> > I think having a split website is fine, it can be made clearer, we can > have better working and better navigation. The only common part is the > painpoint: the homepage. We used the catch-all approach for years, > continuing to add everything so that at a glance everything is there. I > tried to clean it up a little, but it can be done further without fear, > being sure that you can read what you need. >
GNUstep as a framework has an extremely rich set of tools in addition to the classes. If web properties were separated between a developer web site and an end user facing web site for a future desktop, there are a few benefits. - Each website has a distinct target audience - Each website will have it's own home page tailored to the needs of their target audience - It eliminates end users navigating to pages that are not relevant to them - This opens the opportunity to actually have multiple implementations down the road. NEXT style, Modern style, phone, tablet etc - There is more than enough content to justify a dedicated GNUstep developer focused site. Apple themselves have multiple implementations/platforms. They also have separate web sites for end users and developers. This is not by accident and likely for the same reasons I stated above. On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 1:48 PM Ethan C <echaroenpit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I had an overview of the GNUstep system at > https://ethanc8.github.io/Sphinx-Documentation/Reference/index.html. It's > unfortunately a bit outdated, but do you think this kind of index would be > good or do we want to organize oir docs some other way? > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, 12:35 Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mott...@libero.it> > wrote: > >> Hi ANdreas, >> >> Andreas Fink wrote: >> > I think the answer lays in the area of who will use the website. >> > >> > If a developer wants to use it, he will think of frameworks for his app >> > If a end user wants to use it, he will think of a full fledged desktop >> > with a lot of apps already ready to deploy. >> >> Exactly.. also there are different kind of developers. Some just want to >> port their app - they don't care much about project philosphy, GNU, >> whatever. Other choose to GNUstep core because they like it and take >> portability to Mac as a bonus. >> >> Also, different kind of users, some users just look at some screenshots, >> others, who like to dive into details can look a bit in the technical >> side, this is why I like them to be "one menu distance" in navigation. >> Distinct, but near. Like the other side of the medal. >> >> > >> > For me the developer is just someone using an SDK to use the >> > frameworks to run on the desktop. So the developer is a special user >> case. >> > If the desktop is not attractive, then the end users will not install >> > it, hence developers will at some point waste their time developing >> > for it (ignoring the fact temporarly that you can write single apps >> > who don't care about the desktop environment and just run on any X.org >> > <http://X.org> install or even without any GUI). >> > >> > For me, marketing a fully fledged desktop is the much more attractive >> > view. However it also means we must get a working reference >> > implementation into the distros. Something where when one installs XYZ >> > Linux, a question would appear saying "What Desktop do you want to run >> > on: GNOME, KDE, Gnustep,...?" >> >> Yes.. but think that GTK gives GNOME and XFCE and a lot of people like >> the latter (myself) and QT has KDE and Trinity... (ok, I hope we won't >> have stupid revision splits like these project has, pass the comparison). >> >> >> > >> > Given GNUStep is kind of a "clone" of MacOS at some point, I believe >> > having a well working desktop would bring MacOS developers over to the >> > platform to use GNUStep as the tool to port their Apps to supported >> > GNUStep Platforms. Of course all the latest new AI and ML and Metal >> > implementation stuff would be missing but there are LOTS and LOTS of >> > applications out there who could be ported easily. But it all starts >> > with a working environment a developer coming over from MacOS could use. >> > >> >> thank you for your thought, it is similar to mine. >> >> >> I think having a split website is fine, it can be made clearer, we can >> have better working and better navigation. The only common part is the >> painpoint: the homepage. We used the catch-all approach for years, >> continuing to add everything so that at a glance everything is there. I >> tried to clean it up a little, but it can be done further without fear, >> being sure that you can read what you need. >> >> However... we lack clear material in development, how things fit >> together, the structure, so that you can read. The "glue" between just >> raw class reference and tutorials. They should be there and cross-linked. >> >> Also some diagrams like our library structure. presentation of the >> different libraries beyond core. >> >> we essentially have: >> https://www.gnustep.org/developers/index.html >> >> which contains really little. Points out some stuff to Wiki... but we >> should decide that if it is stable and complete, it should be "promoted" >> and integrated. E.g. >> >> https://www.gnustep.org/developers/map.html >> >> Sorry for not having upgraded the style of it yet - will do. But it >> should have a good "text" around the images. >> Also... I find it a little bit confusing- gnustep make ? >> >> >> The real useful it has is a link here: >> https://www.gnustep.org/developers/documentation.html >> >> >> Good evening, >> >> Riccardo >> >>
