 |
 |
GNUStep +Darwin=Open OS X
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: nyc
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Except for the fact that GNUstep is in extremely early stages of development and hardly anything works yet. Or so I hear. And it CERTAINLY wouldn't be as intuitive as OS X is. Not by a long shot.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Any Town, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Angus_D:
Except for the fact that GNUstep is in extremely early stages of development and hardly anything works yet. Or so I hear. And it CERTAINLY wouldn't be as intuitive as OS X is. Not by a long shot.
GNUStep is a great idea. Its a shame that more developers do not help out.
|
|
Change your world and you will change your mind.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Unless all X11 app framework developers agree to a UI behavior standard I would never even consider switching. Only masochists would try to avoid the $100 OS fee and try to get a heap of hackware working.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
The point is not really for mac users to run Xwindows.
The beauty of this is that linux applications written for gnome with GNUstep can also be compiled and run as a normal Mac application.
So the same code will run as a cocoa app on the mac and as a gnome app on linux. With the same development effort you just doubled your market.
|
|
You can take the dude out of So Cal, but you can't take the dude outta the dude, dude!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think the more exciting would be writing a Cocoa app for OSX and then compiling it unmodified for Gnome/Linux. Now THAT would kick ass!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York
Status:
Offline
|
|
Interesting - yet seems like the cry of people who just want to use open source software simply to say that they use open source software.
------------------
Think Different.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New Yawk
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not me. But I like open source because that way there's a possibility of me getting OpenOffice for Mac OS X before too long. 
They better have full working gcc by final, that's all I can say. What's going on here? many configure scripts for unix apps don't like the cc compiler provided w/ the dev tools!
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything
|
|
"Do not be too positive about things. You may be in error." (C. F. Lawlor, The Mixicologist)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Arlington, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think the cc provided with OS X is a full working gcc. I've found that by removing references to -lm and adding -traditional-cpp to the compiler flags, cc works like a charm.
--
pétard
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just a minor note, correct me if I am wrong, but the Gnome market is hardly equivalent to the Mac OS market, especially if you consider the number of machines Apple sells and the installed base waiting to upgrade. A statement like "With the same development effort you just doubled your market (with Gnome and cocoa)" is deceptive in that you are doubling the number of markets you can sell to, but not the number of users (unless your app would have been Gnome only, in which case you have probably tripled or quadrupled your market). The Gnome to Mac market is probably proportional to the Mac to Windows market - smaller if you consider all the variants in Linux/X11 that are incompatible.
Gnome/OS X compatibility is of more benefit to the Gnome community than the Apple community.
X-Windows interfaces on OS X would certainly be useful, but I don't want any of the irritating, counter-intuitive standards of the X-Windows world (particularly in Linux) to affect (infect) Aqua.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here is one other issue - the Linux/Gnome market is not a great market to make money in. Everybody wants everything for free and they get uppity if you charge. I remember hearing ID software state that they barely received a return on investment equal to the costs of porting their software, and that they can only justify porting to Linux because they like it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New Yawk
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by petard:
I think the cc provided with OS X is a full working gcc. I've found that by removing references to -lm and adding -traditional-cpp to the compiler flags, cc works like a charm.
How do you do this? I tried compiling dillo when I had Xfree installed (I wiped the disk later for several reasons), and using ./configure gave me an error that my C compiler was gcc but could not create executables.
If you could help I'd really appreciate it. 
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything
|
|
"Do not be too positive about things. You may be in error." (C. F. Lawlor, The Mixicologist)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
cc IS a fully working gcc. This has been stated by Apple's employees many times. In fact, it is a weird mishmash of different GCC versions in the PB (but not in the current cvs tree), and it has been extremely modified in places, but it is gcc. I seem to remember someone at Apple saying they're trying to work with FSF to get it synched up with their latest gcc releases.
They can't call it gcc since it's been heavily modified.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
