On Monday 21 January 2002 05:24 pm, you wrote:
<snip>
> But although Ruby is founded in Linux, if it is to be useful for
> the 'masses' and a candidate for paid work/jobs, then it will
> have to be provided with a windows-specific approach.

"...have to be provided with...", there's the rub.

I personally don't think that there are enough Windows-only users out there 
with the open source mentality to do this.  Rather, most windows-only users 
have the parasitic mentality inherited from Micros**t of waiting for someone 
else to do it, or if they do it, making it proprietary and charging for it.

>
> I don't think there can be one standard GUI for both unix and windows
> that will satisfy the windows community. 

Duh!

Is there really a statistically significant number of Windows users who give 
a crap about porting anything to Linux? or Mac?  This is a serious question.

> There will have to be a
> standard for windows separate from whatever is used on other OS
> platforms, from my perspective.

Sounds like a major fork to me.  Of course, this is all a red herring.  There 
are only really three groups:

1) Windows-only users:  Ruby currently has good support for the Windows OS 
GUI.  So they are happy.

2) Linux-only users:  Ruby currently has good support for the popular Linux 
OS GUIs: Tk, Fox, & Qt.  So they are happy.

3) That leaves just a small number of Windows users and a larger number of 
Linux/Mac users who are concerned with portability.  I think that this 
argument should be limited to this third group.  


-- 
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of