Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GNUstep Kickstarter Campaign Launched

Unknown Lamer posted 1 year,16 days | from the will-code-for-crowdfunds dept.

GNUStep 131

borgheron writes "A maintainer of GNUstep has launched a Kickstarter campaign to get the resources needed to make GNUstep more complete and bring the implementation to API compatibility with Mac OS X 10.6's Cocoa. This will allow applications for Mac OS X to run on GNU/Linux with a simple recompile using new tools developed by the GNUstep team to directly build from xcodeproj project files. If the Kickstarter project is funded beyond its $50,000 goal, it's possible that WebKit and Darling might also be completed allowing applications built on Mac OS X to run without the need for a recompile... think WINE-like functionality for Mac OS X applications on other platforms... including Windows, Linux, BSD, etc." GNUStep is pretty useful now, but increased coverage of newer Cocoa APIs would be nice, and Darling in particular is interesting by providing a portable Mach-O binary loader.

cancel ×

131 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Photoshop in Linux? (2)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550851)

Does this mean that we could run the Adobe suite on Linux? Maybe Dreamweaver as well? Or is this a hopeless dream. Anything is better than having to use the Mac OSX Finder.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44550885)

Even with this it would still need a recompile, good luck getting Adobe to do that for you.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (4, Informative)

morgauxo (974071) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551901)

"it's possible that WebKit and Darling might also be completed allowing applications built on Mac OS X to run without the need for a recompile..."

And that was just the summary, I didn't even have to rtfa to get that!!!

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (2)

Geeky (90998) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550933)

Unlikely, the market just isn't big enough.

Photoshop and Lightroom would be nice. I use a Mac because I need the Adobe suite and prefer the unix underpinnings of OSX to Windows (to be honest, having used all three - Windows, OSX and Linux - for a number of reasons I'm now happy on OSX).

Not so sure about Dreamweaver. I use it, since it's part of my Creative Cloud subscription and saved me searching out an alternative, but I'm sure there are plenty of better options.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44550999)

Download Photoshop here http://gimp.org/ [gimp.org]

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (0)

Geeky (90998) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551043)

I don't moderate, but that's worth a funny.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551403)

All I'm getting is Paint.NET there.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (2)

westlake (615356) | 1 year,15 days | (#44554305)

Download Photoshop here http://gimp.org/ [gimp.org]

To a geek there is no joke too old and stale not to get a laugh.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551007)

Why Dreamweaver?

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#44553601)

Becasuse vi isn't up to't.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551451)

Maybe Dreamweaver as well?

If you're still using Dreamweaver, do the web design world a favor and have a nice big glass of shotgun mouthwash. Sure, it doesn't churn out QUITE the unmaintainable shit that it used to back in the days of "sliced images", but FFS learn to actually code.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551489)

No. If there were a market for a Linux build of Photoshop, then Adobe would find it much easier to port the Windows version with WINE than the OS X version with GNUstep (and I say this as a GNUstep developer). Applications like OmniGraffle, however, would be easier to port. I think we already implement most of what OmniGraffle needs, but there are lots of missing bits of APIs. I have a Summer of Code student who is working on getting the CoreAnimation / CoreGraphics stuff integrated (our current GUI code uses the NeXT DisplayPostscript APIs) which should help with a lot of things.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (1)

psergiu (67614) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551505)

This means being able to run MS Office and iTunes - both of which are non-AppStore applications which can be downloaded separately and could be run with 10.6 compatibility.

Or, if you install-it on a PowerPC Linux machine, you would even be able to run IE5 :-)

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (2)

WillAdams (45638) | 1 year,16 days | (#44552003)

MS Office and iTunes are both Carbon apps, not Cocoa --- GNUstep is only targeting the NeXTstep-derived OPENSTEP-equiv frameworks, so only Cocoa apps need apply --- there aren't as many as one would think, and that's a shame.

What about the C API "Core" libraries? (1)

glennrrr (592457) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552431)

Also, I have to assume that this project would have to also clone the various Core Foundation and Core Graphics and Core Text APIs as well, as very few real applications would use only the Objective-C wrappers for everything (I would think).

