Re: Win32 port

[Cory Watson <gphat cafes net>]

Well, I don't really have any type of argument, but heres a few more cents...

_Companies_ don't write apps for Linux (talking X stuff here) for a few 
reasons, you nailed the most important: Learning a new API.  That wouldn't 
be so bad, except that you can't get away with just GTK+.  You either have 
to write your own (Mozilla), write for GTK+ or Qt (which alienates one or 
the other, I don't want to run Qt), or be ugly like Netscape.

If someone was to provide a skinny Linux distro that did nothing but bring 
the user into X (and of course handled hardware in a graphical way.. 
similar to kudzu on RedHat) and start GNOME, one could effectively provide 
a nice accepted platform for Application developers.  We've got all the 
pieces, with things like Bonobo and GConf, and tools like Glade we can 
easily attract developers (and we already are!), but such a distribution 
would put GNOME and Linux on peoples desktops, in a way that they can 
easily use, while not departing from their normal desktops.

Think of it as Linux->GNOME as MS-DOS->Windows98.

I've been brewing this for a few weeks (this distro idea), but haven't had 
support from a few of my other friends like I'd like.  I was actually (and 
am) looking to maybe get a company together around it (a la Helix, perhaps 
they would be of some assistance... like using their GNOME).  Batting it 
around in between job interviews (anyone in TN wanna hire me? hehe) and 
even having a linux box that I stripped down and made as minimal as I could 
by removing rpms and compiling things by hand.

Whoa, big tangent, I think I'll stop now;)

At 01:14 PM 6/6/00 -0500, bob@thestuff.net wrote:
>Well, now that I've taken the against argument, I'm going to take the for
>position for a sek. :)
>There is one advantage to a windows port, but not the one you tryed to
>make. Getting a nonpropriatary API onto windows for windows application
>developers would be that benifit. Most application developers wont move to
>linux yet due to 2 reasons. needing to learn a new set of api's, and the
>dependency of windows. For a company (generally) to be able to make money,
>the target OS is windows. undebatable fact. If they could code for
>"Wingnome", they could take advantage of the superior/free/open API, and
>still meat their target OS needs. The end result is, when enough wingnome
>apps are written, the OS can be yoinked out from under the apps, and
>replaced with full blown gnome under linux. The end result will be that
>"world domination" as Linus puts it, will be acheved faster. It could be
>used as a stepping stone to get the mainstream apps over untill the
>nessisary "critical mass" point where apps will be developed first on
>linux, then (if that) on windows.
>
>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Cory Watson wrote:
>
> > Yes, I thought about resending my last message with something along the
> > lines of "No I'm not saying that Windows should be under the hood"
> >
> > At 12:39 PM 6/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > >As you point out, corectly, whats under the hood is important.
> > >"An application is only as good as the OS under it." The gimp for windows
> > >is kinda cool, but it becomes just another unstable windows app under
> > >windows. What you should be considering is not gnome under windows to
> > >eliminate the linux stuff underneeth, but a distribution that doesnt have
> > >the extra stuff under the hood. a "gnome linux distribution" of sorts.
> > >just enough to get X running. Linux does very well striped down. You can
> > >get single floppy versions of Linux. You can not say the same for windows.
> > >
> > >On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Cory Watson wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 01:05 PM 6/6/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > > > >But why would you want to?
> > > >
> > > > Because regardless of how pretty and advanced GNOME is, Linux is 
> still way
> > > > too difficult, and too 'big' for the average person.  My mom (bless her
> > > > heart) has no use for 70% of the stuff that you and I use daily and 
> take
> > > > for granted in Linux.  They only need the stuff that Windows gives 
> them.
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to see the whole world using GNOME, but until something is 
> done
> > > > with what's _under_ GNOME, I don't think we'll make much
> > > progress.  Perhaps
> > > > Miguel has something up his sleeves.
> > > >
> > > > One of my friends argued this with me one day, his point was 'Why 
> should
> > > > _everyone_ use Linux?  They don't need it!'  My point isn't that 
> they NEED
> > > > Linux, they NEED a _choice_.
> > > >
> > > > Just my $0.02.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > gnome-list mailing list
> > > > gnome-list@gnome.org
> > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
> > > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnome-list mailing list
> > gnome-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnome-list mailing list
>gnome-list@gnome.org
>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list