Kevin Broekhoven <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (06/13/91)
Using the Sun/Scott McNeally definition, OpenLook and X11 are "open" and "standard" in the sense that the specs are published, they are available from more that one vendor, and they're available in volume (have I covered all the bases?) Where does NeWS fit into all of this? In the May SunWorld, Scott McNeally gives an interview where he compares "NeWS to X11" as "Unix to Dos", with the implication that in some number of years, NeWS will be displacing X11. Is the technical spec for NeWS published, and freely implementable? Are there ports planned to other major platforms? Or is NeWS a Sun proprietary product which they expect to be "standard" because Sun will sell it in high volume? i.e. Will Sun be promoting NeWS as a competing open standard, or as a "value added" feature of Sun workstations? I understand that a PostScript extension to X11 is being considered, which may take a little thunder away from the display postscript abilities of NeWS. thanks in advance, Kevin Broekhoven Applications Programmer Computing Services Queens University K7L-3N6 (613)545-2235 Bitnet, NetNorth: BROEKHVN at QUCDN IP: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (130.15.48.9) X.400: Kevin.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) (06/15/91)
Yes, the NeWS spec is published and others can implement it. There is also code that Sun will let people license (though you'd have to pay Sun). Originally Sun intended NeWS to be the standard window system. They considered it better than X, and indeed there are some technical arguments for that opinion. The market had just adopted NFS, and they hoped the same would happen with NeWS. It didn't, partly because other vendors were becoming scared of Sun, and wanted nothing to do with anything else they initiated, and partly because software for X was available sooner. (It's pretty clear that the first plausible product in an area wins, except in areas where an official standards process can be used to impose a new standard.) Thus Sun was forced to support X, and ended up with OpenWindows, a server that implements both X and NeWS. For the moment most applications that are likely to be used with OpenWindows are based on X. However Sun says they will be coming out with new software in the future that uses NeWS, and takes advantages of its superior capabilities. Unless they are successful in getting other vendors to support both X and NeWS, particularly X terminals (and at least for us, software for 3/50's used as X terminals), some users may resist using applications based on NeWS.
gjc@mitech.com (06/17/91)
In article <91164.101625BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) writes: > > In the May SunWorld, Scott McNeally > gives an interview where he compares "NeWS to X11" as "Unix to Dos", with > the implication that in some number of years, NeWS will be displacing X11. Fantastic anology, perhaps. But an absurd prediction.
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (06/18/91)
In article <91164.101625BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) writes: > > In the May SunWorld, Scott McNeally > gives an interview where he compares "NeWS to X11" as "Unix to Dos", with Given the current growth rates of DOS and Unix actually this is probably pretty accurate :-). -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) (06/19/91)
In article <91164.101625BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) writes: [...] >Is the technical spec for NeWS published, and freely implementable? Yes, but there is no free "reference port". > Are there >ports planned to other major platforms? Not as far as I know. However it has run on a Macintosh ][ (but not very fast, Display-ish PostScript is a bit much for a Mac to handle), and an Atari ST. RAM was a big problem on both of thoes boxes. (it wouldn't be if you used it with a Mac running MacOS 7, and a big disk, and a PMMU). As far as I know these are not widely available (i.e. people did them to prove that NeWS was portable, but the ports were too slow to sell...). > Or is NeWS a Sun proprietary product >which they expect to be "standard" because Sun will sell it in high volume? I think Sun thought it would be a "standard" because it was "open", and they thought "better". I think it failed because there was no free refernce port, but who can tell? >i.e. Will Sun be promoting NeWS as a competing open standard, or as a >"value added" feature of Sun workstations? I don't think Sun has ever sold software for Workstations that don't run SunOS (well, except TOPS). However SunSoft's charter does not seem to prohibit this... >I understand that a PostScript extension to X11 is being considered, which >may take a little thunder away from the display postscript abilities of NeWS. As far as the drawing stuff it will take some of it away (of corse Sun has had longer to make NeWS fast, so mabie it would be a good thing for Sun... if people use the PostScript extension to X11, they will want it to be fast). However NeWS also has an input model, and object extentions, and intersting grarbage collection (you can use an object in such a way that your reference to it doesn't incrment the refernce counter, and you get some sort of destroy event when the object vanishes. Very handy for things like window managers, or subclassing...). -- stripes@eng.umd.edu "Security for Unix is like Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The Multitasking for MS-DOS" "The dyslexic porgramer" - Kevin Lockwood "CNN is the only nuclear capable news network..." - lbruck@eng.umd.edu (Lewis Bruck)
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (06/20/91)
I wish I could find the article I read the other day. The author said that X is winning out over NeWS because certain big league players were still steamed over the acceptance of NFS as a standard, particularly those who had made large investments in what they considered to be better products. They just weren't going to let NeWS win, even if it was better -- expecially if it was better. (Me? I think it's because nobody wants to type "NeWS" with that stupid little e in it, or explain in conversation that they mean "NeWS" not "news".)
jg@crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys) (06/20/91)
I'll regret this message, as usual, I expect. Many people (myself included) dispute the claim NeWS is "better" than X. Value judgements are always difficult. For example, that I can't write (in the original NeWS, before the X11/NeWS stuff where I can use X facilities to get my job done) with reasonable performance imaging applications that I used to be paid to develop I considered fatal to any such claim; the ECAD folks have had similar problems with NeWS. I have other, more fundamental problems with the overall design of NeWS, but these problems are somewhat more philisophical in nature, rather than simple pragmatics to getting my job (and many other people's jobs) done. Of course, you can dismiss me as biased, if you like :-). As the market seems to have spoken, it generally does not help anyone to beat up on NeWS, so I generally avoid it. A better analogy in my opinion is that X and NeWS are different fruits; comparing apples and oranges is always a dangerous topic. My opinion has been that both the wide availability of X, and the fact that NeWS made life hard for a good chunk of the applications developers in the market, were two of the keys to X's sucess. But then, what do I know. :-) Jim Gettys Digital Equipment Corporation Cambridge Research Laboratory
cwpjr@cbnewse.cb.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (06/26/91)
In article <594@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com writes: > In article <91164.101625BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) writes: > > > > In the May SunWorld, Scott McNeally > > gives an interview where he compares "NeWS to X11" as "Unix to Dos", with > > the implication that in some number of years, NeWS will be displacing X11. > > Fantastic anology, perhaps. But an absurd prediction. > The future means throwing more mips at existing, hidebound, nothing new under the sun software... Therefore the more the software can shine with more mips the more likely it will do better in the *future*... I think diplay postscript will DO BETTER with these mips than "X"... Clyde