[HN Gopher] GNUStep now has badges
___________________________________________________________________
GNUStep now has badges
Author : pabs3
Score : 171 points
Date : 2023-08-04 16:03 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (multixden.blogspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (multixden.blogspot.com)
| [deleted]
| meepmorp wrote:
| WindowMaker > GNUStep, imo.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| They are different and not mutually exclusive things. Window
| Maker is a window manager with a NeXTStep-like look. GNUstep is
| an application framework.
|
| You can use GNUstep with Window Maker (and many do) but you can
| also use it with KDE, GNOME, XFCE, FVWM, IceWM, JWM or whatever
| window manager you like. AFAIK GNUstep also has a Wayland
| backend so you could also use it with Wayland compositors.
|
| Similarly you do not have to use Window Maker with GNUstep or
| any ObjC runtime or libraries, just use it by itself as a
| window manager. Personally i do not use GNUstep at all but i
| use Window Maker.
|
| (note that Window Maker does create/use a GNUstep directory in
| the home directory but that is a historical artifact and IIRC
| in recent versions it can be made to use a directory inside
| .config instead).
| rismay wrote:
| Why does this look like it's from the 80's still?
| chasil wrote:
| The interface is from NeXT OS, which as a company was led by
| Steve Jobs.
|
| The underlying architecture of NeXT was largely adopted into OS
| X and iOS.
|
| The GUI appearance evokes nostalgia for those that used it (the
| very first web browser was written within NeXT).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP
| kzrdude wrote:
| I would wish they'd pick something based on whiteish
| background instead of gray (white like the early Mac OS X
| versions would be nice, don't need pinstripes.)
| badsectoracula wrote:
| Some people like dark themes, others like light themes, so
| gray is the middle ground :-P.
|
| FWIW GNUstep is themable so it should be possible to
| customize it. Though i'm not aware of any that follows
| modern trends, but at least it is possible to make it kinda
| sorta like a broken telephone version of early Mac OS X
| using the Rik theme[0] (the screenshot also seems to be
| using a custom theme and setup for Window Maker too and
| judging from the shadows it most likely also uses Compiz as
| a compositor).
|
| [0] https://github.com/AlessandroSangiuliano/rik.theme
| pram wrote:
| Because it's the free (like freedom not beer) version of
| something from the 80s.
| hk1337 wrote:
| Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges.
| bloopernova wrote:
| _Thank you_
|
| I was beginning to really feel my age that no one had made that
| reference.
|
| (It's from the movie "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", which is
| worth checking out!)
| vondur wrote:
| I suppose it's sad that my frame of reference is Mel Brook's
| Blazing Saddles...
| dusty_ayres wrote:
| Could be worse - your frame of reference could be "Weird"
| Al Yankovic's _UHF_.
|
| "Badgers? _Badgers?_ We don 't need no stinking badgers!"
| [deleted]
| raverbashing wrote:
| They should have maybe looked into fixing the anti-aliasing
| first.
|
| As much as it's a lightweight DE, we're way past the point of CPU
| capability to render these basically for free, but it seems to be
| all over the place
| queuebert wrote:
| Looks great on my 25-year old CRT.
|
| I find it hilarious that we sharpened monitors so now we have
| to blur the rendering, because heaven forbid we see a pixel.
| NavinF wrote:
| No, if we had infinite resolution monitors we wouldn't need
| anti-aliasing.
|
| You gotta bandlimit your signals or you'll see aliasing.
| That's just how signal processing works. Imagine if your
| audio player's output voltage jumped between 16bit levels
| instead of smoothly transitioning. It would sound horrible.
| That's how bad jaggies look to people who didn't grow up with
| slow computers
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Gosh just how did they manage with the CDs and 12-bit
| audio, like animals.
| NavinF wrote:
| CDs are 16-bit. Digital audio players have had anti-
| aliasing filters for as long as digital audio existed
| because they'd sound horrible otherwise
| meatmanek wrote:
| With anti-aliasing filters, that's how.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > if we had infinite resolution monitors we wouldn't need
| anti-aliasing.
|
| Color is based on frequency. There's an inherent limit to
| the range of light colors our eyeballs can process.
|
| > You gotta bandlimit your signals or you'll see aliasing.
|
| When changing sampling rates. If the monitors resolution
| and the font resolution were identical, then would
| bandlimiting actually have any effect?
