Re: Plans for change.... (minor correct of previous post)

[Gregory John Casamento]

> And NeXT clearly failed with this strategy ;-)

To go into all of the reasons why NeXT failed is beyond the scope of
this email.  But, suffice it to say, it wasn't this strategy that failed them,
it was the idea that you could charge $10,000.00 per machine and $5,000
per development seat and be profitable. :)

For more on why my above statement is true, please read 
"The Second Coming of Steve Jobs" and perhaps that will clarify things.

> I guess the difficulty here is that there are some who understand  
> GNUstep as something like OPENSTEP Mach 4.x, an entire OS or at least  
> desktop environment running on a Unix/Linux OS, whereas there are  
> others who understand GNUstep as an implementation of the OpenStep  
> API specification (with some - but not all - Cocoa additions/changes)  
> which integrates seamlessly into its host system. In this case a  
> Windows port is what probably matters most (business wise). Right now  
> GNUstep is a mix of both which makes nobody completely happy.

GNUstep is a development environment and a minimal desktop.   The 
GNUstep project shall not create a distribution so that we can have yet
another niche OS such as AROS or HaikuOS.

Later, GJC
--
Gregory Casamento
## GNUstep Chief Maintainer

----- Original Message ----
From: Philippe C.D. Robert <address@hidden>
To: Gregory John Casamento <address@hidden>
Cc: Henrik Mikael Kristensen <address@hidden>; GNUstep Developers 
<address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Plans for change....  (minor correct of previous post)

On 16.12.2006, at 23:24, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
>> I now ask these questions: What was the original goal of NeXT with
>> their OS? Should that goal not also be the same for GNUstep?
>
> The original goal of OPENSTEP was to create a crossplatform set of
> libraries which could be easily used.  These platforms consisted of
>  Windows (OPENSTEP Enterprise 4.2/Windows), Solaris (OPENSTEP 1.1/ 
> Solaris), &
> Mach (OPENSTEP 4.2/Mach) were the implementations of this created by
> Sun and NeXT while NeXT was still in business.   There were  
> proposals to
> have an OPENSTEP implemented under HP-UX on the PA-RISC architecture,
> but that didn't happen prior to the buyout by Apple.   On each one  
> of these
> platforms, mainly windows, OPENSTEP was made to look/act like the  
> operating
> system it was on.   As you can see, GNUstep's purpose is  
> *precisely* the same
> as OPENSTEP's.

And NeXT clearly failed with this strategy ;-)

I guess the difficulty here is that there are some who understand  
GNUstep as something like OPENSTEP Mach 4.x, an entire OS or at least  
desktop environment running on a Unix/Linux OS, whereas there are  
others who understand GNUstep as an implementation of the OpenStep  
API specification (with some - but not all - Cocoa additions/changes)  
which integrates seamlessly into its host system. In this case a  
Windows port is what probably matters most (business wise). Right now  
GNUstep is a mix of both which makes nobody completely happy.

-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip