didn't make a tgz because I'd like to fix a few things before, but you can grab it from cvs easily, and the current version works fairly well anyway...

A new GNUstep Live CD will be out in less than a month I'll try to make the release before, in order to have Camaelon 2 on it.

There are always the OPENSTEP/Mach clones. :-)

The Apple stuff is well done, and much applies to GNUStep. The Apple community is the most active, of course.

And actually drivers on the NeXT were written in Objective-C ;-)

Anyway, it's all a problem of using the right tool for the right job. Objective-C is excellent (particularly with AppKit + InterfaceBuilder on OSX, or with GNUstep+Gorm) for creating graphical applications.

If you need a very optimized code, you can do it in C, or C++... and still keep the rest of the app in Objective-C, as Objective-C is just a superset of C, and the Objective-C++ thingy let you mix C++ code an ObjC code in the same place...

But as they say, early optimisation is the root of all evils :-) which is why most of the time you're much better off with a high-level dynamic language than with a low level or static language. My opinion.

Is xcode/Cocoa that big of a breakthrough that I should get a Mac and start hacking on that?

Yes. And once you do, don't forget to go help out the GNUstep project.

The original NeXTSTEP tools were what spawned Borland's cheap knock-offs. And NeXTSTEP/OpenStep/Cocoa has improved massively in the last 17 years while Borland has stood around kicking rocks.

As for Objective-C: I've never understood the lock-the-doors-hide-the-children-run-for-cover-mom my-please-hold-me-I'm-scared attitude some people have had for it. Yes, it uses a different syntax for object-oriented facilities. But that's a good thing: it reminds you that you're not writing procedural code.

If you understand object-oriented techniques and terminology, and you have a grasp of C, you can pick it up in a day or two. And it's very comfortable to use once you start.

instead of just griping about problems with Linux, how it compares to other systems and how everything sucks.

I haven't read a post that really discusses the article and that's a bad sign for Linux because the article is very good. Instead I've read posts that have a lot of off topic negativity in them.

To set up the rest of this post, I have to make a side-track. Your brain has the older, more powerful subconcious and the newer, less powerful conciousness. People who study the mind will know that the way they work together is that "you" ask your subconcious a question and it will come up with an answer.

If you ask a negative question, like why can't I score with chicks, your subconcious mind will think "ah, so not scoring with chicks is the subject" and come up with answers to your questions and will give answers and work towards the goal of not getting laid. This is the mentality I see in this /. topic: "Why does Linux suck so much and why won't it ever get to where it needs to be". Alternatively, asking "How do I get to that spot" in a positive way will get you there without having to force yourself.

Another reason the positive is not discussed (apart from personalities focussing on the negative) is because some people have a subconcious resistance against progress within the Linux community because of the "payoff" they get from having cryptic knowledge. What do I mean? well there are certain advantages you gain by being in the small group that knows the archaic. You'll get an emotional kick when people say: "You're such an expert on Linux/PCs". People even make MONEY from being an expert on the cryptic and naturally, the selfish side of your subconcious will find subtle ways of convincing "you" that sabotaging change in the Linux system is a good thing. This self-delusion is perfectly normal in humans but aren't we striving for something better? Now that you know, please help humankind to go forward by giving humanity an ideal OS in the Free-Source way.

What the community needs to do instead of spouting negativity is to switch the "topic" to the positive, to the ideal situation that we want to end up with. Asking positive "how" questions will give results on the subject of our future Linux (and will make you happier during your life). Fortunately, the article of this topic has already spelled out the how and the ideal system. I'll be dreaming about this future version of Linux and anxiously waiting for the day that it'll be operational.

Linux is created bottom-up by a community of individuals instead of top-down like MacOS X is made by a company "dictator". The way forward, both for mentality of the community and of Linux. we have to spread the right ideals into the the community so that the bottom level of the development process will mostly work into the right, the positive direction which is towards the ideal, towards perfection. This process can only work if I can convince you with this post and that you convince others, the meme will spread from there. That's why people say, improving the world starts with you and that's especially true in the Linux world. THE ARTICLE IS EXCELLENT and is a good meme/link to spread!