|
| > Imagine if your audio player's output voltage jumped
| between 16bit levels instead of smoothly transitioning. It
| would sound horrible.
|
| The brain processes sound logarithmically. Is the same true
| for vision? I mean, I watch movies at 24 frames per second,
| and yet, I'm usually incapable of perceiving this.
|
| > That's how bad jaggies look to people who didn't grow up
| with slow computers
|
| Anecdotally.. but if the computer is experiencing a limit
| in displaying full resolution data to me, I actually don't
| mind noticing that fact.
| NavinF wrote:
| You know what I meant by "infinite resolution". Today's
| monitors are nowhere close to retina (human eye
| resolution) and even further from being diffraction
| limited (the color frequency stuff you're talking about)
|
| > If the monitors resolution and the font resolution were
| identical
|
| Fonts are typically infinite resolution because they are
| small programs that you execute. Also see
| https://blog.mecheye.net/2012/12/bytecode/
|
| > The brain processes sound logarithmically. Is the same
| true for vision?
|
| If you're talking about brightness, it's a cube-root
| curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightness#Relationsh
| ip_to_valu...
|
| > I watch movies at 24 frames per second, and yet, I'm
| usually incapable of perceiving this
|
| Film projectors flash the same image multiple times
| because humans can easily notice 24fps. The lamp flickers
| and that's why movies are called "flicks". Good monitors
| flash each frame for only 1ms for the same reason:
| https://blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/
|
| Try the UFO test: https://www.testufo.com/. If you
| genuinely can't see the difference between 30/60/120 Hz,
| you should get an eye exam because that's not normal.
| rbanffy wrote:
| It's also open-source, so anyone with the knowledge can fix it.
| codehalo wrote:
| Not GNUStep. They are the absolute worst. Miguel de Icaza
| tried to work with them, and had to leave to create Gnome.
|
| Look at where they are and where Gnome is now.
|
| Saddest story in all of open source.
| linguae wrote:
| As someone who was a child during the early days of KDE,
| GNUstep, and GNOME and who didn't start using Linux until
| 2004, I'd like to learn more about Miguel de Icaza's
| attempts to work with GNUstep; I'm familiar with much of
| GNUstep's history but this is news to me.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| I'd say GNU Hurd is even sadder, not that it's a contest.
| It's a pretty humble world of high effort low output lol.
| NavinF wrote:
| I can't imagine how that could have gone differently. If
| Hurd was completed in the 90s, would anyone use a kernel
| that was slower than linux because it doesn't share data
| structures between parts of the kernel?
|
| Even today people disable isolation to improve
| performance even though our desktops are faster than old
| supercomputers: https://www.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/learning-center/opti...
|
| "Windows 11 security measures include Memory Integrity
| and Virtual Machine Platform (VMP) to protect against
| malware, which are features that can also disrupt gaming
| performance. If you choose to turn these features off
| before gaming, it can improve your performance and help
| you focus on the games at hand. Afterwards, it's
| important to turn them on again since you are opening
| your PC up to risks while it's less protected. For short
| periods, you might try turning off your Memory Integrity
| and VMP to see if you notice a difference."
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| > If Hurd was completed in the 90s, would anyone use a
| kernel that was slower than linux because it doesn't
| share data structures between parts of the kernel?
|
| Perhaps in the server world where uptime is critical.
| After all, that is Linux's largest market share.
| bandrami wrote:
| They're usable and Gnome isn't, so there's that
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yes, and then have their patch turned down for a miriad of
| reasons
|
| Knowing how to pick your battles is a need in OSS development
| sharikous wrote:
| A fork then
| zaphar wrote:
| A fork is _really_ expensive. When the choice is use
| something else or fork GnuStep then use something else
| wins the overwhelming majority of the time.
| danuker wrote:
| Is a fork more expensive than starting anew? How?
| lxe wrote:
| What can a "modern" OS do than something like NextSTEP absolutely
| cannot? Aside from the chrome, and performance-bound things like
| video streaming and gaming, the functionality of what we can do
| with computers changed very little over the decades.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| There's not much more else to push towards, Xerox pretty much
| figured it all out in the 70s.
|
| End users don't use operating systems, they're a burden of
| security vulnerabilities and compatibility issues.
|
| If I had to round it out, the tech industry as a whole would
| prefer we all do everything in browsers over the cloud.
|
| Disregarding freedom and privacy, I would prefer things to be
| that way.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Ditto for Windows 95.
| draw_down wrote:
| Hmm, personally I enjoy both chrome and video streaming but to
| each their own!
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Theoretically you could build a self-contained browser and
| run it there.
|
| In practice, even if you managed, say, to port a modern
| Firefox and all its baggage down to OpenSSL and even GCC to
| compile it in a mighty for of herculean effort, it would
| still likely die of a thousand paper cuts anyway because
| quite a lot of syscalls would be expected to have evolved
| since.
| mpweiher wrote:
| Not much. I had a NeXT cube and the user + developer experience
| on my M1 Air is largely the same. More portable, obviously, and
| more colourful. Faster, but not nearly as much faster as it
| should be, IMHO. Well fortunately I write very little Swift, so
| at least compile performance is OK, and a lot of the user-
| noticeable speed improvements come from SSDs.
|
| > video streaming
|
| NeXTStep had NeXTtime, which IIRC was also important in sealing
| the Apple deal, as Be's big claim to fame was (multi-media)
| performance, with the for-the-time impressive demo of 4 videos
| playing simultaneously. Nobody had really thought of it before,
| but playing 4 videos was also not an issue in NT, so Be-
| blocked.
|
| https://www.paullynch.org/NeXTSTEP/AppleNeXT.htmld/present.h...
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Run on more than two screens?
|
| Support modern networking?
|
| Support Unicode in all applications?
| vondur wrote:
| Good question about the screens. Under OpenStep on PC
| hardware, I think you can do multiple monitors. I believe
| TCP/IP was native to NextStep, but doubtful about Unicode way
| back then.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Have there been Matrox drivers for OpenStep?
|
| I don't remember what other multihead graphics cards
| existed at that time. For multiple video cards, you again
| had to reach for Matrox, since they were produced in both
| PCI and AGP variants and I'm unsure about other brands.
| spitfire wrote:
| In 1990 you could have up to 4 displays on a NeXT Cube + 3
| NeXTDimension 32bit colour boards. These were 1152x864 32bit
| colour displays at a time when people were using 80x25 16
| colour text (likely, wordperfect/Lotus 123), or /maybe/
| 640x480 16 colour graphics in windows 3.0.
|
| NeXT had full ipv4 support from the start.
|
| Unicode wasn't a thing until after Apple bought them.
|
| One experiment I've done on my own NeXTStation turbo was run
| equivalent applications on both a NeXT and a modern Intel mac
| pro. Mathematica, email, Framemaker/affinity publisher all
| take roughly the same time to load and execute similar tasks.
|
| Yes you can't do 3d, video, or AI on a 33 year old NeXT, and
| the image files would be smaller, but beyond that you could
| easily do your day to day work on such a system. It doesn't
| feel old at all.
| nxobject wrote:
| I think there a lot of niceties that make laptops and portable
| computing possible - suspend to disk, advances in scheduling,
| ubiquitous hotplug support - that I do appreciate, but also do
| take a bit of architecting.
| mepian wrote:
| Did NeXTSTEP have any support for threads and their
| synchronization? POSIX introduced its thread model around the
| time Apple absorbed NeXT.
| wahern wrote:
| Most if not all systems had threads before POSIX Threads.
| POSIX Threads brought a standard interface to replace the
| chaos that reigned. It took many years for the ridiculous
| amount of thread API portability cruft in Unix ecosystem
| software to be excised. You saw something similar with
| atomics until C11 and C++11 atomics displaced old interfaces,
| though that switchover seemed to happen much quicker, perhaps
| because it was principally a userspace issue and you could
| bring newer toolchains and binaries to older platforms.
| mpweiher wrote:
| Yes. NeXTSTEP had Mach threads, both kernel and user-space.
| im_down_w_otp wrote:
| This is cool.
|
| I didn't even know GNUStep was being actively developed or
| maintained. I'd love to be able to use GNUStep as my primary
| workstation environment. Does anybody have any recent experience
| with attempting such a thing?
| mattl wrote:
| GNUStep isn't a window manager, it's a development framework...
| think OpenStep, not OPENSTEP.
|
| People use it with WindowMaker but people can also use it with
| whatever other desktop environment they're using.
