Simply GNUstep Delivers UNIX, Simply 396
Eugenia writes "A new, Linux-based operating system released recently, called Simply GNUstep and it is based on the GNUstep architecture, originally built by NeXT (OpenSTEP) and is now also used by MacOSX (Cocoa). The alpha version of the x86-based OS is available for download and boots off the 110 MB bootable CD. The cool thing about Simply GNUstep is its partial source compatibility with MacOSX programs (further compatibility is still worked on) and its clean infrastructure, as it only includes GnuSTEP graphical applications like WindowMaker, Mail.app etc. You can read an introduction article of the OS at OSNews."
The sad part is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am getting tired of my Gnome and KDE. I am starting to long for the days when I used WindowMaker, Postilion and FSviewer together with a cobbled up list of other xapps to get my job done simply.
The problems are paramount. Fsviewer barely works on my updated SuSE 7.3 Postilion does not like my cutting edge versions of tcl/tk and I am not yet ready to give up the laundry list of apps I need to do business for a barebones environment. Plus, I like unified look and feel that I get with say KDE or Gnome.
If I got a distribution with a laundry list of apps centered around those apps with a Nextish look and feel then I would be a happy man.
The problem with Simply GNUstep is that it is what it says it is. It is Linux with GNUstep already built and configured but it has nothing else.
If it was supplemented with other X apps with a Next feel or gtk apps with a Next theme maybe into a usable package then I think I would be in love.
_______________________________________________
GNUStep (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I'm not sure it's ready yet. redraws are slower than mollasses headed uphill in January, and the sample applications (what little there is) are characterized by a lack of features and a tendency to crash.
When GNUStep is ready for prime time, I'll be happy. Hopefully, this can help that day come sooner
Interesting, PowerPC version? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course that may be a bit pointless given you can get Mac OS X which is more mature, but it would still be interesting to see it.
What willbe really interesting is if this becomes kine of like a "Mine", allowing PC users to run some select Mac OS X software along with their Linux apps. Think of this as a way for Apple to take a more back door foray into the x86 world, to expand use of Apple's software and show people how cool some of Apple's software on the Mac is by getting iTunes and such to run on this thing. It would certainly give PC users who used this (who I admit would likely not be your run of the mill PC user) a taste of Apple's world without them having to go out and purchase a Mac right away.
Maybe wishful thinking, but any alternative to the current status quo (i.e. Windows) is welcome at this point even if it doesn't do all I hope it eventually can.
Re:Why Linux?? (Score:2, Interesting)
OK perhaps darwin isn't ready for prime time, but hey....
Re:Interesting, PowerPC version? (Score:5, Interesting)
NeXTstep has something called "fat binaries". It means that the same application that runs on my 68040 NeXT machine will also run on my HP and Intel machines running NeXTstep. When I compile my application, I simply tell the compiler to compile for all these platforms.
Sure, the binaries end up being bigger (about 50% larger for each platform, if I recall), but it was completely painless, and you could use "lipo" to reduce the binary size (and make the application only run on a single platform) if you wanted.
Yes sir, this was state-of-the-art back in 1992. 10 years later, it's all but disapeared.
Does not seem to be available for download (Score:1, Interesting)
They must have known the slashdot effect was coming.
Re:does this distro give the experience of using N (Score:5, Interesting)
But here we are 17 years later, and everyone has finally had a chance to catch up. (Except for Apple, who is now a good 5 years ahead of everyone else by basing their system on NeXTstep
The beauty of NeXTstep was the underlying Objective-C APIs and the dev tools. Amazing, simply amazing. The "build a text editor in under 1 minute without even compiling" example was always a winner.
Using GNUstep w/ WindowMaker is pretty close to the look of NeXTstep, but just seems to be lacking in the "feel" department (that from running GNUstep on my PC, right next to NeXTstep on my 68040 NeXTstation.)
Of course, that was over a year ago, so things might have changed a lot with GNUstep/WIndowMaker since then.
If you can get yourself a NeXT machine cheap, go for it. Heck, you might even be able to find an old Intel of HP machine with NeXTstep on it. But don't expect it to be a dailt use machine. I recently picked up a Mac Classic at a garage sale for the same reason: it's fun to remember what computers were like just a few (well, 12-15
Close... (Score:2, Interesting)
I like the Linux core, I enjoy and am comfortable with Linux as a kernel and the GNU/Linux combo as an OS. I want a better GUI on top of it that pleases my aesthetic sense, makes my life easier when I want it to be easier, doesn't feature at least two separate tracks of font management systems, lots of apps of massively disjoint look-and-feel and more widget toolkits than I care to think about. In other words, Simply GNUStep is a good move, but why don't we consider dropping the X windows? Furthermore, why don't we consider taking this a step further? Hell, OS X took the old NextStep stuff and improved it dramatically. Why don't we do the same, and not be constrained by OS X or attempt to parrot or copy it, and see if we can improve on it?
I agree that source level compatibility with OS X is a nice feature at this point in time since lots of Cocoa apps are being written (primarily because OS X is doing so well), and I like the *Step environments. But I'd like to see some innovation from the Open Source world too.
Heh, build it on Darwin. (Score:4, Interesting)
Glib response (Score:3, Interesting)
DisplayPDF, Aqua window manager, a Dock, Finder (with three view modes), Mail.app, and all for a low price of $1,799!
You even get a DVD-R and LCD screen out of it
Re:GNUstep is better! (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember fondly? That's what I use for my router, DNS, web server, and development workstation!
It's time to upgrade when people start using phrases like "remember fondly" to describe the most powerful system you own.
GNUstep *is* more user friendly--by Fitts' Law (Score:5, Interesting)
KDE, on the other hand, blindly copies microsoft's system of extremely tiny, unlabelled toolbar buttons that have extremely slow mouse access times and extremely small and cryptic icons whose true nature can only be discovered by either clicking on the toolbar button and possibly performing a destructive task or painstakingly holding the mouse over the toolbar button for several unbearable seconds to get the tooltip. "But Microsoft spends zillions of dollars on usability research" some say. And they spend tens of zillions on security research with results just as good. Microsoft is by far the most frequent inductee into the user interface hall of shame [iarchitect.com], and such windows UI shennanigans as multi-level tabs, window in window MDI, and Window XP/2000's dynamic menus have been frequently and harshly criticized in the UI design community. "But Windows users coming to Linux will be familiar with lots of really tiny, confusing, toolbar buttons with slow access times" they say. Windows users are certainly familiar with the Blue Screen of Death--maybe we should put stuff in the linux kernel to make it crash so they'll feel right at home. Yes, I know that there are options in KDE to have icons and text appear together. But this is not done by default. And probably 90% of users end up using the default which is installed with their application/OS. If you don't believe me, just ask Netscape. In the cold, hard reality of end-user desktop UI design, not doing something by default is really the same thing as not doing it.
I challenge the KDE Usability [kde.org] project to, by default, give KDE have large, labelled toolbar buttons that are fast to access and easy to understand. They of course don't have to take this challenge; some people would prefer linux not to get on the desktop.
Re:Or you could chose option 4. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not only that, but it would be a Mac OS like OS for PC that is based on the Mac kernel. Using the same kernel and API set as Mac OS would be really useful. There is already starting to be quite a presence of GNU software for Darwin (can be run on Mac OS X too, not just plain Darwin installs). You can check it out at www.gnu-darwin.org [gnu-darwin.org]
Re:I love vim (Score:2, Interesting)
That is an advantage to a commercial unix or a BSD over linux; you get a non-bloated working system, then you add stuff you like. It's just a cleaner way to work.
Re:Glib response (Score:3, Interesting)