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#44552413)

Run IE5? That's a bit too much even for a masochist.

Re:Photoshop in Linux? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | 1 year,15 days | (#44555811)

Does this mean that we could run the Adobe suite on Linux? Maybe Dreamweaver as well? Or is this a hopeless dream. Anything is better than having to use the Mac OSX Finder.

IIRC, Photoshop at least still uses Carbon to run. This is why Adobe threw such a big fit when Apple originally talked about not taking Carbon 64-bit and expecting everyone to transition to Cocoa.

Well, someone has to ask... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44550853)

What the hell is a GNUstep, and why should I be supporting it?

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (5, Informative)

mlk (18543) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550881)

NeXTSTEP [wikipedia.org] was one of the many closed source OSes kicking about in the early 80s to mid-90s. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple he turned NeXTSTEP into MacOS X.
GNUStep is an open source API based on the NeXTSTEP API.

Why should you support it? If you really really want MacOS X software Y this will make porting it to your-OS-of-choice a lot easier.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44550951)

Yes, Apple was bought by NeXT for -429 M dollar and -1.5 M Apple shares.

Apple is a continuation of NeXT, we know this because the CEO of NeXT was the same person as the CEO of Apple after the takeover of Apple by NeXT.
And OS X is a continuation of NeXTSTEP, we know this because the class names of the API still start with the letters "NS".

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551321)

Actually, the class prefix for NeXTSTEP was NX. NS stands for Next/Sun.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (1)

jcr (53032) | 1 year,16 days | (#44552363)

NS stands for Next/Sun.

Well, that depends on who you ask. NeXT never made any official statement on what the "NS" prefix stands for, and I remember being told that it stood for "NeXT/Sun", "NextStep", and "Neat Stuff" by different people.

-jcr

NS is NeXT/Sun and also Netscape (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552645)

I assume Netscape Portable Runtime [mozilla.org] isn't also NeXTstep or NeXT/Sun. The name dates back to a company bought by AOL that handed off development of Mozilla to Mozilla Foundation. Have there been namespace clashes over this?

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551457)

I do not care for OSX software and cant think of any that I would want ported off the top of my head. (I am sure there must be some that would be useful, possibly even to me if I thought about it, just saying it isnt something I worry about.) But I loved GNUStep and mourned the way that the developers years back all seem to have switched over to bloated nasty frameworks from GNOME and KDE instead of fleshing it out and finishing it.

The only concern I have is they do seem to be looking at it more as a framework for porting, which is the least important use from my perspective. This is the tool to build the better desktop on linux everyone claims to want.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551523)

The only concern I have is they do seem to be looking at it more as a framework for porting, which is the least important use from my perspective. This is the tool to build the better desktop on linux everyone claims to want.

GNUstep aims to implement the APIs that Cocoa uses. This has a natural use as a porting tool, but the main reason we're implementing the APIs is that we want to use them (which has the unfortunate side effect that ones we don't like tend not to be implemented quickly, even if lots of OS X code uses them). Over in Étoilé (which, no doubt, Slashdot's early-'90s character encoding support will mangle: Etoile with accents on both 'e's) we're building frameworks for building better environments, some of which also work on OS X and some of which don't.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551825)

Slashdot didn't mangle them - how did you manage that? More importantly, what characters does /. support - just ASCII?

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552661)

It appears Slashdot supports ISO 8859-1, plus the euro sign, possibly minus a few characters. It used to be possible to use numeric character references until Slashdot killed that due to abuse by vandals.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (0)

ceoyoyo (59147) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552681)

I do care for lots of OS X software, and perhaps some of it would be useful ported to Linux, but I agree the real value of GNUStep is as a cross platform GUI toolkit in it's own right. Write something using a good toolkit (nicer than GNOME and KDE and free unlike Qt) and it happens to run on OS X, Linux and other Unixes.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (2)

dos1 (2950945) | 1 year,15 days | (#44555599)

"free unlike Qt"

Are you from the past?

