Slashdot Mirror
The NeXT-Best Thing: GNUSTEP 0.9.4 Live CD
roard writes "Following the NeXT tradition with mixed case, GNUSTEP is a live CD/distribution while GNUstep is an implementation of the OpenStep API. GNUSTEP is based on Morphix, and uses the GNUstep libraries and GNUstep-based applications to provide a NeXTSTEP-like environment that people can easily test and use. This new 0.9.4 release comes 8 months since the precedent 0.5 release, and brings a lot of new GNUstep applications with it, as well as an upgrade of the GNUstep libraries and the development tools. In other news, a small demonstration of GNUstep development tools is available in Flash or divx. The old dream of having a GNU OS with Hurd and an OpenStep implementation doesn't seems that far now ;)"
i'Ve aLWaYs wOndEReD.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
is not divx, its mpeg(1 or 2, haven't finished downloading yet)
Candle burns its brightest in the dark
Does Hurd have anything to do with this? (Can't get to the article). I don't see how this brings the Hurd closer to "release", any more that it does Duke Nukem Forever.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
with a really small patch to libobjc,
available in a gcc/libobjc bug report.
Microkernel, unix-like userspace, Nextstep-based application development?
Right here.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
This UI and development environment seems so much better than the standard KDE/GNOME stuff, I've always wondered why this was not championed as a default desktop environment for Linux. There is also some OS X compatibility there as well as far as getting a single code base to compile for both environments. That, the unified display postscript, the great development environment, etc. seem to make it a natural and *sane* front end to the otherwise fragmented UI world of Linux.
With the relative compatibility to the OS X/OPENSTEP libraries and code re-use, there could be a real network effect by making this a default environment for Linux and other Unixes.
Makes me want to play with GNUstep. Only 2 lines of code for this simple app. The rest was built with the GUI, cool.
People should not fear what they do not understand; people should fear because they do not understand.
Thanks Department of Physics, ETHZ, GNUSTEP-i386-0.9.4.iso
Thanks inode.at and Robe GNUSTEP-i386-0.9.4.iso
Thanks Lyle E. Dodge, GNUSTEP-i386-0.9.4.iso
Thanks Philipp, GNUSTEP-i386-0.9.4.iso
Thanks Daniel Aubry, GNUSTEP-i386-0.9.4.iso
Thanks Peter Samuelson, GNUSTEP-i386-0.9.4.iso
Windoze not found: (C)heer, (P)arty or (D)ance
It WAS championed as the default for GNU, like 10 years ago. Except it took forever go get usable, has like three serious developers and very few applications, and therefore is almost entirely useless to the end user. As for OS X compatibility, name one OS X program that has been ported to GNUStep. Thought not.
If you want an evironment where The Voice Of God comes down and tells everyone stop their C/C++ crap and go write Objective C programs, use OS X. It's never going to happen with Linux.
I just wanted to note that this was created based on morphix using a tool called ibuild that eases creation of Linux LiveCDs.
Wow, I really appreciate the Borland/Delphi/Kylix/C++ Builder/JBuilder IDE now. Even the VB ide was easier to build a gui app in.
I was just looking at OpenStep/GNUstep/Cocoa stuff before browsing Slashdot today, and I came here to search for old GNUstep articles. Interesting....
Anyways, GNUstep sounds like a very interesting platform. I have always been fond of NEXTSTEP and Mac OS X, and I have been curious about Objective-C and Cocoa. GNUstep gives me an opportunity to learn Objective-C and the OpenStep specification, before I switch to Mac OS X. I seem very impressed by the development environment, and as soon as I build up my C programming skills and learn Objective-C, I'll be developing programs, too.
I only wish, though, that GNUstep was a bit more popular among developers. GNUstep seems to lack programs such as web browsers, word processors, and spreadsheets. Porting applications such as Firefox, Abiword, and Gnumeric, for example, would be difficult because those applications are written in C++, not in C. (GNUstep still doesn't support Objective-C++, because of some difficulties that Apple and GCC has with Apple's Objective-C++ implementation). Even so, I feel that GNUstep has the potential to become a very powerful and influential platform for developers. If it can build its developer base and developers start building applications that are just as good, or better, than what NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP offered, just imagine the possibilities....
