Slashdot Mirror
Simply GNUstep Delivers UNIX, Simply
Eugenia writes "A new, Linux-based operating system released recently, called Simply GNUstep and it is based on the GNUstep architecture, originally built by NeXT (OpenSTEP) and is now also used by MacOSX (Cocoa). The alpha version of the x86-based OS is available for download and boots off the 110 MB bootable CD. The cool thing about Simply GNUstep is its partial source compatibility with MacOSX programs (further compatibility is still worked on) and its clean infrastructure, as it only includes GnuSTEP graphical applications like WindowMaker, Mail.app etc. You can read an introduction article of the OS at OSNews."
This is almost what I want.
_ __
I am getting tired of my Gnome and KDE. I am starting to long for the days when I used WindowMaker, Postilion and FSviewer together with a cobbled up list of other xapps to get my job done simply.
The problems are paramount. Fsviewer barely works on my updated SuSE 7.3 Postilion does not like my cutting edge versions of tcl/tk and I am not yet ready to give up the laundry list of apps I need to do business for a barebones environment. Plus, I like unified look and feel that I get with say KDE or Gnome.
If I got a distribution with a laundry list of apps centered around those apps with a Nextish look and feel then I would be a happy man.
The problem with Simply GNUstep is that it is what it says it is. It is Linux with GNUstep already built and configured but it has nothing else.
If it was supplemented with other X apps with a Next feel or gtk apps with a Next theme maybe into a usable package then I think I would be in love.
_______________________________________________
ACK
That's not meant as a flame. I'm just curious why they chose Linux instead of a BSD. I don't exactly care to follow the licensing terms behind all the different open/free software so I'm unaware if that's an issue, but using a BSD would seem to be a wiser choice being that they're "trying" to get an OS X on x86.
I dunno.
No sig for you!!
I remember trying to get GnuStep to work a few months back. The code compiled pretty cleanly, and I played around a bit with the development framework for GNUStep (which is rather cool btw, makes writing build files for apps extremely clean, and ObjectiveC is an extremely nice language).
I just wish there was a better way of integrating GNUStep, KDE, and Gnome. I really think a concerted effort by all three teams to support a common base (common component interfaces, clipboard, look&feel configuration files) would be beneficial for all involved.
GNUStep brings with it a good, tried&true development framework.
KDE & Gnome are both more evolved, with more and better applications.
Getting these to work together would be a worthwhile proposition.
-Laxitive
Looks like it is x86 for now. Anyone know if they are aiming for a PPC version as well?
Of course that may be a bit pointless given you can get Mac OS X which is more mature, but it would still be interesting to see it.
What willbe really interesting is if this becomes kine of like a "Mine", allowing PC users to run some select Mac OS X software along with their Linux apps. Think of this as a way for Apple to take a more back door foray into the x86 world, to expand use of Apple's software and show people how cool some of Apple's software on the Mac is by getting iTunes and such to run on this thing. It would certainly give PC users who used this (who I admit would likely not be your run of the mill PC user) a taste of Apple's world without them having to go out and purchase a Mac right away.
Maybe wishful thinking, but any alternative to the current status quo (i.e. Windows) is welcome at this point even if it doesn't do all I hope it eventually can.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
based on the GNUstep architecture, originally built by NeXT (OpenSTEP) and is now also used by MacOSX (Cocoa).
The above is wrong. The original NeXT Computer OS was called NeXTSTEP (notice capitalisation--it's important in what follows). When NeXT Computer ditched hardware, it became "NeXT Software", and spun off it's OS (in the 3.x version) into a cross platform OS called OpenStep (4.x).
This OS was to run on Sun, Intel and NeXT boxes. The API was modified, and made public (the API, not implementation).
This API specification was called OPENSTEP (capitalisation differs from the NeXT Software OS name).
GNUStep is therefore based on the OPENSTEP specification. No other permutation of name and inheritance is correct.
I downloaded the ISO and tried to boot into it. Immediately the kernel fb support gave an "unsupported display mode" error. I checked the available modes and there was nothing but text modes available. I have a Matrox G400, which is very well supported by the kernel framebuffer drivers. In fact I use the fb console at 1024x768 on my real linux installation without problems.
The startup looked interesting, at any rate. It failed to detect my NIC (a pretty standard DEC Tulip card) and gave a few other errors I can't remember. Then it tried to run X, but since it was configured to use the framebuffer driver, which wasn't working, it choked. Needless to say if they had at least allowed the option of using the XFree86 accelerated drivers, it would have been fine, but they don't. So then the system shut itself down. This worked ok, except their kernel is compiled without APM support, so it didn't actually turn itself off.
Oh well. I'll try it again later, seems like a decent idea really.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
People with this holier than thou attitude really need a reality check. Why does not having a TV make you a better person? I have a TV, but I don't waste every waking minute in front of it. Still, it does me good to be in on the pop culture of our times. Without a TV I wouldn't be as much a part of US society. But if you don't want a TV, I applaud that. Just don't go hyping how awesome you are for not having a TV.
Same thing goes for you. You make this implication that the second Linux became profitable and useable by the masses of computer geeks, it became not elitist. And so when BSD reaches this point, where it becomes massively accepted and useful for many things, will you then decide it too is not elite enough for you?