| unixhero wrote:
| Like enlightenment
| toenail wrote:
| Probably not what you want to hear, but I used it/WindowMaker
| in the early 2000s, it was alright and worked well on my
| underpowered machine. Moved on to a more modern environment
| after maybe two or three years.
| zare_st wrote:
| Yes.
|
| The bane of old X11 environments and UI toolkits is the
| DPI/resolution of modern screens. Usually the sweet spot for
| them is around 1600x1200, usable on Full HD, unusable on 2K.
| Windowmaker and GNUstep included.
|
| I used Windowmaker with GNOME session running in background for
| years as a main driver, and went KDE Plasma due to the reasons
| above.
|
| Windowmaker icons are 64x64 and while there might be a way to
| increase them, dockapps are rendered in 64x64 max. Devs used
| the display limit to achieve a certain style, such as LCD
| dockapps. Useful and charming but it's small and unusable at 2K
| or above.
|
| So the first thing you're going to get yourself wrapped into
| are the fonts and font sizes in Windowmaker and GNUstep, and
| you'll never achieve the same look and feel as default on
| appropriate resolution.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| > unusable on 2K. Windowmaker and GNUstep included.
|
| I'm not sure what you find unusable but i'm using Window
| Maker at 2560x1440 (i assume that is what you mean with 2K)
| perfectly fine[0].
|
| Though note that the overwhelming majority of monitors out
| there isn't 2K or greater but 1080p and 768p[1] :-P.
|
| [0] https://i.imgur.com/yaU5OLn.png (my WM setup with a few
| utilities i made in a custom toolkit that has a WM/NS-like
| style)
|
| [1] https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware (scroll down
| to Display Resolution)
| ratmice wrote:
| I don't develop for GNUstep anymore, but I remember making
| scalable dock apps possible some decades ago.
|
| You need to configure the size of icon windows in windowmaker
| WPrefs, the app then needs then to query the [[[NSApp
| iconWindow] contentView] bounds] that it was created with.
| There are almost certainly still some dockapps in existence
| that don't do that and just use hard coded sizes though. I
| know that the clock app AClock, implements it correctly.
| sharikous wrote:
| Question: is Objective-C post 2.0 being actively maintained
| outside of Apple?
|
| Can I use the new features that Apple added in cross platform
| projects or open source environment like this?
|
| I loved Objective-C very much (yes, really) and I'd like to
| continue using it after Apple phases it out
| chasil wrote:
| Previous posts describe Swift in a state of flux, while
| Objective-C is more stable in most areas. It would not appear
| that phasing out Objective-C would even be possible.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914330
| MBCook wrote:
| Apple has the largest Objective-C code based in the world (I
| would assume).
|
| It's going to take them a long time to covert it. So I don't
| see them dropping it anytime soon.
|
| It's not recommend for new code (in Apple land) and they're
| already starting to make features Swift-only.
|
| But they won't stop shipping it any time soon.
| jhatemyjob wrote:
| The clang/LLVM Objective-C compiler is open source. You can use
| the same bleeding edge compiler for iOS 17 on Linux for
| example. So you can use features like Automatic Reference
| Counting, blocks, etc no problem.
|
| The problem is the frameworks (Foundation, UIKit, AppKit, etc)
| are closed source. So you either need to create your own
| frameworks or use something like GNUstep.
| em-bee wrote:
| well, the one positive thing about apple phasing out
| Objective-C is that enthusiasts may be more motivated to work
| on GNU Objective-C to catch up, also considering that doing so
| is no longer a runaway target.
| netik wrote:
| and of course, it's ugly. sigh.
|
| Why is it that every OSS desktop has to look like a demo from the
| 70's?
| eikenberry wrote:
| Have you looked at modern Gnome or KDE Plasma? They are both at
| least as petty as MacOS or Windows.
| gapan wrote:
| I understand "petty" is a typo, but I kind of agree with that
| meaning too.
| nmstoker wrote:
| KDE Plasma is great and actually seems to have inspired a
| bunch of Win11 approaches, so it is possible to get things
| looking good but there's definitely truth in the sentiment
| above: a huge chunk of OSS software looking terrible.
|
| There's always the form vs function debate but it's a shame
| that more doesn't manage to have both form _and_ function if
| the respective specialists could coordinate
| RamblingCTO wrote:
| > They are both at least as petty as MacOS or Windows
|
| Yeah, no. I don't think you use macOS/win at all if you say
| stuff like that. It feels and always has felt rough around
| the edges.