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551613)

now this is an interesting project worth contributing. not like the ubuntu with pseudo-OSX shell one that was advertised a few days ago.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (3, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551807)

NeXTstep - on those black workstations - was the first UNIX workstation that I found a breeze to use in college - in sharp contrast to either the vt100 terminals w/ SunOS C-shell prompts, or X-terminals running - at the time - either Openlook or DECwindows. I could log into my UNIX account on a NeXT, and then either do my assignments, or be on Usenet. Somehow, it wasn't as easy on other UNIX terminals.

For this reason, I'd root for NEXTSTEP to be a common OS across UNIXstations, and that looked like it might happen when Sun & HP both had projects porting NEXTSTEP to the SparcStations and HP-9000 workstations. But before that could really go far, NeXT got acquired by Apple, and so that idea went away.

GNUSTEP is a way to get that dream on to any platform. GNUSTEP is OpenStep, as implemented by the GNU project. It is FOSS, and therefore, it could theoretically be ported to any platform, giving it a usable UI. The project, as w/ most FOSS ones, had been languishing, but if there is a company that drives it, it could well make some important inroads and improvements in the FOSS world. Particularly be a good alternative to KDE in the marketplace. Also, while there are X based desktop managers like WindowMaker or AfterStep, making something like GNUSTEP would enable the environment to be ported and run on any platform, regardless of whether it has X or not. One may not even need Wayland or Mir.

The biggest reason to promote this is to recreate the paradigm of RAD, but on FOSS platforms, making them more viable for businesses to adapt. Today, the main roadblock to FOSS is the lack of applications, and also the fact that one would have to hire a staff of experts to have a proper platform for the corporate environment. With something like GNUSTEP, the level of expertise required could be more on the higher levels of application development.

Once such a platform is there, it would also be easier to develop cross platform applications, and make organizations less dependent on one type of hardware or another.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552525)

What's the difference between GNUStep and Darwin? I assume GNUStep will be attempting to emulate the OSX system libraries and GUI that Darwin lacks.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552727)

GNUStep is a free, cross platform reimplementation of the NeXT/OS X GUI toolkit. Darwin is the open source kernel and command line userspace of OS X.

Re:Well, someone has to ask... (5, Informative)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | 1 year,15 days | (#44553187)

NeXTSTEP [wikipedia.org] was one of the many closed source OSes kicking about in the early 80s to mid-90s. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple he turned NeXTSTEP into MacOS X.
GNUStep is an open source API based on the NeXTSTEP API.

Kind of, this simplifies things a bit...

When Steve Jobs was at NeXT, the programming interfaces were standardized and turned into an open specification that any platform could implemented. This was called OpenStep. There were several implementations of OpenStep. OpenStep for Mach was what NeXTStep morphed into after the specification was released. Sun shipped a version of OpenStep for Solaris. A Windows NT port was created called OpenStep Enterprise. And then finally for Linux the GNUStep project was created (GNUStep actually started a bit before the OpenStep specification was released).

So while NeXTStep was mostly (not entirely) closed, the entire API around it was designed to be open and implemented on different platforms. GNUStep is the project to implement the open spec on Linux, still going long after that spec got wrapped into OS X and unstandardized.

There was a time that Apple considered still running with the ideas behind OpenStep. It was called Rhapsody, and it had both a full operating system that ran on both Intel and PowerPC hardware, and an environment for Windows NT and legacy Mac OS. For whatever political reasons this project didn't work out (Adobe and Microsoft had particularly strong objections to having to port to OpenStep.)

Short version: Things are a little more complicated than NeXTStep being "closed source."

Re: Well, someone has to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44550897)

Think of GNUStep as the code behind Apple's window manager but without any of Apple's graphic designers. Or, just think of what a Mac would look like running Motif from 1997, but not quite as polished or complete. And then realize that the target for API completeness is two versions, now almost three, behind where OSX is today.

Re: Well, someone has to ask... (1)

morgauxo (974071) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551969)

"And then realize that the target for API completeness is two versions, now almost three, behind where OSX is today."

