Re: What would be the most complete GNUStep system?

[Liam Proven]

On 27 October 2014 00:28, Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mottola@libero.it> wrote:

> Other applications to get a more complete environment you can pick among the
> two major desktop projects, GAP and Etoilé,

What is this GAP? I've not heard of it.

> What you ask, however, is more: tight integration with an OS. That's tricky.
> I can tell you that GNUStep runs, when compiled from source, quite well on
> most major free operationg systems. Most flavours of Linux (I test Debian
> and Gentoo) and NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD. However, GNUstep has many
> configuration options, so the official packages of these OS's may be
> configured differently, usually to be more linux and FHS compliant. If you
> want a Mac like experience, none of them is your choice, really.

Agreed. ElementaryOS has something somewhat OS X-like, but it's based
off GNOME 3, sadly. Maybe if they knew of GNUstep they would have used
it instead. :'(

> To get the most Mac-like experience, you need to configure with the
> GNUstep-layout and with a root as /, so that you get directories like
> /System/Applications. I'd say that all cited operating systems right now are
> quite well supported.
>
> Bundles? Yes, we do have them. For apps, frameworks, loadable bundles,
> themse and also documents (like RTFD) in pure OpenStep/Mac style. Most
> distributions, for example ebian, try to break these bundles up however,
> since they are alien to the typical file system layout enforced by various
> policies. It may work, but it is not what you are looking for.

That's a good insight. It is also a real problem for the ROX Desktop
project, my *other* favourite obscure Linux desktop. ;¬)

ROX just (!) invented its own packaging system to get around this -- 0launch.


> I don't know if we support "Fat bundles" and especially how sense they have
> in the more fragmented OS environment which, for example, many different
> Linux OS's.
>
> As for DMGs, I know that you feel they are convenient and how they very
> easily can be virtually monuted, burned onto optical media or (in old times)
> to floppies. I don't think we have support for that though and how it could
> be implemented in a portable way.

I am also not 100% sure it would be a good idea. I really love
Debian's APT, as used in Ubuntu etc. It is far far better than the OS
X way of doing things. I just don't like the way it scatter-guns
components all through dozens of inscrutably-named little directories
buried in a cryptically-named filesystem hierarchy built on the
principles of 1970s-1980s server maintenance good practice.

> So for your specific question I don't think one OS will be better than
> another

Well, me, I would say 1 of 2 ways offers potential.

[1] run it on Ubuntu and put up with the weird Linux FHS. That way you
get a solid, widely- and well-supported OS

[2] Get involved, help get GNUstep running on Gobo, and get a
sensible, readable, understandable filesystem hierarchy with clean
separation between packages and versions, but it's going to require
work to get it to ready-for-prime-time.


-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)