| em-bee wrote:
| i still use MacOS and windows from time to time, and i
| simply have to disagree. using MacOS has just as many WTF
| moments as i get with Gnome (and KDE too i think, but i
| haven't used that in a while) a windows just leaves me
| baffled every time i have to touch it. (
| https://commadot.com/wtf-per-minute/ )
| tracker1 wrote:
| The one thing I think is great in Windows is the whatever
| the active apps bar at the bottom is (taskbar?). Hover,
| get thumbnails, etc. On mac, I find it kind of painful to
| juggle a few windows of the same application. Can say the
| same in Linux as well, some apps don't even show up at
| all, even though they're running in a window/viewport.
|
| I genuinely like and dislike most OS UIs I've tried. They
| all have things that irk me. While windows settings has
| gotten more consistent, it's also all the more painful
| when you had gotten used to the "old way" of doing things
| and where to look. If MS executives could just get TF out
| of their own way on some of the stupidity and force-
| feeding.
|
| Mac, just feels a bit dated at this point, but the
| touchpad integration across all apps is great. Not to
| mention the macbook touchpads being second to none in
| terms of usability.
|
| Linux, I can shift to almost exactly what I want. There
| are rough edges and spots you cannot reach via UI, but it
| mostly works without issue. Been using Budgie as my DE
| for over a year, fairly customized and like it a lot.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Not defending macOS here, but switching between windows
| and managing them is usually performed via Expose, (ctrl-
| uparrow)
| tracker1 wrote:
| Thanks, That's a hotkey I wasn't aware of... I know I
| could use gestures (three finger swipe up), but usually
| using my mouse.
| em-bee wrote:
| discovery of hotkeys can be a challenge. despite having
| used gnome for years now i only recently learned that i
| can switch windows with alt-esc instead of alt-tab, which
| is much faster when you have multiple windows of the same
| app or want to switch back and forth between to windows.
| and i only found this while searching for an extension
| that would make switching windows easier.
| nequo wrote:
| Unity used to show the keyboard shortcuts when you held
| the Super key:
|
| https://i.stack.imgur.com/JDDku.png
|
| To my knowledge, modern GNOME does not have this which is
| sad. There's this webpage instead:
|
| https://help.gnome.org/users/gnome-help/stable/shell-
| keyboar...
| em-bee wrote:
| the thing is that i would not even have thought of
| looking there. i was at "switching windows is a pain, how
| can i make it better" which is not "is there a hotkey to
| switch windows differently, because why would i even
| consider that there are multiple ways to switch windows,
| especially with gnome that kind of has a reputation of
| removing seemingly unneeded features.
| nequo wrote:
| It does have that reputation but I've found it very
| usable.
|
| "Half-maximizing" windows with Super+Left and Super+Right
| is very handy when I need to see things side-by-side.
|
| Moving windows from one screen to another by pressing
| Super and doing drag-and-drop, and moving windows across
| workspaces with Shift+Super+PgUp and Shift+Super+PgDown
| are also convenient.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Also, if you're at the command-tab picker, the up arrow
| key will switch to windows of the currently selected app
| (and left/right arrows will change the currently selected
| app). The macOS command-tab switcher has a bunch of
| functionality built in.
| jlund-molfese wrote:
| Modern KDE is actually _more_ polished than MacOS in
| specific areas, like allowing a single window to span
| across multiple monitors in a seamless manner
| jwells89 wrote:
| Less polished in some areas too, though. It's slowly
| improving over time but for example fine UI/UX details
| like whitespace usage, control alignment/placement, and
| typography have always felt a bit... "off" in KDE as well
| in most software written with Qt, which I think probably
| boils down to Qt being more likely to be chosen by devs
| who are more technically inclined than design or UX
| inclined.
|
| In my opinion GNOME and GTK apps generally get those
| details more "correct", though GNOME 3 and up goes way
| overboard on padding. Strip that padding down with a
| theme and its design is solid though, and Cinnamon, XFCE,
| and MATE get these right out of the box with no
| modifications necessary.