Last point I want to make, It's true that PC users, not developers, choose an operating system based on the level of the UI and other high-level things, not on the level of what kind of kernel or what kind of file system is running underneath the things they see on screen. So on the level of Gnome, KDE and Aqua. However, everyone's overlooking GNUstep.
From the article:

1. Installing Applications is complicated
2. Directory structures can be confusing to navigate
3. Interface is confusing and inconsistent
4. Steep learning curve required to understand system functions


Most of these problems will go away if you install GNUstep on top of Linux. GNUstep is not just a thin shell around Linx in the way Gnome and KDE are, it creates a consistent environm

You mean, like GNUstep and Project Center?

You mean, like GNUstep and Project Center?

For Safari to be "a competing application" it would have to be rewritten anyway... to run under X11.

If this is the way you want to look at it then http://www.gnustep.org/

This all aside, many of the most important advantages of WebCore over KHTML are things which Apple really was under no obligation to put into the open source portion of their libraries. Apple could have easily moved the vast bulk of their improvements into closed-source libraries which wrapped KHTML and still fully fulfilled their LGPL obligations under both the letter and spirit of the license. The relative ease with which Safari can be reimplemented given WebCore is a byproduct of Apple's goodwill, not the KHTML licensing.

Objective C has never caught on.

http://developer.apple.com/ http://www.gnustep.org/ http://www.opengroupware.org/ for starters...but anyway, what you may have meant was Objective-C didn't catch on outside the NeXT community, which didn't really matter as NeXT were kindof most interested in its use inside the NeXT community.

The original version's magneto-optical drive was a total disaster (completely unreliable and dog slow), as was the lack of floppy disk (which was important way back in 1990 when it was released, at least in the University segment, where I encountered NeXTs).

And as you say, the original version - meaning there was a rev in which that was fixed (BTW you can fit a floppy drive on an original cube - I should know, I've got four). Actually the ultimate in cubey goodness was to install the OS on a MO disk and install a small hard drive for the swap directory - that way you still got to take your environment around with you in your pocket, but could use some nice fast swapspace. Or just buy dozens of the slabs and leave them all over the place.

Perhaps the biggest problem was the price. At $9,999 it was just too expensive for the consumer

Again, a problem with an early rev - the slabs were cheaper than that. The NeXT was superior in almost every respect to the equivalent from Sun, and the OS and development environments are still superior to many other offerings available today. Given a choice between developing a bespoke app for NeXTOpenCocoaYellowGNUBoxStep or Qt/.NET/Java/GTK+/wxWidgets, I know which side my bread's buttered.

Well, if they create webservices for wikipedia/wiktionary, everybody will be able to use it, not just KDE ... I don't see what will prevent me to write a GNUstep client for example :-)

The GNUstep project http://www.gnustep.org/ is trying to port to Linux (and other platforms) the OpenStep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep specification originally created by NeXT (now Apple).

Right now some of the applications building aroud GNUstep are not very polished but I think this could be the way to go for a Killer Linux Desktop.

This is how Linux distributions should evolve to "survive":

GNUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).

What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with! It's open source and under a Freedom licence. GNUstep aims to be compatible with both the OpenStep specification and with Mac OS X. It should be easy to write an application that compiles cleanly under both GNUstep and Cocoa.

Users only care about user land. They care about where to find files and programs. The choice users make is on the level of KDE, GNOME, GNUStep or Cocoa not on the level of Linux, FreeBSD or Darwin.

- KDE and GNOME are, by comparison, just a thin shell around the underlying kernel. When you use FreeBSD, you will get confronted by FreeBSD. When you use Linux as a kernel, that will shine through in it's own way as well. However, Open/GNUStep create a complete user environment. A stable place for a human to call it's home on the PC. No matter what the underlying kernel is, the user will experience GNUStep.

One of the user land features of GNUStep that both KDE and GNOME do NOT have is application folders/bundles/appfolders. This means that an "installed" program is always completely encased in it's own directory called "program.app". Install the program by just copying one directory/.app file over to your PC. Uninstalling is just as easy. This is so great because it makes the PC so much better to use for a human being.