- Adding the ability for GORM to parse XML
.nib files from Interface builder. - Compiling GORM on OS X linked against Cocoa rather than GNUstep and using it to create Cocoa
.nib files directly.
At least one of these should be possible in the next few months.The Windows port more or less works (transparency in images is broken. Everything else seems to work). Additionally there is a bundle (not yet in the release) which creates Windows-style menu bars instead of GNUstep ones for use on platforms like Windows, KDE and GNOME which are designed by people with no clue about Fitts' Law.
Additionally, Cameleon, the theme engine developed by the article submitter is nearing completion (it's been ready in the next week since the middle of January), and it will eventually be tied in with native theme engines for other desktop environments (including Windows) to give a completely native look for GNUstep apps.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm waiting for the MP/M LiveCD!
really, it looks terrible.
it is a good framework, and brilliantly implemented in OS X... but this GNU look is really awful! they need artists... LOTS of artists.
i could barely even follow the demo as the IDE and general look of the thing was so confusing and horrible that i wasn't able to even see where the obvious buttons were to press.
they may be doing wonders with implementing the whole framework... but it needs polish.
That demo is pretty nifty. But still too much typing: not just to bind the object interfaces to each other, but also in the controller coding. Is there any way to draw flowchart-style graphical indicators between object interface GUI representations? And any way to drag/drop primitives like the "*" and "=" operators into scopes of objects, much like drag/dropping the GUI textfields into their group? Finally, does it run on Linux ;)?
--
make install -not war
GNUmail.app is one app that runs on both OS X and GNUstep. I've seen a small handful of others. However, there are some hurdles in porting an OS X app to GNUstep- if you use any Quartz compositing, it just won't work, for one. Or if you use any Carbon convenience functions, or any number of other non-OpenStep APIs that exist within OS X.
But you are quite right in the last part. No way will your average Linux h4ck3r drop C/C++ and go to ObjC. A shame, as ObjC is a lot nicer, but it just won't happen.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Opener, to name one. ASTrojan to name abother. Why is there OSX antivirus software? (Which I'll admit is useless, because viruses aren't a real threat on OSX, even if they exist)
/= Virus. Look it up.
Trojan
There are two trojans and NO VIRUSES. Opener does NOT self replicate, nor does it use any vulnerabilities (you have to deliberately execute it and then type in your password for it to install itself). Therefore it is NOT a virus.
And there are many OS 9 viruses, and Word Macro viruses (not a threat to OS X, but a thread to your Word documents), which explains the OS X antivirus software.
But the fact remains, there are no viruses. There is only two trojans, both of which require you to install them yourself.
Actually SCO is after IBM for breach of contract, all the stuff about copyright breach and putting stuff into Linux has been dropped. That is, SCO claim IBM put stuff in Linux that they shouldn't have, but the stuff they alledgedly put in was still owned by IBM, the question is whether IBM was breaching its contract with SCO by putting that code in, not whether that code can legally be in Linux.
I do, however, have two minor criticisms.
Firstly, please, please update the look-and-feel. If you want to be taken seriously, don't look like a reject from the 80s. Given GNUsteps modularity, this should be easy enough to do. So, do it. (Tip: application icons should always have labels, because since they're supposed to be unique you can pretty much guarantee they're going to be unfamiliar to someone.)
Secondly, I didn't see any support for layout management in Gorm --- that application was constructed by just placing absolute-sized objects at absolute positions in a window. Please tell me this isn't how you design all applications... because that way leads to inflexible, unscalable, uncustomisable applications, and there's no excuse for that any more. Fixed layouts mean you can't let the user change fonts, because different fonts are different shapes (you can't just scale linearly). Fixed layouts mean wasted screen estate (remember the old Mac file browser dialogues that would float a tiny, eight-line scrollable list in the middle of a 21" monitor?). Fixed layouts are just wrong.