| jlund-molfese wrote:
| But that's why these "X has a better UI than Y" arguments
| are silly. I prefer KDE to any other DE because it worked
| (I now use MacOS and can't run other DEs) for _me_ , and
| most people who prefer other DEs. That's OK. They all
| have different strengths and weaknesses (customization,
| resource usage, ability to run on certain OSes, high DPI
| support, etc).
| nerdponx wrote:
| I use both and I think KDE looks and feels great.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It would be great if Xerox PARC UI was already that advanced in
| the 70's, or UNIX's twm.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Call me cantankerous but I'd rather UI paradigms were frozen in
| this era. And it's 90s, not 70s ;)
| mepian wrote:
| I find it much more appealing than any of the modern "flat"
| UIs. GNUstep's prototype NeXTSTEP popularized this grey 3D look
| in the early 90s.
| linguae wrote:
| The desktop and UI conventions are largely inspired from
| NeXTstep, which is from the late 1980s and was considered ahead
| of its time. However, there is nothing preventing the use of
| alternative designs. One example is the Etolie project from the
| late 2000s and early 2010s, which used the GNUstep API but
| didn't rely on NeXT-style UI conventions:
|
| http://etoileos.com/etoile/
|
| If GNUstep gains traction, there will almost certainly be a
| project to create a modern desktop. I personally like the
| NeXTSTEP UI, but I wouldn't mind something new.
| anthk wrote:
| OSX it's as ugly as GNUStep/NeXTStep. Search for the Mastodon
| post on patching OSX to disable Aqua on MAC OS X < 10.5, and
| you'll see how they kept the exact same NeXTStep/GNUStep
| widgets. I am not trolling, Google/DDG it.
| cassonmars wrote:
| This could not be found on either google or ddg. Link?
| gattilorenz wrote:
| https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/110708615280659758
| neilalexander wrote:
| Next time please provide a link.
| em-bee wrote:
| apart from calling it ugly i can confirm that. early OSX was
| 100% NeXTStep with a changed style. i loved it. MacOS now is
| really very much a modernized version of that.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| I recommend a brief read on GNUStep before looking at a picture
| and going "blah ugly, bad!"
| anthk wrote:
| Also, some GUI on Mastodon showed how OSX would look without
| Aqua by patching some libraries, and it show up the same
| literal ugly interface from GNUStep/NextSTep. Literally the
| same, with the grey rectangles.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| You could see the transition in OSX developer previews.
| Some apps would retain the old look, or icons.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| Is this what you're referring to?
| https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/110708615280659758
| anthk wrote:
| Yes, that. Thanks.
| hollerith wrote:
| I prefer the looks of Gnome over MacOS, particularly the text.
| mseepgood wrote:
| Because developers are not graphic designers.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Some people like the ugly retro look. You can make KDE look
| slick and modern if you want, but some people want to make it
| look like Windows 95.
| em-bee wrote:
| every few years i go and search for a NeXTStep theme for
| gnome or kde. (i also look at GNUstep but switching the whole
| desktop environment is more effort, since the needed packages
| are not easily available, and the apps i use do not have
| GNUstep alternatives either, so i am struggling a bit not
| knowing how to proceed)
| cxr wrote:
| > it's ugly. sigh.P Why is it that
|
| Because you haven't sent the patches that would make it
| prettier (e.g. ones that would make it as pretty as, say, Mac
| OS).
| badsectoracula wrote:
| > Why is it that every OSS desktop has to look like a demo from
| the 70's?
|
| You need some unixporn[0] in your life.
|
| Also people have different tastes and preferences and like the
| NeXTStep or Win95 or OS/2 or BeOS or Classic Mac or whatever
| look.
|
| [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/
| Mesopropithecus wrote:
| The thing I love about HN is that enthusiast stuff like this
| makes it to the front page. <3
| rbanffy wrote:
| Is there a guide somewhere on how to write software for GNUStep
| in a way it's also compatible with macOS?
| koito17 wrote:
| These are called "Renaissance apps" by GNUstep users. They are
| apps designed such that you can run them on both GNUstep and
| Cocoa. There used to be a tutorial out there, but the site is
| gone now. Here is an archive link to it:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20180125122828/http://www.gnuste...
| asveikau wrote:
| I haven't followed gnustep in a long time, but I thought
| renaissance was a library that was an alternative to NIB
| files, with an XML format.