Is Microsoft Windows the greatest? No. Is Linux the greatest? No. Is MacOS the greatest? No. Is BSD the greatest? No. Every single one has something about them that someone doesn't like. Personally, I'm really learning to love linux, but it's taking time. Will I tell others how I think Linux is generally better for a lot of productivity and security things? Yes. Will I try cramming it down their throats how brain-dead and worthless everything about MS Windows is? No, not unless I feel like being a real ass.
BTW, good job with making this post a subtle enough troll not to get you modded down as such. Too bad people actually modded it up.
NeXTstep is state-of-the-art GUI design, circa. 1985-1990. At the time, it was easily 10 years ahead of anything else available.
:-)
:-) years ago.
But here we are 17 years later, and everyone has finally had a chance to catch up. (Except for Apple, who is now a good 5 years ahead of everyone else by basing their system on NeXTstep
The beauty of NeXTstep was the underlying Objective-C APIs and the dev tools. Amazing, simply amazing. The "build a text editor in under 1 minute without even compiling" example was always a winner.
Using GNUstep w/ WindowMaker is pretty close to the look of NeXTstep, but just seems to be lacking in the "feel" department (that from running GNUstep on my PC, right next to NeXTstep on my 68040 NeXTstation.)
Of course, that was over a year ago, so things might have changed a lot with GNUstep/WIndowMaker since then.
If you can get yourself a NeXT machine cheap, go for it. Heck, you might even be able to find an old Intel of HP machine with NeXTstep on it. But don't expect it to be a dailt use machine. I recently picked up a Mac Classic at a garage sale for the same reason: it's fun to remember what computers were like just a few (well, 12-15
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
If this is a Linux based system, will RMS flame us is we don't call it GNU/Linux/GNUStep?
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
That said, Objective-C also has many fine attributes, and has never gained the popularity it deserves. Objective-C (gcc is Apple's Obj-C compiler also) is fully compiled and has great legacy compatibility with C, both desirable attributes when compared with Java. There are other tradeoffs between the languages, but Objective-C looks like a great Java alternative in certain circumstances. It also looks like a fun 'recreational language' for side projects.
I was considering one of the new iMacs anyhow, it's good to see that much code might port to an open source setting also! :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Think about it, build Gnustep over Darwin x86 and you have... A Frankenstein's monster version of Mac OS X for x86.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
It's not just coincidence that having the menu appear below the pointer is a lot faster, or that buttons along the edge are faster to access because you can't overshoot. This phenomena is an example of Fitts' Law (check out usability guru Bruce Tognazinni's article here ). One of the ways that GNUstep truly thrashes KDE usability-wise is that the GNUstep environment has really large buttons often with text right under the icon. By the nature of their size, these buttons can be accessed with a mouse far faster than the really tiny toolbar buttons you often see in other desktop environments. The labels for the buttons also give a clear indication as to what action the button performs; there is no need for the user to try and decipher what a particular icon stands for.
KDE, on the other hand, blindly copies microsoft's system of extremely tiny, unlabelled toolbar buttons that have extremely slow mouse access times and extremely small and cryptic icons whose true nature can only be discovered by either clicking on the toolbar button and possibly performing a destructive task or painstakingly holding the mouse over the toolbar button for several unbearable seconds to get the tooltip. "But Microsoft spends zillions of dollars on usability research" some say. And they spend tens of zillions on security research with results just as good. Microsoft is by far the most frequent inductee into the user interface hall of shame , and such windows UI shennanigans as multi-level tabs, window in window MDI, and Window XP/2000's dynamic menus have been frequently and harshly criticized in the UI design community. "But Windows users coming to Linux will be familiar with lots of really tiny, confusing, toolbar buttons with slow access times" they say. Windows users are certainly familiar with the Blue Screen of Death--maybe we should put stuff in the linux kernel to make it crash so they'll feel right at home. Yes, I know that there are options in KDE to have icons and text appear together. But this is not done by default. And probably 90% of users end up using the default which is installed with their application/OS. If you don't believe me, just ask Netscape. In the cold, hard reality of end-user desktop UI design, not doing something by default is really the same thing as not doing it.
I challenge the KDE Usability project to, by default, give KDE have large, labelled toolbar buttons that are fast to access and easy to understand. They of course don't have to take this challenge; some people would prefer linux not to get on the desktop.
I've got to run to work (I'm late!), but if one of you could please put a post on the slashdot article explaining the problem I would be very
/., your project has
l
thankful!
It seems I broke a rule at sourceforge which limits file sizes to 100MB
If someone could offer a mirror site I would be very thankful for that as well!
Thanks! Chad
Here's what sourceforge had to say
--------------
Greetings,
My name is ********; I am the Quality of Service Manager for
SourceForge.net. This message is directed to you since you are
designated as a project administrator for the Simply GNUstep project on
SourceForge.net.
First, we would like to take a moment to congratulate you on your recent
press exposure on Slashdot.org -- we love to see Open Source projects
succeed, and press exposure of this nature is always of great benefit.
Since the announcement of your project efforts on
received roughly 2241 downloads of the ISO image provided through your
download page at: http://simplygnustep.sourceforge.net/Download.htm
It has come to our attention that you are making use of SourceForge.net
project web services as a mechanism to release file materials in excess
of 100MB in size. Each project hosted on SourceForge.net is provided
with project web services as to ensure that they may adequately provide
an online description and information regarding their project.
... etc
Sourceforge has a policy of not allowing DLs of files over 100MB, I broke that limit with my 110MB ISO image, so they took read access form the file to everybody but me.
If someone would like to offer a mirror I would appreciate it very much!
Chad Hardin