Traditionally, installing a program meant that the program's files were thrown all over different directories on your PC's hard drive. If you wanted to get rid of your program because it was misbehaving, you'd have to rely on something called an "installer" that had to have a perfect record of where all the individual files were thrown to in the past. This perfect record never happened of course.

This and a couple of other user land things that are really nice, like a standard directory structure which is the same no matter what kind of kernel is running under GNUStep, is why GNUStep will win the fight of becoming part of the ultimate operating system of the future.

- We've all fantasized about the ultimate operating system, and I now know what it will look like, at least for the forseeable future: A NetBSD, OpenBSD or *BSD kernel for their technical excellence and simplicity, GNUStep on top of that and lots and lots of programs ported to that new operating system in neat little ".app" appfolders. (I said ultimate, not only).

- Because Windows, MacOS X and Linux can also host GNUStep, programmers are able to write programs by only keeping in mind the GNUStep Programming Environment. Windows users that want to keep using their Windows games can keep running their usual OS while at the same time get used to the superiour GNUStep way of appfolders, it's GUI and the GNUStep programming language (Objective-C).

Another easy way for people to transition over to the "Ultimate OS" is with Intel processors with the "Lagrande" feature (AMD has something similar). This feature will allow you to run 2 operating systems on 1 processor AT THE SAME TIME. This means you can switch between the "Ultimate OS" and Windows/MacOS X without rebooting. Problem of the world moving over to Freedom and technical excellence is hereby solved.

- The only "tactical choice" that could improve the "Ultimate OS" is the programming language. The new programming language of GNOME (Mono C#) and GNUStep's language (Objective-C) compare like this:

** Deleted a lot of technical stuff **

I would like the GNUStep OS to switch to another programming language because I th

This is how Linux distributions should evolve to "survive":

GNUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).

What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with! It's open source and under a Freedom licence. GNUstep aims to be compatible with both the OpenStep specification and with Mac OS X. It should be easy to write an application that compiles cleanly under both GNUstep and Cocoa.

Users only care about user land. They care about where to find files and programs. The choice users make is on the level of KDE, GNOME, GNUStep or Cocoa not on the level of Linux, FreeBSD or Darwin.

- KDE and GNOME are, by comparison, just a thin shell around the underlying kernel. When you use FreeBSD, you will get confronted by FreeBSD. When you use Linux as a kernel, that will shine through in it's own way as well. However, Open/GNUStep create a complete user environment. A stable place for a human to call it's home on the PC. No matter what the underlying kernel is, the user will experience GNUStep.

One of the user land features of GNUStep that both KDE and GNOME do NOT have is application folders/bundles/appfolders. This means that an "installed" program is always completely encased in it's own directory called "program.app". Install the program by just copying one directory/.app file over to your PC. Uninstalling is just as easy. This is so great because it makes the PC so much better to use for a human being.

Traditionally, installing a program meant that the program's files were thrown all over different directories on your PC's hard drive. If you wanted to get rid of your program because it was misbehaving, you'd have to rely on something called an "installer" that had to have a perfect record of where all the individual files were thrown to in the past. This perfect record never happened of course.

This and a couple of other user land things that are really nice, like a standard directory structure which is the same no matter what kind of kernel is running under GNUStep, is why GNUStep will win the fight of becoming part of the ultimate operating system of the future.

- We've all fantasized about the ultimate operating system, and I now know what it will look like, at least for the forseeable future: A NetBSD, OpenBSD or *BSD kernel for their technical excellence and simplicity, GNUStep on top of that and lots and lots of programs ported to that new operating system in neat little ".app" appfolders. (I said ultimate, not only).

- Because Windows, MacOS X and Linux can also host GNUStep, programmers are able to write programs by only keeping in mind the GNUStep Programming Environment. Windows users that want to keep using their Windows games can keep running their usual OS while at the same time get used to the superiour GNUStep way of appfolders, it's GUI and the GNUStep programming language (Objective-C).

Another easy way for people to transition over to the "Ultimate OS" is with Intel processors with the "Lagrande" feature (AMD has something similar). This feature will allow you to run 2 operating systems on 1 processor AT THE SAME TIME. This means you can switch between the "Ultimate OS" and Windows/MacOS X without rebooting. Problem of the world moving over to Freedom and technical excellence is hereby solved.

