Re: Win32 port

[Cory Watson <gphat cafes net>]

Perhaps a bit of both... ;)

GTK+ is ported to Windows, isn't it?

At 01:39 PM 6/6/00 -0500, bob@thestuff.net wrote:
>A few more cents. :)
>The minidistrib would be nice for making an easy to use/setup linux
>distrib. My suggestion was more of an argument for windows->linux. The
>minidistrib would simplify the problem but wouldnt eliminate it. The
>problem of getting apps over. If gnome was available for windows, apps
>could be developed for windows using gnome code, which allows windows apps
>to be migrated from windows slowly, not all at once, and still provides
>backwards compatability with older apps until such time that they are no
>longer needed. then, the "big switch" can be easily made. Its not a
>suggestion for getting linux apps to windows (which would be a step down),
>but rather a way for windows apps to prepair for moving to linux, which
>woudl be a step up.
>
>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Cory Watson wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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