Re: First Impressions of GNUStep

[Pascal Bourguignon]

Banlu Kemiyatorn writes:
> > Once  again,  I  think   that  behavior  (or  architecture)  of  other
> > environments should not be confused with that of NeXTSTEP/GNUstep, and
> > I see no reason for GNUstep to be architectured like KDE or GNOME.  If
> > what you want is the look of  NeXTSTEP in KDE, it seems to me that you
> > have it already with WMaker.
> 
> I don't care much about the look. I just want a fair state, that at this
> fair state, GNUstep applications should work properly on other
> environments. And has a plus (hiding,docking,etc) when they operate on 
> the GNUstep environment. The menu on sloppy focus thingy is another issue.

Oh!   This   is  another   kind  of  problem.    To  have   a  GNUstep
implementation  over GNOME or  over KDE  like we  would have  one over
MS-Windows.   I guess it could be resolved with a new backend.

(And  here you  see the  advantage of  managing the  app icons  in the
NSApplication class  rather than in  an external program:  the backend
can map  them to the native  paradigm (whatever they have  in GNOME or
KDE)).

But I'm  under the  impression that it's  quite possible to  run GNOME
without  any app  icon  panel or  whatever  they have.   Since it's  a
separate program, I'm quite sure I have occasionally run GNOME without
this program being able to run.   In addition, when I run KDE or GNOME
programs with WMaker, I don't have that program either.




Another  question would  be whether  a GNUstep  Dock should  create an
application  icon window  for non-GNUstep  applications.   That's what
WMaker does, not always very successfully I must say.

-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                   http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.