Re: itunes for windows HOWTO ???
Re: itunes for windows HOWTO ???
- Subject: Re: itunes for windows HOWTO ???
- From: David Leimbach <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:19:25 -0600
I think you need a definition of FUD :)
I don't see Fear Uncertainty or Doubt.
On Nov 10, 2003, at 9:44 PM, Alex Perez wrote:
A reply to the FUDmaster follows...
[SNIP}
Important notes for GnuStep:
* It's incomplete (but improving all the time).
FUD. It's not perfect, but so much progress has been made in the last
year, and it really pisses me off when people assume that it has not.
Wow... you need to read. He said its not done but improving all the
time.
I don't read anything negative about that except your willingness to
call everything FUD.
* It's not based on Cocoa, but rather the much older OpenStep spec
from NeXT's days. Any Cocoa stuff which makes it in is purely
coincidental.
No, it's not, nor will it ever be, based on Cocoa. That being said,
it's probably 95% the same. We implement things from Cocoa we see as
useful. One of the things that will be implemented shortly is
NSToolbar, because many people find it useful.
That is nice to know. There are many new APIs that are in 10.3 only
for Cocoa that I have found and will probably use in my applications.
Having my apps work in GNUStep would be cool but its not a requirement
for the audience I intend stuff for.
* (Last I looked) it had very little GUI stuff available, so again,
it's probably not entirely suited to the original poster's
requirements
Wrong, wrong wrong. I use GNUstep's GUI daily, and it works just fine.
GNUstep's AppKit works, and is being improved by the week. This is
pure FUD, and I believe this kind of misinformed FUD-slinging is why
more people don't look into it.
This was also qualified by "last I looked"... no FUD seen here.
* They sometimes deviate and do things their own way, because they
feel the OpenStep method is not good enough (which may be the case,
but still, lost compatibility...)
Wrong. The OpenStep Spec is not a Holy Grail. There are instances
where things were implemented in sub-optimal ways, and we fix those
instances. There are also instances where Apple has implemented
certain things in sub-optimal ways. For what it's worth, often times,
if we come across a compatibility issue, we choose to go with the way
that Cocoa has implemented it, even if there's a technically better
way to do it. That being said, we're not in lockstep with Apple's
implementations, nor do we intend to be.
So in saying he was wrong about GNUStep having different
implementations due the "sub optimal" ways it was done in OpenStep you
are agreeing yet you still say he is wrong?
Your explanation sounds like you are:
1) Correcting problems you see in OpenStep [good for you]
2) Correcting problems you see in Cocoa [also good for you]
3) Compromise your own ideas because you like Cocoa better sometimes
[smart design decisions]
So... I hope you can see that what you are doing is deviation and that
my saying so isn't FUD. :)
* They sometimes can get lazy and don't do things "properly" (e.g.
their Distributed Objects implementation works differently to
Apple's, for better or worse)
There are technical reasons for this that are beyond the scope of this
e-mail, and beyond the scope of my ability to clearly explain. Someone
over in email@hidden would be happy to explain it to you if
you really do care.
I think "properly" in quotes is used to express that Apple's way might
be seen as properly to many people as that is the
both the host and topic of this mailing list - Apple's implementation.
I wouldn't call GNUStep developers lazy at all and I think its a
low-blow of sorts to do so. That I would call FUD but you
sure didn't :)
Dave
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.