- The only "tactical choice" that could improve the "Ultimate OS" is the programming language. The new programming language of GNOME (Mono C#) and GNUStep's language (Objective-C) compare like this:

** Deleted a lot of technical stuff **

I would like the GNUStep OS to switch to another programming language because I th

This is how Linux distributions should evolve to "survive":

GNUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).

What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with! It's open source and under a Freedom licence. GNUstep aims to be compatible with both the OpenStep specification and with Mac OS X. It should be easy to write an application that compiles cleanly under both GNUstep and Cocoa.

Users only care about user land. They care about where to find files and programs. The choice users make is on the level of KDE, GNOME, GNUStep or Cocoa not on the level of Linux, FreeBSD or Darwin.

- KDE and GNOME are, by comparison, just a thin shell around the underlying kernel. When you use FreeBSD, you will get confronted by FreeBSD. When you use Linux as a kernel, that will shine through in it's own way as well. However, Open/GNUStep create a complete user environment. A stable place for a human to call it's home on the PC. No matter what the underlying kernel is, the user will experience GNUStep.

One of the user land features of GNUStep that both KDE and GNOME do NOT have is application folders/bundles/appfolders. This means that an "installed" program is always completely encased in it's own directory called "program.app". Install the program by just copying one directory/.app file over to your PC. Uninstalling is just as easy. This is so great because it makes the PC so much better to use for a human being.

Traditionally, installing a program meant that the program's files were thrown all over different directories on your PC's hard drive. If you wanted to get rid of your program because it was misbehaving, you'd have to rely on something called an "installer" that had to have a perfect record of where all the individual files were thrown to in the past. This perfect record never happened of course.

This and a couple of other user land things that are really nice, like a standard directory structure which is the same no matter what kind of kernel is running under GNUStep, is why GNUStep will win the fight of becoming part of the ultimate operating system of the future.

- We've all fantasized about the ultimate operating system, and I now know what it will look like, at least for the forseeable future: A NetBSD, OpenBSD or *BSD kernel for their technical excellence and simplicity, GNUStep on top of that and lots and lots of programs ported to that new operating system in neat little ".app" appfolders. (I said ultimate, not only).

- Because Windows, MacOS X and Linux can also host GNUStep, programmers are able to write programs by only keeping in mind the GNUStep Programming Environment. Windows users that want to keep using their Windows games can keep running their usual OS while at the same time get used to the superiour GNUStep way of appfolders, it's GUI and the GNUStep programming language (Objective-C).

Another easy way for people to transition over to the "Ultimate OS" is with Intel processors with the "Lagrande" feature (AMD has something similar). This feature will allow you to run 2 operating systems on 1 processor AT THE SAME TIME. This means you can switch between the "Ultimate OS" and Windows/MacOS X without rebooting. Problem of the world moving over to Freedom and technical excellence is hereby solved.

- The only "tactical choice" that could improve the "Ultimate OS" is the programming language. The new programming language of GNOME (Mono C#) and GNUStep's language (Objective-C) compare like this:

** Deleted a lot of technical stuff **

I would like the GNUStep OS to switch to another programming language because I th

This is how Linux distributions should evolve to "survive":

GNUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).

What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with! It's open source and under a Freedom licence. GNUstep aims to be compatible with both the OpenStep specification and with Mac OS X. It should be easy to write an application that compiles cleanly under both GNUstep and Cocoa.

Users only care about user land. They care about where to find files and programs. The choice users make is on the level of KDE, GNOME, GNUStep or Cocoa not on the level of Linux, FreeBSD or Darwin.

- KDE and GNOME are, by comparison, just a thin shell around the underlying kernel. When you use FreeBSD, you will get confronted by FreeBSD. When you use Linux as a kernel, that will shine through in it's own way as well. However, Open/GNUStep create a complete user environment. A stable place for a human to call it's home on the PC. No matter what the underlying kernel is, the user will experience GNUStep.

One of the user land features of GNUStep that both KDE and GNOME do NOT have is application folders/bundles/appfolders. This means that an "installed" program is always completely encased in it's own directory called "program.app". Install the program by just copying one directory/.app file over to your PC. Uninstalling is just as easy. This is so great because it makes the PC so much better to use for a human being.