The appearance is only skin deep. Creating a theme that looks "good"? That's easy, get some graphic designers together with a usability safety inspector.
Writing a complete framework with rich, well thought-out object libraries? Now that is a feat. GNUStep is a lurker project that is getting close to hitting critical mass. They've got the hard stuff done that others are still swinging at but not quite hitting.
No, the GNUStep people have been much more concerned with laying sewer lines, roadways, electrical grids, water, gas, etc. When they get around to picking the color for their street signs, it'll be good.
Some work is already going into theming.
Now that GNUStep is getting really close to being complete, I hope they look at Cairo as a base for doing something similar to Quartz.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
As for OS X compatibility, name one OS X program that has been ported to GNUStep.
There's many more than one.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I have to disagree with you on the UI. It looks really ugly. Like, motif-level ugly. I'm sure it's all just themes, but open one of those apps and open a default kde app along side it and tell me the user is going to choose that one. If they want this to be a serious choice for end users, they're going to have to stick some sheen on it.
I am trolling
You sure 'bout that?
And as far as viruses, if you think that something that requires active user input and a password to run, then all UNIX-type systems are vulnerable thusly:
sudo rm -rf
Save that with executable permission and send it to your Linux-using buddies, see what happens when they run it. But it ain't a virus.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/
This is developed (apparently) by folks from Intel. It's just that nobody can't be bothered to include it into the kernel.
ACPI spec is publicly available, but nobody can be bothered to fully implement it.
Finally, nice examples of UI are available even within OSS community, yet every distro out there ships with UI that was, it seems, put together by a teenager.
I've always like NeXT and Windowmaker much better than Gnome and definitely better than KDE (sorry K-guys, it's waaaaay too much like Windows).
In fact, even Gnome is too much like Windows; even tho it does incorporate some OS X like features as well. But it also seems too fragile and it seems to be going more along the lines of C# dev, which I'm definitely not partial to (it's a mistake guys!).
Obviously, I feel that NeXT/OpenStep got a lot of things goin in the right direction. Turning away from the copy-all-Windows-features mindset seems to be the more logical choice. Will Gnome and KDE still exist? Absolutely. But Windowmaker - regardless of its sometimes slow development pace - is much more of a joy to use than whatever the current default Gnome window mananger is.
I spent many years developing in a Windowmaker environment and they were quite productive. That time changed the way I looked at using my desktop and even though I've switched to OS X, I can still tweak it to work like Windowmaker. So I'll have to second it as the official desktop env for Linux, hands down.
Why do most open source programmers always seem to have the tendency to go with oppressive dark UI colours? It's not cool and it's not pretty. It's along the lines of someone creating their first webpage, complete with black background and white text.
I wasn't that impressed by the demo either. Maybe I'm not "with it" enough to see the beauty in all this point-and-click programming, but I think I could have written the same demo app in Java/Swing in about half the time. And I'm by no means an expert Java programmer.
You could not have. Pointing out your lack of experience doesn't help your argument. Spend a few minutes developing for GNUSTEP/NeXTSTEP/MacOS X or whatever, and see what it actually does and how to use it, and you'll realize why people who are ``with it'' get excited about this kind of stuff. What I've found is that I will spend extra time getting my UI to be perfect (IB lets you not only define your UI in shape, actions, resizing, etc..., but also try it out to see how it acts when its resized, or how the buttons click, etc...).
MacOS X is definitely the direction to follow in software development. Native apps built in xcode with ZeroLink and even dynamic code replacement (i.e. smalltalk-style bug fixing from the debugger without restarting your app). So, no time spent linking, but you can use an arbitrarily large and automatically discovered compile farm while developing rich MVC apps quickly and easily.
Also, see what happens when more palettes are completed. If they had the WebKit palette, for example, they could've done a demo where they created a full-featured web browser in the same time (you can do this on MacOS X with *no* code). In the video that was going around of a NS 3.3 demo in 1992 by Steve Jobs, he created a pretty decent graphical employee database application in just a couple of minutes that would allow you to look up departments (with pictures), and look through the list of employees within that department (with pictures of the employees). Again, with no code.
