The crazy thing I did to fix Yosemite performance

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Monday November 03 2014 12:22:00 Michael Crawford wrote:

> I'm a frothing VAX/VMS Geek myself.  I actually scored a FORTRAN
> contract in 2006.
> I myself helped a bit with the QA of A/UX 2.0 in 1989 and 1990.

A VAX/VMS "real programmers use Fortran" kinda guy working on (I presume) the A/UX version of the Classic environment precursor that allowed to run System 6 and 7 on top of A/UX (and exercise the user's patience)? Memories, memories ...

> Creation.  OS X GUI applications, and many other programs are all in
> these newfangled "packages" - small directory heirarchies.

The disadvantage is that many of those apps will install their own copy of all needed frameworks if they aren't Apple frameworks.
There's a lot to be said with the framework and bundle concept, and a lot to be desired with the current implementation :)

> However, very few UNIX distros will permit the adoption of GnuStep - a

(K)Ubuntu has a nice little list of GNUStep stuff.

> Free Software Cocoa Clone - for the specific reason that these

It's more a GNU re-implementation of NextStep with some Cocoa backports, no?

> packages violate the Linux Standards Base.

Is that the official reason? I'd guess the reason is more that you'd have to symlink from a standard location to the bundle executable in order to be able to launch it, or run some kind of graphical GNUstep workspace which probably would have looked bad even in NextStep days.
Last time I looked (earlier this year, I looked at the mail app in particular), there was simply nothing in GNUStep that could appeal to me.

> I myself regard these packages as solving the Linux filesystem layout
> problem, not screwing it up.

They would if the system were capable of handling app bundles as applications. But then you'd find yourself with a motherload of app bundles in /usr/bin, all together, more or less just like how Apple wants your /Applications to look. 

Anyway, that's all a bit too far OT for this thread.


R