I really doubt anybody would go through all that work of targeting 10.6 and then never touch it again.

No doubt if they were getting close to meeting that target there would be a new target with a newer version. The thing with clone libraries like these (such as Wine) is that it isn't practical to target the latest version. You don't really get to start working on targeting a new version until the company who's libraries you are cloning releases them so you are always at a disadvantage. It's better to just aim for something recent enough that it can run a significant amount of still-relevant software but plan to always be a bit behind.

Re: Well, someone has to ask... (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552861)

And then realize that the target for API completeness is two versions, now almost three, behind where OSX is today.

SO you mean, about 15 years ahead of where KDE and Gnome are today? I'm not actually trolling here. This is where NEXT application development was in 1992 [youtube.com] .

Re: Well, someone has to ask... (1)

tarzeau (322206) | 1 year,15 days | (#44553227)

That's absolutely right, even today, GNUstep is 15 years ahead of KDE(qt) and GNOME(gtk). Look at the API's, try to write one single graphical app with qt or gtk. Compare the lines of code and time compared to develop the same graphical application made with GNUstep (or Xcode on Mac OS X) using the Cocoa API (which is nothing else but Foundation Kit and Application Kit).

It isn't faster to code on NeXTstep; you just have to write less of it. The revolution is "getting rid of software". -- http://www.paullynch.org/NeXTSTEP/Savoy.1992.htmld/ [paullynch.org]

Shooting for 10.x? (0)

frist (1441971) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550875)

Why? Mavericks is almost out. Mac users upgrade their os since it is dirt cheap ($30 covers all your macs) and the lion & mountain lion versions were. Very worthwhile. This makes no sense as a project.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (3, Interesting)

andreicristianpetcu (1964402) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550935)

I don't understand the project either. Why would I want to run OS X apps on GNU/Linux? Probably there are a few niches like Photoshop that might want to run them but seriously, how many cool apps are on OS X that NEEEEDDD to run on other OSes? I would like to see more money thrown ant Wine not on GNUStep.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551045)

Some people are crazy enough that they actually want to program their applications in Objective-C. Also I hear that OpenSTEP/GNUStep/Cocoa is actually rather nice library to code against, and having feature parity with certain (frozen) OS X version also gives the nice bonus of being able to use at least parts of Cocoa documentation when coding with GNUStep.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

cjpa (796302) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551115)

Windowmaker with a modern look&feel. YES PLEASE!!!

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551473)

Windowmaker yes!

If "modern look&feel" means what I fear it does, then no way. Windowmaker is perfect the way it is. It just needs the associated system apps finished and polished properly.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

morgauxo (974071) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551981)

Duh! Photoshop.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (2)

smash (1351) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552805)

This isn't about running OS X apps. This is about having the legendary NextSTEP rapid application development tools and some level of source compatibility between OS X and other Unix. Couldn't give a shit about OS X applications running on Linux personally, but if it means that Unix/Linux can piggyback off the huge numbers of developers learning to code for iOS and OS X, we might actually get some applications written that have a UI worth a damn. Interface builder makes the UI somewhat segregated for the code it is connected to. I.e., you can get a UI guy who actually knows shit from clay with regards to UI design to sort the UI out without needing to write or modify any code.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#44554185)

SourceTree, TouchGrind, XCode, and Reason would be nice.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

Tsiangkun (746511) | 1 year,15 days | (#44554483)

+1 You would think that with all the programmers on linux, something as elegant and functional as sourcetree would be standard.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

ashpool7 (18172) | 1 year,15 days | (#44555453)

Easy portability from OS X to Linux/FreeBSD.

Many programmers and server admins moved to OS X as their desktop machine because of its Unix base. You can have a nice desktop, commercial app support, and not be far away from a command line environment.

If GNUStep can get compatibility, then developers can cross target OS X and Linux with their apps.

