lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (10/07/90)
In <8036@gollum.twg.com>, david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >NeXT has another Big Problem which will limit software for it -- it >doesn't run X. X is a very powerful force in the market right now, >especially on workstation-y like things. It may have some technical >problems, and it may not be the "best way to do user interfaces" >(whatever that means), but it's a very useful system -- especially >since it runs across networks & all. Heck, X even beat out Sun >with their Sun{tools,view} stuff that they've now adopted X and >given it a place in the environment .. To say that X 'beat out Sun(tools|view)' is misleading. It would be more accurate to say that it beat out NeWS, which was the nearest equivalent product of Sun. Sun(tools|view) would have been replaced anyway, and it was just a matter of what was going to replace it. It's just too bad that X got such a firm foothold before NeWS was ready. (this may or may not correspond with the offical opinion of my employer, and is my opinion alone) -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (10/08/90)
In article <14897@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>>...but I agree that the NeXT is looking good, now only if it had some >>>software...hmmm... > > At preset, if the NeXT >doesn't come with the software you need, you stand a high chance of >being in trouble if you're just expecting that application to be available >on the market. While the same can be said of any machine, NeXT right >now is on the bad end of the applications spectrum. You can go out and >buy an MS-DOS machine with reasonable certainty that if a program for a >particular problem exists, you can run it on that machine. NeXT has another Big Problem which will limit software for it -- it doesn't run X. X is a very powerful force in the market right now, especially on workstation-y like things. It may have some technical problems, and it may not be the "best way to do user interfaces" (whatever that means), but it's a very useful system -- especially since it runs across networks & all. Heck, X even beat out Sun with their Sun{tools,view} stuff that they've now adopted X and given it a place in the environment .. As for interface builders -- people have been talking here about how nice it would be to have something like NeXT's Interface Builder for the Amiga. I've lately been writing my first X programs and would love dearly to have an interface builder. They do exist, I just don't have one :-(. (woulda made that 20,000+ lines of code I wrote to drive my screens much easier -- or so I assume) In my searchings for one I've run across something from Carnegie-Mellon called Serpent. It is, right now, targeted at X based user interfaces but is interesting because -- it was designed to map to any input/output system. They mention it being used with an "experimental gesturing system", for instance. It can be glued to any graphical I/O system and the program to do this (generate the bindings) is called "Glue". -- The interfaces are driven from a scripting language which is very well suited to the purpose of some sort of user-interface making transactions into an application specific base of data. -- It includes an interface builder/editor which is, itself, a serpent application. Teach it about Intuition and it could become an Interface Builder for AmigaDOS. There's an announcement in comp.archives for a new alpha test version. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- Remember: On System V it's "tar xovf", not "tar xvf"!
utoddl@uncecs.edu (Todd M. Lewis) (10/08/90)
In article <8036@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >NeXT has another Big Problem which will limit software for it -- it >doesn't run X. X is a very powerful force in the market right now, This doesn't belong here, but X runs on my NeXT just fine. ><- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> --Todd
zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) (10/11/90)
In article <8036@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >NeXT has another Big Problem which will limit software for it -- it >doesn't run X. X is a very powerful force in the market right now, BZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong, very, very, wrong. Those wonderful folks (at MIT?) ported X11R3 (at least, R4 may be out by now). X for the next runs in one of the NeXTStep windows, so you have two user interfaces going at once. I hope that the people who have a need to do this invest in lots and lots of RAM! Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240 Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.
S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright) (10/12/90)
On 11 Oct 90 08:20:16 GMT you said: >In article <8036@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >>NeXT has another Big Problem which will limit software for it -- it >>doesn't run X. X is a very powerful force in the market right now, > >BZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong, very, very, wrong. > >Those wonderful folks (at MIT?) ported X11R3 (at least, R4 may be out by >now). X for the next runs in one of the NeXTStep windows, so you have >two user interfaces going at once. I hope that the people who have a >need to do this invest in lots and lots of RAM! > > Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240 > Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers. I may be wrong, but I think the original author meant that the NeXT doesn't run X as its native OS. Not that it doesn't run X at all. You still have to run NeXTStep to run X. Disclaimer: I may be wrong about the above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================================================= ||NeXT- (nekst) N. The only computer to have sold less than 10,000 || || units in two years and not be considered a flop. || ||------------------------------------------/ /------------------------|| ||---Brian Wright | / / || ||---s36666wb@etsuacad.etsu.edu | \ \/ / Only Amiga || ||---Commercial Artist and Amigaphile| \/\/ Makes It Possible!! || =======================================================================
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (10/13/90)
In article <33198@nigel.ee.udel.edu> S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright) writes: >On 11 Oct 90 08:20:16 GMT you said: >>In article <8036@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: > >I may be wrong, but I think the original author meant that the NeXT doesn't run >X as its native OS. Not that it doesn't run X at all. You still have to run >NeXTStep to run X. Yes.. that's pretty much what I meant. I have vague memories of hearing of an X port to NeXT but could easily have forgotten about it. Also .. since it's not "commercially available" a lot of people would discount it if for no other reason than you have to make an effort to hear about it. (People talk about it on The Net, but not Everybody is attached to The Net, nor does Everybody who is Attached read the Right Groups on The Net ...) I used to "discount" the idea of running X inside a window for another windowing system as sheer hackery. But lately it's seems to me to be a Good Expedient -- the person is then able to make use of both worlds at once. Seems "useful" .. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- Remember: On System V it's "tar xovf", not "tar xvf"!