Traditionally, installing a program meant that the program's files were thrown all over different directories on your PC's hard drive. If you wanted to get rid of your program because it was misbehaving, you'd have to rely on something called an "installer" that had to have a perfect record of where all the individual files were thrown to in the past. This perfect record never happened of course.

This and a couple of other user land things that are really nice, like a standard directory structure which is the same no matter what kind of kernel is running under GNUStep, is why GNUStep will win the fight of becoming part of the ultimate operating system of the future.

- We've all fantasized about the ultimate operating system, and I now know what it will look like, at least for the forseeable future: A NetBSD, OpenBSD or *BSD kernel for their technical excellence and simplicity, GNUStep on top of that and lots and lots of programs ported to that new operating system in neat little ".app" appfolders. (I said ultimate, not only).

- Because Windows, MacOS X and Linux can also host GNUStep, programmers are able to write programs by only keeping in mind the GNUStep Programming Environment. Windows users that want to keep using their Windows games can keep running their usual OS while at the same time get used to the superiour GNUStep way of appfolders, it's GUI and the GNUStep programming language (Objective-C).

Another easy way for people to transition over to the "Ultimate OS" is with Intel processors with the "Lagrande" feature (AMD has something similar). This feature will allow you to run 2 operating systems on 1 processor AT THE SAME TIME. This means you can switch between the "Ultimate OS" and Windows/MacOS X without rebooting. Problem of the world moving over to Freedom and technical excellence is hereby solved.

- The only "tactical choice" that could improve the "Ultimate OS" is the programming language. The new programming language of GNOME (Mono C#) and GNUStep's language (Objective-C) compare like this:

** Deleted a lot of technical stuff **

I would like the GNUStep OS to switch to another programming language because I th

EOF -- an object relational mapper, providing isolation from the database and from the database model -- in particular is very, very nice. Not the final answer to everything, but still quite cool :-)

The sad thing with Apple's current WebObjects is that it's only java (it's even a J2EE environment), while originally (at NeXT) it was Objective-C based (plus WebScript, an ObjC-like script language). They dropped the Objective-C bit with WebObjects 5, sadly (4.5 had ObjC and Java). Well, ok, beeing a J2EE env has its own advantages, but still...

The documentation of WO 4.5 is here, the documentation for the current WO is here.

There is a free software implementation of WebObjects 4.5 from the GNUstep project, GNUstepWeb, which work well. OpenGroupware.org also has its own WO 4.5 implementation, NGObjWeb, which works very well too (it's the foundation of SOPE). I wrote an article showing how to do simple (html) components, but it's in french ;-)

Though, if you want to discover a really interesting project, have a look to Seaside. It's inspired by WebObjects, with an excellent component model, but is even better (support of continuations, etc). And it's completely dynamic, letting you change things at runtime easily (Smalltalk rulez ;-). It's one of the best thing I know :-)

.NET
Cocoa

"Take a look at gnustep. It is quite advanced, now."

Yep. We're hoping that we can use GnuStep to ship a MacOS X application on Linux, etc. ( http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Us er/GNUstep/machines_toc.html .

"Take a look at gnustep. It is quite advanced, now."

Yep. We're hoping that we can use GnuStep to ship a MacOS X application on Linux, etc. ( http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Us er/GNUstep/machines_toc.html .

Linux community should take another look at GnuSTEP. It's an open source implementation of OpenSTEP which is the base for Cocoa.

It could on the other hand be good for Linux. Load up GNUstep add a bit of code to the Linux kernel to run OSX binaries and it's conceivable that you could have OSX apps running natively on Linux under a very OSX like interface. Hang on, why would I need a Mac then?

It has been said a million times and no one listens, and yet one feels compelled to keep trying by stating the obvious. In order to compete with the Mac on the desktop, all the Linux community has to do is to get behind GNUstep. This will make porting of applications from the Mac to Linux much easier. There are probably many tasks for which Linux is better suited than the Mac, and for developers who originally write applications for the Mac, a ready and waiting OpenStep library is a good incentive to port if they determine Linux is a more appropriate platform for what they're trying to do.

