rwm2d@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Bob McCall - RIP SRV) (05/16/91)
Help! I have a copy of the _Xlib_Programming_Manual_ for Version 11. It was written in 88/89, and seems to cover up to R2. I have been reading it to get an introduction to programming X, of course. Does anyone know: 1. Is this manual too out of date to be of use? 2. Is there now a "standard" window manager? 3. What is motif? 4. Is there a better book for Sparcstations? 5. Is there a good 3-D toolkit available? 6. What is open-look? 7. What are the state-of-the-art managers/toolkits? I know these questions are remedial, but any help would be greatly appreciated. Bob McCall rwm2d@Virginia.EDU
ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.174459.16463@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwm2d@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Bob McCall - RIP SRV) writes: DISCLAIMER: As with most things on the net, there are a hundred people who will disagree with this... >1. Is this manual too out of date to be of use? Hmmmmm...probably not for the basics, but you'll want updated info when you actually start hacking. >2. Is there now a "standard" window manager? twm >3. What is motif? A user interface design from OSF. There is a sample implimentation of the Motif UI availible from OSF. I believe that Solbournes' OI toolkit also supports the Motif UI. I think there's one more (Garnet, perhaps?). It's pretty standard on most anything execpt Sun boxes. >4. Is there a better book for Sparcstations? I glanced at the Sun doc, and it seemed adequate. But, then, I really didn't look hard. >5. Is there a good 3-D toolkit available? Motif is okay. Open Look is okay. OI is pretty neet. Garnet is interesting, but I've never done anything with it. (IMHO) >6. What is open-look? Sun's equivalent to Motif. Several implimentations. Reasonable PD implimentation availible, unlike Motif. >7. What are the state-of-the-art managers/toolkits? gwm/Interviews (IMHO) -- ken seefried iii "I'll have what the gentleman ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu on the floor is having..."
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (05/25/91)
In article <29086@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: |> In article <1991May15.174459.16463@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwm2d@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Bob McCall - RIP SRV) writes: |> >6. What is open-look? |> |> Sun's equivalent to Motif. Several implimentations. Reasonable PD |> implimentation availible, unlike Motif. Not PD. Public Domain means that the copyright owner has given away all rights. It XView was public domain, I could take it, put my name on it, and sell it without giving a cent to Sun, and they would have no legal recourse. As I understand it, I am allowed to obtain XView and build it on my system, but I am not allowed to sell it or bundle it with any products. I also believe that if I want to do so, it will cost as much as Motif does. In other words, it's free to end users, but not public domain. -- ...David Elliott ...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce ...(408)944-4073 ..."Art is never fair" - paa
clint@olias.sybase.com (Doug Clinton) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May24.203747.12363@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: |> |> In article <29086@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: |> |> In article <1991May15.174459.16463@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwm2d@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Bob McCall - RIP SRV) writes: |> |> >6. What is open-look? |> |> |> |> Sun's equivalent to Motif. Several implimentations. Reasonable PD |> |> implimentation availible, unlike Motif. |> |> Not PD. Public Domain means that the copyright owner has given away |> all rights. It XView was public domain, I could take it, put my name |> on it, and sell it without giving a cent to Sun, and they would have no |> legal recourse. |> |> As I understand it, I am allowed to obtain XView and build it on my |> system, but I am not allowed to sell it or bundle it with any |> products. I also believe that if I want to do so, it will cost as |> much as Motif does. |> |> In other words, it's free to end users, but not public domain. If you read the question, Bob asked 'what is open-look?' Sun's XView is only one implementation of an OpenLook compliant environemnt, and you are right that it is not public domain. There are, however, other implementations which, perhaps not public domain, are certainly free. One is included on the X11R4 release tape. The main difference between OpenLook and Motif is that Motif is a specific implementation of a widget set and OpenLook is a specification of a user interface which may be implemented by anyone, not necessarily using the X11 intrinsics (Suns XView is not intrinsic based). Doug Clinton
toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) (05/29/91)
|> >The main difference between OpenLook and Motif is that Motif is a |> >specific implementation of a widget set and OpenLook is a |> >specification of a user interface which may be implemented by anyone, |> >not necessarily using the X11 intrinsics (Suns XView is not intrinsic |> >based). |> |> Wrong. Motif is a specification, too. OSF just happens to have an |> implementation available, but there's nothing preventing one from |> writing their own. Here we go again... Yes Motif is a specification. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending upon your viewpoint) part of the specification is the API which includes all the Xt'isms. So yes, you can go off and write a new toolkit that mimics motif, but you can never get it certified by OSF unless you also have the existing API. I believe there will only be one OSF certified motif toolkit. -- (I kid you not)Tom LaStrange toml@Solbourne.COM
de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (05/29/91)
In article <13015@sybase.sybase.com>, clint@olias.sybase.com (Doug Clinton) writes: > >The main difference between OpenLook and Motif is that Motif is a >specific implementation of a widget set and OpenLook is a >specification of a user interface which may be implemented by anyone, >not necessarily using the X11 intrinsics (Suns XView is not intrinsic >based). Wrong. Motif is a specification, too. OSF just happens to have an implementation available, but there's nothing preventing one from writing their own. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.
dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) (05/29/91)
In article <TOML.91May29074929@marvin.Solbourne.COM>, toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) writes: |> Here we go again... Yes Motif is a specification. Unfortunately, |> (or fortunately, depending upon your viewpoint) part of the specification |> is the API which includes all the Xt'isms. So yes, you can go off and |> write a new toolkit that mimics motif, but you can never get it certified |> by OSF unless you also have the existing API. Here we go again... There are two levels of certification. Level I requires adherence to the Style Guide, which includes no Xt-isms. Motif look-and-feel can be, and has been, achieved without any of our code. Level II does require adherence to the API as well as the touch-and-see. So you could say Motif is two specifications. -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Systems Engineering, OSF uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (06/01/91)
>If you read the question, Bob asked 'what is open-look?' Sun's XView >is only one implementation of an OpenLook compliant environemnt, and >you are right that it is not public domain. There are, however, other >implementations which, perhaps not public domain, are certainly free. >One is included on the X11R4 release tape. The only OPEN LOOK release I know of on the X11R4 release tape is called "XView" and, as you note, it's not public-domain. It *is* free, and available in source form, however. The basic difference between it and the XView you get with Open Windows 2.0 is that the one on the X11R4 tape is XView 1.0 and the one you get with OW 2.0 is XView 2.0. The one you get with OW 2.0 is, I think, still available in source form, for free, for FTPing from "export.lcs.mit.edu" and also available from assorted other archives. (It was on "expo" at one point; I assume it's been moved to "export" and that Sun hasn't yanked it back.)
stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) (06/05/91)
>ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: [What is open-look?] >|> Sun's equivalent to Motif. Several implimentations. Reasonable PD >|> implimentation availible, unlike Motif. In article <1991May24.203747.12363@smsc.sony.com> dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: >Not PD. Public Domain means that the copyright owner has given away >all rights. It XView was public domain, I could take it, put my name >on it, and sell it without giving a cent to Sun, and they would have no >legal recourse. That is a proper definition of PD. >As I understand it, I am allowed to obtain XView and build it on my >system, but I am not allowed to sell it or bundle it with any >products. According to the LEGAL_NOTICE file in the 2.0 XView distribution there only appear to be two limitations on the code: (1) If you want to call the resulting program "OPEN LOOK" compatible (this is apparently a trademarked term) you can not change the fonts, or icon glyphs "except as absolutely necessary to accommodate the standard resolution of the screen or other output device". The code may not be changed except "as authorized herein", and it must be inspected by AT&T and Bigelow & Holmes. Fairly harsh, basicly if you want to be "OPEN LOOK" compatable you can't change the code, and it would be wise to leave the fonts and icons alone. Still it is free, and a good reference. Aside from that, do you really need to market your code as "OPEN LOOK" compatible? (2) Both the XView code and user documantion must contain copyright notices for Sun Microsystems, and Bigelow & Holmes. In fact the notice states "[you are] granted a nonexclusive, royalty-free copyright and design patent license to use this code in individual and commercial software." That is fairly clear, at least for a legal document. > I also believe that if I want to do so, it will cost as >much as Motif does. Not unless the price of Motif has dropped substantally, XView source is about $1000 less expensiave (XView source costs $0, but you have to ftp it, or get a friend to make a tape, or pay Sun around $200 for a tape). The runtime royalty cost on XView is about $40 less per product linked with it (i.e. no runtime royalty). The programmer enviroment is alot less (XView is free, but I forget what Motif runs you for the .h and .a files only (no .c's), $300? $500? $100?). >In other words, it's free to end users, but not public domain. Very correct. As allways don't trust free legal advice from the net. If you are going to do anything substantial with XView you should get your own lawyer to look over the legal notice. However it is fairly clear, mabie just reading it for yourself would do. I donno, depends on how luck you feel :-) -- 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)
stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) (06/05/91)
In article <8147@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >>If you read the question, Bob asked 'what is open-look?' Sun's XView >>is only one implementation of an OpenLook compliant environemnt, and >>you are right that it is not public domain. There are, however, other >>implementations which, perhaps not public domain, are certainly free. >>One is included on the X11R4 release tape. >The only OPEN LOOK release I know of on the X11R4 release tape is called >"XView" and, as you note, it's not public-domain. It *is* free, and >available in source form, however. Buzzz! Sorry but there are at-least 2 certified OpenLook environemnts, and some extra OpenLook toolkits (and environemnts) that may or may not have been certified. (note when I use the term "toolkit" below I don't mean to imply that I am talking about Xt, or an Xt baised set of widgets). Sun's (not-quite-PD, but fairly close) XView which you mentioned is a certified toolkit (not enviroment). Sun also has a not-PD OpenLook environemnt that comes with the X/NeWS server (the X/NeWS server, XView toolkit, and assorted other cruftyed all go under the single name OpenWindows, but I don't know what the name for just the environemnt (file manager, shelltool, etc.). I breifly saw a tape Sun shipped us that had OpenLook-looking versions of mail tool, tape tool, etc for SunView (which I don't use); I don't know if this included a SunView OpenLook toolkit or not. This is almost definitly no longer a Sun supported item. I think Sun has a OpenLook toolkit for NeWS (their Display Postscript [which I think they wrote before Adobie wrote Display Postscript]), it might be called TnT, hold on I'll check. Sorry I couldn't find the manual. AT&T has a certified toolkit, OLIT (it has also been refered to as Xt+). I don't know if they have a environemnt, but I have seen _lot's_ of pictures from an OLIT OpenLook environemnt (I know it isn't XView, OLIT does a poor job of drawing rounded buttons, and there are a few other visual clues). There is a PD (I think it was PD, it may have only been freely-redistributable) toolkit that claimed to do "large parts" of both Motif and OpenLook. Solbourne sells OI, which is a C++ toolkit that does both OpenLook and Motif (selectable at runtime). Out of this entire list I have only written code with XView. I have used OLIT programs. I have a great desire to use OI. I havn't used any of the other toolkits. I don't use the OpenLook environemnt (I like tvtwm, xterm, and use them). [...] -- 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)
mayer@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Niels Mayer) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun5.115601.20270@eng.umd.edu> stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) writes: >Not unless the price of Motif has dropped substantally, XView source is about >$1000 less expensiave (XView source costs $0, but you have to ftp it, or >get a friend to make a tape, or pay Sun around $200 for a tape). The runtime >royalty cost on XView is about $40 less per product linked with it (i.e. no >runtime royalty). I thought the $40.00 was the OSF per-workstation-fee for distributing the compiled Motif library, headers, window manager, and UIL. So with every copy of a vendor's Unix containing motif, the vendor sends $40.00 to OSF. Unless I've been totally mislead, you don't have to pay OSF money to distribute an application based on Motif. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (an unecessary statement on USENET...). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Niels Mayer -- hplabs!mayer -- mayer@hplabs.hp.com Human-Computer Interaction Department Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto, CA. *
fgreco@govt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco) (06/07/91)
>I think Sun has a OpenLook toolkit for NeWS (their Display Postscript [which >I think they wrote before Adobie wrote Display Postscript]), it might be >called TnT, hold on I'll check. Sorry I couldn't find the manual. It is called TNT (all caps this time around...:-) for The NeWS Toolkit. It's an objected-oriented, dynamically extensible OPENLOOK toolkit implemented totally in NeWS. The QNX people also have an OPENLOOK toolkit for their OS. I'm not quite sure what's under the hood though. Frank G.