Windows has nothing in common with Linux. All you're doing by throwing money at Wine is perpetuating the Windows Way Of Programming. At least with GNUStep it starts with the assumption of Linux or BSD Unix.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

tgetzoya (827201) | 1 year,15 days | (#44555559)

Here's an idea: I bought a MacBook Pro with OSX 10.7 in June of last year. I also bought Panic Coda, which is OSX only. Once OSX 10.x comes out that no longer supports my hardware, I can install Debian/GNUStep and continue to use Coda. I will admit I'm not heavy into Apple only apps, but I'm willing to bet there are many out there that are and this would be a great way of continuing to use things paid for without having to go out and buy expensive new versions of hardware.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551749)

Mac users upgrade their os since it is dirt cheap ($30 covers all your macs)

Mavericks covers all sufficiently recent Macs. Mac mini before "early 2009" need not apply.

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (4, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551797)

Because a lot of us on Macs are stuck on 10.6 and lots of OS X applications are targeting that group?

Re:Shooting for 10.x? (1)

WillAdams (45638) | 1 year,16 days | (#44552031)

Not upgrading here until I get a replacement for Macromedia FreeHand --- using it limits me to Mac OS X 10.6.8.

I miss the dock (0)

captjc (453680) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550903)

Personally, I'd just rather have real transparency (without invoking hacks) in Window Maker. I just miss the NeXT-style dock. That, I'd donate a few bucks for.

Re:I miss the dock (1)

DMJC (682799) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550989)

With the APIs being completed in GNUstep, including Quartz (called Opal in GNUstep) This becomes VERY possible to make. Once webkit is ported there will actually be a working desktop with browser, video player, music player, irc, terminal. OSX style menus already exist. It would also make it possible to port the quartz composer and related video technologies which remain some of the best video pipelining tools ever made.

GNUSTEP's graphical underpinnings? (2)

unixisc (2429386) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551941)

Where can I find ut more about Opal? I checked out Wiki, and this was what it showed:

  • - OPAL (software) (Open Physics Abstraction Layer), a real-time physics engine
  • - OPAL, a LAMP (software bundle)-like software bundle used in Oracle/PHP/Apache/Linux
  • - Opal programming language, developed at the Technical University of Berlin
  • - Open Phone Abstraction Library (OPAL), a fork of the H323plus project supporting H.323, SIP, IAX2
  • - Opal Storage Specification, a storage specification developed by the Trusted Computing Group
  • - BlackOpal, third release of Oz Unity, an Ubuntu-based Linux distribution

So where can I find out more?

Also, does GNUSTEP require anything like X, Wayland or Mir? Or can it be implemented directly on an OS? How much of an OS has to be there - like can GNUSTEP be simply ported on to Minix 3.x? Or does it need both Userland and kernel to be there?

Re:I miss the dock (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551531)

WindowMaker doesn't use GNUstep and is not a GNUstep project. GNUstep has supported full transparency in applications for a few years.

Re:I miss the dock (1)

captjc (453680) | 1 year,15 days | (#44553761)

Did I ever say Window Maker was part of GNUStep? Doesn't change the fact that both are part of a handful of various projects to port or clone features from NeXTSTEP.

They go together like like Bacon and Eggs. Both enjoyable and useful separately but also enjoyed together by many, including myself.

Re:I miss the dock (1)

smash (1351) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552751)

GNUStep is nothing to do with UI elements. It's a collection of frameworks for objective-C to develop applications with.

Why bother? (2, Insightful)

zoffdino (848658) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550907)

Why bother duplicating the exact functionality of a commercial software, only for it to be labelled open source? Are they doing this for only open-source sake? Mac OS X is certified UNIX, and with some care, applications cab easily be made to compilable on multiple Linux distros. GUI application is an entirely different matter, but there are cross-platform solutions like Qt, GTK, Java swing, etc. There are lots of technologies that are encumbered by patents in Mac OS X, like Time Machine, Core Image, or QTKit. And how the hell will GNUStep enable integration with iCloud for those applications that use it?