|
| Back when I wrote some small apps, it was very easy to target
| Mac with the GNUstep makefile package. That could build on
| Mac without any extra work on the build side. I would
| sprinkle a lot with #ifdef __APPLE__ when the APIs differ, on
| a case by case basis. A lot of things (most?) work on both
| without modification, it just depends how new the API is.
| jhatemyjob wrote:
| I assume you meant to ask "how to build" and not "how to
| write", since writing the Objective-C code is trivial since
| it's all just AppKit and there's documentation on Apple's
| website for that.
|
| Building for both GNUstep and macOS is difficult. The problem
| is, macOS wants you to use Xcode and GNUstep wants you to use
| their weird build system. In order to build software that is
| compatible with both GNUstep and macOS you will either need
| need to have two parallel build systems (one GNUmakefile and
| one Xcode project) or use a custom build system.
|
| Personally I think GNUstep's build system is stupid, and I
| don't like using Xcode, so I lean more towards a custom build
| system. Sounds insane I know but it really isn't that bad.
| Compiling and running a Cocoa application on macOS pretty much
| boils down to this: clang main.m -framework
| Cocoa ./a.out
|
| I don't remember how to do it for GNUstep. It's been a few
| years. Their GNUmakefile thing is REALLY weird, they have all
| these Makefile macros you need to import and they try to
| abstract all of this stuff away. Using Makefile macros. It's
| horrible. I asked ChatGPT and it generated this:
| include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make
| APP_NAME = YourAppName YourAppName_OBJC_FILES = main.m
| YourAppClass.m YourAppName_RESOURCE_FILES = Info-
| gnustep.plist include
| $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/application.make
|
| I would make a basic GNUmakefile, then run it with `V=1` (or
| `VERBOSE=1`? i forgot the name of the environment variable) to
| get the actual terminal commands its running, extract those,
| put those in your one-liner custom build script and be done
| with it
| mpweiher wrote:
| Or you use buildtool to build Xcode projects with GNUstep:
|
| https://github.com/gnustep/libs-xcode
|
| MPWFoundation, Objective-S and related all build on both
| macOS and GNUstep without buildtool. Once you have the
| GNUmakefiles they are not that hard to keep in sync.
|
| https://gitlab.com/mpwmo/ObjectiveSmalltalk/-/blob/master/GN.
| ..
|
| https://gitlab.com/mpwmo/MPWFoundation/-/blob/master/GNUmake.
| ..
|
| https://gitlab.com/mpwmo/MPWFoundation/-/tree/master/GNUstep.
| ..
| bandrami wrote:
| They're source-compatible, so if you write it for GNUStep you
| should also get a functioning macOS application if you build it
| with that target (you just won't get whatever they call Carbon
| and Cocoa nowadays).
| tedge wrote:
| I'm the developer of PikoPixel, a cross-platform Mac/Linux/BSD
| pixel-art editor.
|
| PikoPixel was initially written for Mac, and GNUstep saved me a
| huge amount of work from having to completely rewrite it for
| Linux/BSD.
|
| However, it was still a significant effort:
|
| * GNUstep's an implementation of the Cocoa framework only, it
| doesn't include any other macOS frameworks.
|
| * The same source-code & UI resources can produce different
| behaviors & visuals between the different platforms. This is
| due to different Cocoa implementations, some missing
| functionality on GNUstep, different system fonts, different
| window managers & desktop environments (Linux/BSD have many of
| them, each with their own quirks), etc.
|
| A cross-platform Mac/GNUstep app is definitely doable -
| PikoPixel is now available in many Linux distro repositories
| (Ubuntu Studio even preinstalls it as a default graphics app) -
| but expect to spend significant effort correcting platform
| differences (depending on the app).
|
| I'd suggest getting started by spinning up a VM, installing a
| GNUstep dev environment on it, then downloading some GNUstep
| app sources & building them.
|
| PikoPixel's homepage links some build scripts for Debian &
| Fedora that will install both a GNUstep dev environment and
| PikoPixel: https://twilightedge.com/mac/pikopixel/
|
| You can also browse PikoPixel's sources online at the Debian
| GNUstep team's mirror repository:
| https://salsa.debian.org/gnustep-team/pikopixel.app
|
| (Note: PikoPixel's fixes & workarounds for the platform
| differences on GNUstep are found in the various source files
| that begin with PPGNUstepGlue*).
| pshirshov wrote:
| Holy moly, undeads in action.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-04 23:00 UTC)