The openstep objects are great to work with, though. I just ported an app from python to objective C just so I could use the URL loading kit from cocoa. That is a particular thing missing from gnustep that I'd like to get ported over (although, it may be part of the webkit that Apple was working in open source).
I've worked in quite a few GUI kits (raw X11, Motif, tk, awt, swing, morphic, nextstep, probably more I can't think of), and I can assure you the objective C MVC kit wins hands-down so far.
Anyway, give it a shot before you say it's pointless. It's very impressive and has huge potential.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
This should help you out.
http://ceu.fi.udc.es/SAL/G/4/WINGZ.html
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Well, I'd rather go with the GNUstep vision of duplicating and improving on OS X, than the KDE/GNOME vision of duplicating Windows...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"If you want an evironment where The Voice Of God comes down and tells everyone stop their C/C++ crap and go write Objective C programs, use OS X. It's never going to happen with Linux."
This comes off a lot like, "who cares if it's better, we're all used to something worse and we plan on sticking with it." Which is very much the same argument made by Windows advocates against Linux.
And this does not sum up the attitude of a lot of Linux users? What if it was stated like this:
"Who cares if it's better, we're all used to the same tools we had 30 years ago and we plan on sticking with them."
[[Non-troll disclaimer:]]
Yes, this is a broad generalization. No, it doesn't describe every Linux/Unix user. Yes, there is still a lot of truth in it.
The OP has it right. It's impossible to enforce a development environment or methodology (or pretty much any standard) unless either you control the platform (like Apple does), or there's already a de facto standard in place (C programming, for instance).
Java: the bastard demon spawn of C++ and Ada
How about this:
4 4.png
4 3.png 4 2.png 4 1.png
http://www.roard.com/screenshots/screenshot_theme
or that:
http://www.roard.com/screenshots/screenshot_theme
http://www.roard.com/screenshots/screenshot_theme
http://www.roard.com/screenshots/screenshot_theme
and so on
While you may be right, I feel obligated to point out that your "vendor shipments" data is pretty much completely useless when one is discussing a Free OS like Linux or the BSDs, because, put simply, there is no simple indicator for the amount of instances deployed.
With Mac OS X, simply looking at how many units Apple shipped will tell you how many people are adopting Mac OS X. It's quite an accurate indicator and it can be trusted.
With Linux, there are many commercial distributions (Red Hat, SuSE, etc) as well a number of wildly popular free ones (Debian, Slackware). You can buy servers with these pre-installed, but I would be surprised if most Linux deployments were obtained this way. As there are no restrictions on redistribution of GPL'd code (unless changes have been made, obviously, in which case those changes must be made available), how many instances of say, Red Hat Linux sold will tell you nothing whatever about how many systems actually run the OS.
Even with Windows, it's difficult to say; Windows comes pre-installed on most systems whether you want it or not. While I wouldn't expect that a startlingly large percentage of Windows machines have their OS replaced immediately after being bought, it is undeniable that a number of them do (my laptop, for example, came with Windows XP, but now runs Debian). Again, I'm not saying we're a huge percentage -- but we are a percentage.
Really, Mac OS X is pretty much the only OS on the market today whose deployment can be accurately measured with unit shipments (although I don't doubt that there are some people out there that would buy PPC hardware and run Linux or *BSD -- I would, no offense to OS X).
So basically, Apple being the world's largest vendor of UNIX means only that Apple sells more UNIX than any other company -- which means nothing with respect to Linux, and IIRC, at least currently, there are more Linux boxes than there are Mac OS X boxes, by a long shot (although I wouldn't be surprised, given Apple's rising popularity, if this were to change in the near future).
Anyway, I'm not disparaging the Macintosh, or your facts, just pointing out that your argument is pretty much non sequitur in this context. If you were comparing Apple to say, Sun, you'd be much more on the mark.