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (10/14/90)
In article <8036@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >NeXT has another Big Problem which will limit software for it -- it >doesn't run X. X is a very powerful force in the market right now, >especially on workstation-y like things. It may have some technical >problems, and it may not be the "best way to do user interfaces" >(whatever that means), but it's a very useful system -- especially >since it runs across networks & all. Heck, X even beat out Sun >with their Sun{tools,view} stuff that they've now adopted X and >given it a place in the environment .. You don't get X when you buy a NeXT, but the current version (X11R4) has been ported and is available for ftp. (Dunno why I'm telling you this, I don't like X *or* NeXTs... Stickler for correctness? Dunno. }-) -- -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan one million data bits stored on a chip, one million bits per chip if one of those data bits happens to flip, one million data bits stored on the chip...
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/15/90)
Who cares if NeXT runs X? That's like complaining the Amiga doesn't run IBM software. X is fatally flawed, and in a sane world it would have gone under long ago... just like the IBM-PC. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (10/16/90)
On the topic of NeXT's Interface Builder...A friend of mine, a high
priced lawyer in a computer illiterate law firm has been shopping for
a computer. He started looking at Macintosh II, so I steered him toward
a NeXT (couldn't get him interested in Amiga, but I tried!!)
Anyway, he went to Businessland in Pittsburgh, and they set up an
appointment for him with NeXT, who gave him a pretty impressibe demo.
The surprising thing, I thought, was the thing about NeXT that IMPRESSED
HIM THE MOST. Interface Builder. I think he thinks he can use it to
build custom applications.
I think this is relevant because there seems to be growing sentiment
from many sources that IB is something special. I wish Amiga had something
similar.
leezerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) (10/16/90)
In article <90288.143142UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes: >On the topic of NeXT's Interface Builder...A friend of mine, a high >priced lawyer in a computer illiterate law firm has been shopping for >... >Anyway, he went to Businessland in Pittsburgh, and they set up an >appointment for him with NeXT, who gave him a pretty impressibe demo. > >The surprising thing, I thought, was the thing about NeXT that IMPRESSED >HIM THE MOST. Interface Builder. I think he thinks he can use it to >build custom applications. > >I think this is relevant because there seems to be growing sentiment >from many sources that IB is something special. I wish Amiga had something >similar. The IB *IS* something special. From a programmer's standpoint (mine), it is wonderful because it lets you tremendously cut down on the amount of programming you need to do on the user interface of some graphical application. Let's face it--most of the programming and code for typical applications is on the user interface, and that doesn't even do anything that the program is supposed to accomplish! On the other hand, your friend will probably NOT be able to program anything with it. To write anything other than the user interface, you need to be conversant with C. What's more, you need to know the little additions and quirks of Objective C. For people who are already programmers, this is no big deal, but for a lay (or law) person, this could be quite a project. I, too, wish there was something like it for the Amiga. I just spent three days mucking around with the RKMs trying to figure out how to set up colors, screens, windows, text, and lines on the Amiga, and I'm doing something primitive. I can't begin to thing what it would be like to program a whole requester! The IB gets you away from all of that. A moderately sophisticated interface would probably take all of 1/2 hour for someone with a small amount of experience to code from scratch on a NeXT. Of course, it could take a lot longer than that to program something that actually DOES anything, but at least your aren't spending all your time on the user interface. On any other computer, programming a flexible user interface is a royal pain in the neck! Hey, that gives me an idea.... I wonder if I could write something like this for the Amiga???? I'll bet a lot of programmers would gleefully lay out money for a good package! Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240 Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.
duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) (10/16/90)
I recently attended a talk given by Steve Jobs at a Computer/Software converence in Tokyo. Steve 's talk was essentially a long advertisement for the NeXT computer. (The demo of NeXtStep was very impressive. He also demonstrated real-time video with CD quality sound coming off the machine's optical disk. Sad to say it, but the Amiga has a LONG way to go before it couild compete with one of those babies.) Anyway, one of the questions asked after the talk was "Why doesn't the NeXT use X-windows when everyone else in the Unix world is using it?" Jobs's answer was 1) I don't care what everyone else in the Unix world is using - NeXT only happens to use Unix because it is a convenient platform for the NeXT application software, and 2) X-windows is "brain damaged" (his words). Could someone explain what it is about X-windows that makes it "brain damaged" or "fatally flawed"? Duncan Thomson -- (Please excuse the typos and garbage caused by line noise.)
gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (10/17/90)
In article <123395@linus.mitre.org>, duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) writes: |> |> I recently attended a talk given by Steve Jobs at a Computer/Software |> converence in Tokyo. Steve 's talk was essentially a long advertisement |> for the NeXT computer. (The demo of NeXtStep was very impressive. |> He also demonstrated real-time video with CD quality sound coming |> off the machine's optical disk. Sad to say it, but the Amiga has a LONG |> way to go before it couild compete with one of those babies.) True. It simply cannot compete right now. Price performance-wise, the Amiga loses hands down, but so does the Mac, and PCs. The Interface Builder is simply amazing. The whole interface to the machine is consistent. |> Anyway, one of the questions asked after the talk was "Why doesn't the |> NeXT use X-windows when everyone else in the Unix world is using it?" |> Jobs's answer was 1) I don't care what everyone else in the |> Unix world is using - NeXT only happens to use Unix because it is a convenient |> platform for the NeXT application software, and 2) X-windows is "brain |> damaged" (his words). |> |> Could someone explain what it is about X-windows that makes it "brain damaged" |> or "fatally flawed"? I don't know about this one. I happen to like X. I got X going on a NeXT here the other night, and it works fine. Sadly, I didn't have Motif running on it (yet 8-). I'm going to work on that. Actually, I had Motif running, but remotely. |> Duncan Thomson See ya, Ralph gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET Ralph Seguin | "You mean THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?" 536 South Forest | Apartment 915 | "No. Haven't you heard, I come in six packs!" Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | (313) 662-4805
cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) (10/17/90)
In article <7830@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: > In article <90288.143142UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes: > >I think this is relevant because there seems to be growing sentiment > >from many sources that IB is something special. I wish Amiga had something > >similar. > > Hey, that gives me an idea.... I wonder if I could write something > like this for the Amiga???? I'll bet a lot of programmers would > gleefully lay out money for a good package! > It would have to be better than PowerWindows, which is ok, but should be able do some more error checking. (I haven't seen PowerWindows 2.5 so I don't know what it has) ******************************************************************** Colin Adams Life's funny but I don't laugh Email Address - cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au ********************************************************************
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (10/17/90)
In article <123395@linus.mitre.org> duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) writes: >Anyway, one of the questions asked after the talk was "Why doesn't the >NeXT use X-windows when everyone else in the Unix world is using it?" >Jobs's answer was 1) I don't care what everyone else in the >Unix world is using - NeXT only happens to use Unix because it is a convenient >platform for the NeXT application software, and 2) X-windows is "brain >damaged" (his words). The NeXT went with DisplayPostScript because it is an elegant solution for what they wanted to do - a single uniform output model. I guess they figured they would be able to make platforms fast enough to do it before people got over their first impressions. Maybe an '040 is fast enough, a 50Mhz '040 should do the trick. Anyway, NeXT probably figured on someone porting X-Windows and then they would have that also, without having NeXT officially embrace anything less than an elegant solution. Which is what has happened. Well, it's MY theory anyway and I'm sticking to it. :-) -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, "What I want to know is, have | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and you ever seen Claude Rains?" | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (10/20/90)
duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) writes: |Could someone explain what it is about X-windows that makes it "brain damaged" |or "fatally flawed"? That would be like trying to explain why IBM isn't a visionary company. It's just something you have to experience for a while. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "When all is said and done, it hardly ever is..."
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/22/90)
In article <sean.656434262@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) writes: > >|Could someone explain what it is about X-windows that makes it "brain damaged" >|or "fatally flawed"? > >That would be like trying to explain why IBM isn't a visionary company. >It's just something you have to experience for a while. It all depends on what you are looking for. X windows was designed to provide _only_ a low level functionality on which other capabilities could be built, one that would be clean, perform adequately across a network, and be highly portable. It was meant to be "Layers", not "Intuition". Applications programmers writing directly to X windows instead of to a higher level standard interface (toolkit, GUI) built on top of it are just people heavily into pain. Listening to them complain about what X doesn't offer is a waste of time, like listening to a hypochondraic describe his health problems; what they're doing with X is not what X was designed to do in the first place. They're doing the equivalent of programming a MIPS in hex; possible, but why bother once a higher level language existed? Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct22.053501.23675@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > Applications programmers writing directly to X windows instead of to a > higher level standard interface (toolkit, GUI) built on top of it are > just people heavily into pain. If people writing directly in Xlib are masochists, people bloating their code with humungous toolkit libraries are sadists. Thanks to the miracle of X, a 6 Meg 386 is just barely enough to provide the *basic* functionality we've come to expect from a 512K Amiga 1000. The bottom line is that the details of user interface issues belong in the server, where they're configured by the *user* and shared by dozens of programs. Putting this stuff in the client is like having every program do its own erase and kill processing. Time for a new group, I think. "alt.x.bondage". "Sometimes when you fill a vaccuum, it still sucks" -- Dennis Ritchie on X. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.