Re:Why bother? (2)

The1stImmortal (1990110) | 1 year,16 days | (#44550983)

While OSX is "certified UNIX", there's a lot of proprietary APIs and libraries layered on top of that to produce the GUI environment most OSX users interact with.

So the "With some care" you speak of to make "applications [...] easily be made to compilable on multiple Linux distros" includes a working implementation of those proprietary APIs and libraries. GNUStep is that, though it's currently more like OSX ancestor NeXTSTEP than it is like modern OSX

Hence the kickstarter

Re:Why bother? (2)

zoffdino (848658) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551057)

Like I mentioned, you won't get Cocoa framework on GNUStep anytime soon. If you write a command line app, keep yourself to C or C++, and don't touch any of the Apple's proprietary frameworks, you can port your application to most Linux and BSD distros. If there are apps important enough for you and they are only available on Mac OS X, then get a Mac. Consider that a cost of doing business; charge your client more to cover your costs.

GUI is a different matter, but there are cross platform frameworks available. You don't have to use Cocoa. And I seriously doubt you can get anywhere near the Mac OS X look-and-feel without getting sued by Apple

Re:Why bother? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,15 days | (#44554555)

Like I mentioned, you won't get Cocoa framework on GNUStep anytime soon

That makes no sense at all. GNUstep is an open source implementation of the Cocoa framework.

Re:Why bother? (2)

we3 (546328) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551031)

I'll take a quick stab at answering your question.

They're not trying to duplicate Mac OS X. The project started before that, to clone nextstep, or the api's at least, which were at one point being billed as a cross platform framework called openstep.

I assume these guys liked Objective-C(which came from nextstep) and liked openstep and you know then the whole thing took on a life of its own.

Now they could stick with the state of openstep when NeXT shutdown, or they could go off on thier own, or they could bring in the new stuff from Mac OS X(which is descended from nextstep).

They seem to want to the last one.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551471)

NeXT wasn't shutdown. NeXT bought Apple and now use their name.

Re:Why bother? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | 1 year,16 days | (#44552087)

They could offer a choice of UIs here - either the old NEXTSTEP UI, at the time of NEXTSTEP 3.3 or 3.4, or they could offer something like OS-X. Or even something like Étoilé

Re:Why bother? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | 1 year,15 days | (#44554593)

GNUstep started to implement the OpenStep specification, which was a public spec for portable application development and was implemented by NeXT and Sun (hence the NS prefix on all of the class names). The most popular implementation of OpenStep is called Cocoa, and includes a lot of extensions to the base spec. We try to implement these extensions as well.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551069)

Commercial software is full of backdoors, from Windows to Skype, to pretty much everthing that's used by more than 1 person.
That alone is a good enough reason to want everything open sourced.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551227)

lol

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551821)

What's so funny?

It's about having free software (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551803)

> Are they doing this for only open-source sake?

They're doing it to have free software that can replace proprietary software. Being free software means the user community knows exactly what the software is doing and can decide how it will be modified.

Proprietary software locks users in, adds back doors, imposes DRM, gathers personal info and sends it to advertisers, omits features so that users can be pushed to buy the more expensive version, and omits features that users want (i.e. to protect privacy) because the owner has a commercial relationship with advertisers, and other nasty things that users don't ask for.

So it's not about "open source", but yes, it's about the distribution model. More specifically, "free software".
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html [gnu.org]

Re:Why bother? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | 1 year,16 days | (#44552049)

If it was just for FOSS sake, it might be questionable, but there is a good precedence for why it should exist. When NEXT got acquired by Apple, NEXTSTEP disappeared after a while, since they were now working on OS-X. Had there been no GNUSTEP, that whole thing could have been lost. Of course, there are big differences b/w the NEXTSTEP UI vs that of OS-X, and GNUSTEP is expected to look more like the former, w/ some improvements from OS-X made optional.

Mac OS X is certified UNIX, but one would have to either buy Apple hardware, or pull off tricks like Hackintosh, if one wants to run it on, say, Dell hardware. But more importantly, let's say that an organization likes this, and would like to run it on some SPARC servers. Or Itanium. With OS-X, it's out of the question. But w/ GNUSTEP, they can take the code, port it to their favored platform, and then run it there, and get the best of both worlds.