The Linux world really had better start getting its head out of the MS Windows. Linux people are way too Microsoft-centric (.Net, C#, blah, blah, blah).

Back in the OS 9 days, a company called connectix (bought by MS) created a product for the mac called "vitural playstation". It allowed your mac to play playstation games. It was cool and worked well on the hardware of the day (around 400 mhz?) . Life was good.

Then someone pointed out, OMG, if this software get s better than noone will write Mac games (mac games were few and far between), because you could just buy a virtual playstation and playstation games.

It never happened. People still created mac games as emulated while fine, wasn't as good.Sony sued connectix and lost and ended up buying the virtual playstation and deep sixing it. Connectix went on create virtual PC and get purchased by MS (insert speculation about xbox 2 emulation here)

Native apps matter. They look and feel better. itunes is a mac app on windows and at work it looks and feels wierd on Windows, even though it acts like a normal mac app. (I'm os agnostic, I regularly us Mac (home) Solaris/Hp-ux and windows (work).

What would be cool is a port of the Mac libraries to linux (GNUSTEP http://www.gnustep.org/ ) so one could write mac/linux apps.

There is an open source implementation of Cocoa, GNUStep: http://www.gnustep.org/.

They try to keep up to date with Apple's changes to the API as much as they possible can.

Your main point is that more existing x86 software will be available on OSX either through emulation or recompilation.

Well, the same is true the other side as well. Once OSX applications come in the form of x86 binaries, it will be possible to run them on Linux or Windows.

A rough implementation of Cocoa, the most important part from the application side, already exists through GNUstep. And Cocoa doesn't change as rapidly as the various Windows-APIs. Thus it will be higly likely, that a WINE-like implementation of the Mac OS X API will allow us to run Mac applications on Linux!

GNUStep may arise to be a considerable competitor to KDE, GNOME and even Apple! WHo knows. The coming times will certainly be interesting.

It will also be fun to watch MAC zealots deny and undo all their previos anit-x86 propaganda and pro PPC apolegetics. Mhz myth anyone? Well, Steve Jobs talked about Mhz/Watt already.

http://www.gnustep.org/

Problem solved.

Try this and either this or this: it's not quite the real thing, but it's as near as you're going to get for the time being. And you will certainly get to "dump Windows but not all of your hardware".

Yeah, the FreeBSD part is a "kernel within a kernel" (kind of like the executive in Windows NT). And of course, there actually is an x86 port of the whole mess. It doesn't come with the GUI jazz, but if you slap on GNUStep, you've basically got a NeXT box, which ain't a bad start.

As for Apple entering the x86 arena full-force, don't look forward to it. I don't think Apple is eager to compete in the same razor-thin margin market that even IBM couldn't turn a profit on. Competing with Dell is dumb. Competing with Microsoft is dumb too; I'd rather see Apple relegated to perpetual niche status than perpetual death status like Be was or NeXT nearly was.

And the hardware's pretty nice in its own right too.

It would seem you totally got the wrong idea what my post was all about. In no event would I encourage anyone to steal code. My message was and still is this ...

Don't expect Apple to provide a free lunch. Instead, if you want to have a meal that's not on the menu, go to another restaurant or stay at home and cook for yourself.

Let me say this once again ... those who want OSX technologies on x86 have it pretty good. Apple have made their core OS available as open source and there is even a binary installation kit for x86. In addition, their primary API is based on an open standard, OPENSTEP, for which there is an open source implementation, even including development tools that are comparable to Apple's. If anybody wants to roll their own, they don't have to start from scratch, they can jump right in and contribute towards completing any missing bits.

Instead of fantasising about stealing Apple's code, jokingly or not, you should rather be grateful that Apple has made it fairly straightforward for anyone committed enough to use and replicate OSX technologies on other platforms if they wish.

So, by all means, I encourage you, go ahead, install Darwin x86 and GNUstep on your PC and contribute to the project.

http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Use r/GNUstep/README.Darwin

Sure, this means you have to do some work and I agree it would be nice if there was an ISO CD image from which x86 PC owners could install both Darwin x86 and GNUstep all in one go so they could more easily give this a try and perhaps become supporters of the project. Then again, there is nothing that stops you or anyone else from building such an ISO CD image and make it available.

