rms@mole.ai.mit.EDU (Richard Stallman) (03/11/91)
This message is addressed to those who are still considering the question of which X toolkit to use. If you choose a free toolkit, such as one distributed in the X distribution, then your programs will be more useful. For example, anyone who uses X will be able to compile them. If, on the other hand, you use a proprietary toolkit such as Motif, then most people will not be able to compile or link your programs. On systems where shared libraries are used, most sites may not have the proprietary toolkit, and thus may be unable even to run your programs. Some of you may hope to use the GNU system when it is completed. The GNU system will come with all the free toolkits, but it won't come with any proprietary ones. This will mean a growing class of users who will find an unnecessary disadvantage in your programs. Finally, the more you choose to support and maintain (if only by reporting bugs) the free software in the X distribution, the more you will be helping the X project.
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (03/11/91)
In article <9103110058.AA02712@mole.ai.mit.edu> rms@mole.ai.mit.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: >If you choose a free toolkit, such as one distributed in the X >distribution, then your programs will be more useful. For example, >anyone who uses X will be able to compile them. Assuming their vendor has provided the binaries, or the user has taken the time to port the toolkit. Note that the latter is not likely outside of the immediate X hacker community. >On systems where shared libraries are used, most sites may not have >the proprietary toolkit, and thus may be unable even to run your >programs. Why are shared library sites more or less likely to have a proprietary toolkit? >Some of you may hope to use the GNU system when it is completed. The >GNU system will come with all the free toolkits, but it won't come >with any proprietary ones. There are over a dozen companies providing Motif for Suns. What makes you think they won't provide it for GNU either? Or will linking it with the GNU libraries put GNU restrictions on it? How about some constructive input here. Like an effort to write a PD Motif toolkit (since that's the only commercial toolkit you seem to think worth attacking :-). -- 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.
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (03/13/91)
>In article <9103110058.AA02712@mole.ai.mit.edu> rms@mole.ai.mit.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: >>Some of you may hope to use the GNU system when it is completed. The >>GNU system will come with all the free toolkits, but it won't come >>with any proprietary ones. Incidentally. I don't see the FSF telling people not to use the proprietary Unix operating system before there's a functional non- proprietary equivalent. Why is the GUI toolkit space any different? -- 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.
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) (03/13/91)
>>On systems where shared libraries are used, most sites may not have >>the proprietary toolkit, and thus may be unable even to run your >>programs. >Why are shared library sites more or less likely to have a proprietary >toolkit? Well, so far as I know, the OSF/Motif toolkit doesn't support shared/dynamic libraries even on the platforms that have the capability -- ie., SunOS. This shortcoming and the resultant immense size of executables comprise the lion's share of my discontent with Motif. -- -- In MDDT no one can hear you scream
dbrooks@osf.osf.org (David Brooks) (03/13/91)
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > >Well, so far as I know, the OSF/Motif toolkit doesn't support shared/dynamic >libraries even on the platforms that have the capability -- ie., SunOS. ^^ You mean e.g., I hope. Lots have people have successfully built Motif shared libraries under SunOS and several other OSes. Including us :-) >This shortcoming and the resultant immense size of executables comprise the >lion's share of my discontent with Motif. Oh good; nothing of any importance left, then? -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Systems Engineering, OSF uunet!osf.org!dbrooks "It's not easy, but it is simple."
marbru@attc.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar13.003649.1108@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >Well, so far as I know, the OSF/Motif toolkit doesn't support shared/dynamic >libraries even on the platforms that have the capability -- ie., SunOS. > Even if you were right for Motif 1.1, WHY should OSF support SunOS specific implementation of shareable libraries when: - Sun is NOT a memeber of OSF - Sun does everything imaginable to prevent Motif usage on it's hardware/sw As far as I know, OSF does not bother to "support" shareble libraries (inlib) for HP/Apollo Domain (their shareableas were superior to today's SunOS implementation years ago). Neither it supports shareable libraries for VMS. But in both cases the party interested (HP/Apollo, DEC) in porting Motif to their platform does what is necessary. So *might* Sun Microsystems, (if they elected to do so). So *do* many Motif providers for SunOS platform. > >This shortcoming and the resultant immense size of executables comprise the >lion's share of my discontent with Motif. > If you decided to be your "provider" of Motif for SunOS, supporting shared (or any other) libraries is upon to you. At least that's what I assume, being a Motif "provider" for our in-house use (for some of our platforms). -- =*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*= Martin Brunecky {...}sunpeaks!auto-trol!marbru (303) 252-2499 (sometimes also: marbru@auto-trol.COM ) Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404
cflatter@zia.aoc.nrao.EDU (Chris Flatters) (03/14/91)