Re:Why bother? (0)

ceoyoyo (59147) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552837)

GNUStep is a reimplementation of the OS X GUI toolkit. If you want to write a Mac application that will work on Linux at the moment you can write the whole thing in C and use something like Qt or GTK. Qt is proprietary and GTK is bloated and sucks. GNUStep makes available the NeXT/OS X equivalent of Qt/GTK/etc., which is really very good.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | 1 year,15 days | (#44553731)

Qt is proprietary

QT is dual licensed as commercial and LGPL.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#44554245)

Why bother duplicating the exact functionality of a commercial software ?

What is GNU again ? What is UNIX ? Why would they develop the exact functionality of the commercial UNIX ?

What is Linux ? Why would someone develop on open source kernel when a perfectly serviceable commercial version exists ?

I for one can not see any reason to duplicate the exact functionality of commercial software, only for it to be labeled, and released as open source. It is clearly a total waste of time to do such things.

GNU Clowns Strikes Again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44550973)

As with the GNU kernel, it's too little too late.

GNUStep is the most elaborate way to make your applications look like applications did in the 90's.

Moving on...

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (1)

ferrisoxide.com (1935296) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551079)

Yeah.. I don't know how I feel about this. I loved NeXT in the day, and GNUStep always seemed like a worthwhile continuation of the OpenStep spec was awesome.. but if I contribute to the Kickstarter campaign I don't know how much it will be out of wanting the project to succeed, or how much from nostalgia.

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (1)

ferrisoxide.com (1935296) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551085)

Man.. I never seem to be able to proofread my own comments before posting.

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551271)

Next time you do, remember that a period is one dot (.) and an ellipsis is three (...)

Your double-dot makes you look rather moronic.

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (1)

ferrisoxide.com (1935296) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551709)

Really? You seem to come across as an arse clown - I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (1)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,16 days | (#44552383)

There is nothing wrong with your comment. Yes, at one point the grammar was slightly confused, but it was crystal clear. And made a good point. Unlike our anonymous putz.

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (1)

unixisc (2429386) | 1 year,16 days | (#44552173)

Not Nostalgia. The original goal of OpenStep was to have a cross-platform standard, and that was lost once Apple acquired NEXT. Of course, today, w/ the death of most RISC platforms, it may look like the goal no longer looks worth it, but that assumes that there won't be other CPUs other than x86 or ARM in the market. It's worth having something available in the event there is, aside from having this FOSS standard there for laptops as well.

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (1)

smash (1351) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552713)

You do realize, that the cool GNUstep goodness has NOTHING TO DO with the actual UI elements (which can be easily themed as/when needed at a later date), right? It's all about the objective-c frameworks.

Re:GNU Clowns Strikes Again (2)

tarzeau (322206) | 1 year,15 days | (#44553271)

"One could say that GNUstep is a very nice woman, but without proper make-up and with a shabby dress. Although the expert eye could see the star sparkle, the average person maybe would prefer a more normal female with choosen make-up and dress." -- http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13189460&postID=112497309425424497 [blogger.com]

Thanks but no thanks (0)

Mister Liberty (769145) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551051)

I'm staying away these days from anything that even remotely associates with Apple.

Re:Thanks but no thanks (1)

ferrisoxide.com (1935296) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551105)

But this is the cool bits.. before Apple became the promised land for developers of small and useless applications.

Re:Thanks but no thanks (1)

ferrisoxide.com (1935296) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551143)

Bugger it.. I'm backing it. I actually hope this gets up.

Will not support (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551233)

NOTE: Some of the rewards say Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Apologies for the omission.

Sorry, I dont support projects with pedantic zelots leading them. There is "Linux" and the Linux kernel, "Linux" is a fine an appropriate generic term for the operating system as a whole. Otherwise you really should be saying stupid shit like: "Ubuntu/Debian/GNU/Linux" to be clear because GNU is just a toolchain and a collection of software but not the whole collection.