"wouldnt it be nice it they made OSX for a x86"

But they do, they just don't sell it.

In an interview last year, an Apple executive confirmed that an x86 port of OSX, aka Marklar does exist in Apple's labs and that they are keeping it on par with PPC development.

Before the release of the G5, Steve Jobs said in another interview that they do not plan to move to x86 but that they like to keep their options open.

If you take these two statements and add one and one together, it should become obvious that they have no intent to change their business model from making and selling "hardware including software" to "software including hardware" or even "software only". In other words, Marklar is just an insurance policy against unpredictable disaster scenarios where Apple would be forced to move to another CPU and as a result, Apple have a stronger negotiating position with IBM.

Consequently, for as long as IBM do a good job on fostering PPC, for as long as PPC is competitive, Apple have very little reason to move.

And should they ever decide to move, or should they decide to offer OSX on x86 in addition to PPC, their business model will almost certainly remain the same, meaning OSX will continue to be made to run on Apple hardware only, regardless of CPU compatibility.

So, you would then see an x86 Mac with exactly the same treats as today, from OpenFirmware to Apple's own motherboard designs, not compatible with other x86 hardware. In fact, such an x86 Mac might even have a custom x86 CPU, made only for Apple, ie bolted on AltiVec compatible SIMD. Without specific hacks, OSX would not run on other x86 machines. Likewise, Windows would probably not run on such an x86 Mac without some extra software from Microsoft, eg. Virtual PC or Mac/x86. Such an arrangement would also likely have Microsoft continue MS-Office development for the Mac - even more reason for Apple to choose such a path if they ever were to go x86.

So, whether or not Apple will release OSX on x86, if you want OSX on non-Apple x86 hardware, you will almost certainly have to rig your own.

Mind you, you can do this within limits already today. Darwin, the core of OSX, is available for x86 and it's a free download ...

http://www.opendarwin.org/en/downloads

You can get GNUstep and run it on top of Darwin x86

http://www.gnustep.org

GNUstep is the GNU implementation of OPENSTEP, the foundation on which Cocoa is build. In addition, GNUstep has some, but not all of the things Apple has added, so you get Cocoa compatibility within limits. This is as close as you can get OSX on x86 today. It's free, but it requires a little more effort than an OSX installation on a Mac. And if you want the OSX eye candy, you will also need to do a bit of DIY. If you do, consider becoming a contributor to the GNUstep project.

Thus, it comes down to paying a little extra for convenience or save some money and put in some work. You can't have it both ways. Remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

So, frankly, you won't save time by learning Cocoa#, to the contrary. Plus, Objective-C is a very cool object-oriented language (object-oriented in the sense of Smalltalk, not in the sense of C++ !), just the minimum additions to enable OOP on top of C. Neat.

By the way, don't forget the GNUstep project, a free software implementation of the OpenStep API, with Gorm, an equivalent to IB ! and all that runs on *nix, linux, mac and windows..

Until there is a port of Cocoa for other platform then it's useless for me.

That would be here.

Remember that gcc has Objective-C support only because NeXT was forced to abide by the GNU GPL.

It doesn't have nethack or jumpnbump! the GNUstep Live CD also has Firefox 1.0 (which I'd rather call Heavyelephant) and Linux kernel 2.6. GNUstep implements the Foundation and Application Kit defined in the OpenStep specification, released 10 years ago. NetHack really is a fine game, one that is more exciting than any other game I have ever seen. You should give it a try, for a week at least. Another fine game is MTP Target. A lot of great fun, try it in the evenings CET.

GNUstep GNUstep

GNUstep GNUstep

It's really great, have a try: http://livecd.gnustep.org

There are also problems with the lack of development on Xfree which is only now being addressed by xorg, but that will take time to get to anything like Mac/NextStep/Cocca

GNUstep, and we already have (thanks to using X) a client-server mechanism; something lacking in Aqua and badly implemented in NeXTSTEP. What's needed is for GNUstep to become easier to deploy and get more apps available - unfortunately because KDE and GNOME are already out there people are using them as the 'good enough' alternative. Just as Linux is the already out there, 'good enough' alternative to the HURD/Trix.