Get. Over. It.

GNU/ to distinguish from Android (2)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551809)

Is Android "Linux"? Yes; it uses the Linux kernel. Is it the same platform as GNU/Linux (Linux + glibc + Coreutils + X11)? Not for this purpose. The use of "GNU/Linux" emphasizes that this project aims to reimplement Cocoa on GNU/Linux, not to reimplement Cocoa Touch on Android/Linux.

GNU & GNUSTEP? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552493)

Isn't GNUSTEP, like OpenStep, a platform independent standard? If yes, then it would work on both GNU as well as non-GNU platforms, such as the BSDs. Also, how important is the GNU userland here - is it either an important part of GNUSTEP, or necessary for GNUSTEP to even work/run? If not, then leaving out GNU out of Linux doesn't mean much, since GNUSTEP could run on it, w/o things like glibc, x11 and so on.

Saying "*BSD or Linux that isn't Android" (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552735)

Perhaps X11/Linux would be the most accurate. In any case, the Android userland is as different from the "typical" *BSD or Linux that isn't Android userland as OS X is from either, and saying "GNU/Linux" all the time is far more convenient than saying "*BSD or Linux that isn't Android" all the time

Re:GNU & GNUSTEP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#44556243)

GNUstep runs on FreeBSD, MidnightBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD at least. It probably runs on DragonFly. I don't know about MirBSD.

GNUstep is not an open standard, but it's tracking Apple (very slowly). I donated money already to this kickstarter.

They target 10.6 because each release builds on it self. When 10.6 is done, they'll do 10.7. That's how they roll.

Re:Will not support (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#44553673)

Debian's official name is "Debian GNU/Linux" and not "Debian Linux"; he was apologising for (accidentally) using the latter form. As a long-time Debian user, the name "Debian Linux" does look weird, and I agree that mentioning it (since he apparently can't fix it) is the right thing to do, no matter where you stand on the relationship between the GNU userland and Linux kernel.

GNUStep is a great project (2)

root_42 (103434) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551443)

I like this campaign. Objective C is continually in the Top 5 of the most widely used languages (http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html). It is a very nice, simple object oriented C dialect. It is used on OS X and iOS, the latter of which is installed on hundreds of millions of devices (http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/23/apple-over-500-million-ios-devices-sold/). Both operating systems heavily utilize Cocoa as their framework

Having better or even any Cocoa support on Linux would help to get developers to target both world. Linux on the one side, and iOS/OS X on the other side. I think this is well worth for all Linux users to chip in some money (even if it's only $1).

Re:GNUStep is a great project (1)

abies (607076) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551985)

If by 'continually in the Top 5' you mean 'already second year in a row in Top 5', then I can agree. But I think that compared to other top-10 languages, 'just very recently became of any importance at all' would be more honest statement.

Now this is funny. (1)

unmole (1764198) | 1 year,16 days | (#44551517)

"NOTE: Some of the rewards say Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Apologies for the omission." LOL!

You're going about it all wrong... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#44551565)

See, the best way to raise money for a cause is to tug at the hearts of the Apple faithful..

So:

"Do it for Steve.
This is the grandchild of his baby."

 

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#44552421)

GNUstep is a lovely (and lovable) project, but "bring the implementation to API compatibility with Mac OS X 10.6's Cocoa"? Really? 10.6, when 10.9 is just around the corner? With such a huge delay, GNUstep will never be able to take off.

Re:Hmmm (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552903)

There isn't a lot of difference in the core Cocoa API between the later versions. Many, MANY OS X developers target 10.6 because it runs fine under everything more recent and unless you're using the latest goodies, which are unlikely to be ported by GNUStep anyway, there's no difference.

irrespective of ports.... (3, Interesting)

smash (1351) | 1 year,15 days | (#44552679)

... I think having a complete and competent objective-c development platform on Unix/Linux is a very good thing. Even if it is up to OS X 10.6 level - plenty of Mac users still run 10.6 and as far as a platform goes 10.6 is still pretty powerful.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>