Kee Hinkley writes (in reply to Richard Stallman): RMS> Some of you may hope to use the GNU system when it is completed. The RMS> GNU system will come with all the free toolkits, but it won't come RMS> with any proprietary ones. Kee> There are over a dozen companies providing Motif for Suns. What Kee> makes you think they won't provide it for GNU either? Or will Kee> linking it with the GNU libraries put GNU restrictions on it? The point is that the GNU project intends to produce a free operating system. Vendors can port the Motif toolkit or OLIT to GNU, in which case you can develop Motif or OLIT applications (depending on your preference) under GNU. However these applications will not run on any GNU installation unless the Motif toolkit or OPEN LOOK toolkit is made available on terms similar to the GNU general public license. In summary you can write software to run under GNU O/S using a proprietary, for-money, toolkit but you can not write *GNU* software unless you use a free toolkit. Kee> How about some constructive input here. Like an effort to write Kee> a PD Motif toolkit (since that's the only commercial toolkit you Kee> seem to think worth attacking :-). One possibility would be for OSF to donate the Motif toolkit and mwm to the GNU project. In fact this might be seen as a fair trade since OSF/1 contains GNU software. In practice the vendors that supply Motif technology to OSF will probably object to this. Similarly USL could donate OLIT to the GNU project but might have some problem persuading their shareholders (who think that USL should make a profit) that this is a good thing. Note that one implementation of OPEN LOOK (XView) is already free, although its free nature is being undermined by the ludicrous prices charged by third party vendors for ports (yes, Unipress, I mean you!). On the other XView is harder to port than Xt-based toolkits: in the case of Xt-based toolkits most of the work has already been done if Xt is available. Another interesting candidate on the horizon is InterViews 3, which is supposed to have a Motif-like look-&-feel (or so I am told). This might well become the winning GNUish X toolkit if it is patched to compile with GNU C++ or when the GNU C++ library develops enough AT&T C++ compatibility to compile InterViews. As far as I am concerned (as a programmer), irrespective of technical merits (and I think OPEN LOOK is far, far easier to learn and use than Motif) the winner in the Motif vs OPEN LOOK GUI war will be the first one to have an implementation that is freely available, in the sense that if it isn't already on the machine on my desk I can put there in less than a day without forking over money I can't afford. [ In case anybody is wondering, I don't think that the Athena widget set is suitable for writing applications that will be used by anyone apart from X-windows hackers on the grounds of not having any real conventions that encourage consistent behaviour (ie. a style guide) and having little aesthetic appeal.] Chris Flatters PS. standard disclaimers apply to the above opinions (especially where they are controversial).
mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU (der Mouse) (03/14/91)
RMS> Some of you may hope to use the GNU system when it is completed. The RMS> GNU system will come with all the free toolkits, but it won't come RMS> with any proprietary ones. Kee> There are over a dozen companies providing Motif for Suns. What Kee> makes you think they won't provide it for GNU either? Or will Kee> linking it with the GNU libraries put GNU restrictions on it? CF> The point is that the GNU project intends to produce a free CF> operating system. (I could get snarky here about how "free" GPV-infected code is, but let's let that pass for now.) CF> Vendors can port the Motif toolkit or OLIT to GNU, in which case CF> you can develop Motif or OLIT applications (depending on your CF> preference) under GNU. However these applications will not run on CF> any GNU installation unless the Motif toolkit or OPEN LOOK toolkit CF> is made available on terms similar to the GNU general public CF> license. Say what? They'll run on any system with the Motif / OL toolkit installed. What does this have to do with the terms under which said toolkit is distributed? > In summary you can write software to run under GNU O/S using a > proprietary, for-money, toolkit but you can not write *GNU* software > unless you use a free toolkit. Oh. This applies only those trying to write code *for Project GNU*? Then of course you are correct, but your statement applies to only a very tiny fraction of the people it appeared to be addressed to. > One possibility would be for OSF to donate the Motif toolkit and mwm > to the GNU project. I think this would be a bad move on their part. Once they do this, it will be more or less permanently infected with the GPV. The OSF will then be unable to even ship it with their systems, never mind sell it. Donating it to the X Consortium strikes me as a much better move, if they really want to make it generally available. > [One OL implementation is already free], although its free nature is > being undermined by the ludicrous prices charged by third party > vendors for ports (yes, Unipress, I mean you!). How does this "undermine" its "free nature"? You want it, you can ftp it; you don't want to put in the work to port it, you can pay Unipress for an already-ported version. Or you can try to find someone on the net who's done it and is willing to share. Or you can bite the bullet, do it yourself, and, if you really believe in its "free nature", make the result available to the *next* poor sod who's faced with the same problem. > [ [IMO] Athena widget set [is not] suitable for writing applications > that will be used by ["user" types] [...] [lack of] any real > conventions that encourage consistent behaviour (ie. a style guide) > and having little aesthetic appeal. ] I'm not going to touch the bit about aesthetic appeal; one user's aesthetic appeal is another's intolerable ugliness. As for style guides and consistent behavior, I feel intelligent behavior is often more important than consistent behavior. I'm sure it would be no trouble at all to build an application that meticulously conforms to the Motif, or Open Look, style guide, but is nonetheless a horror to try to use because the design is bad. Consistent, but bad. Much like the truism that "there is not, has never been, and never will be a useful programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad programs". "For a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (or something very much like that) - Pope, I think it was. This hue and cry about "we must have consistency over all else" seems like an excellent example. IMO, of course, as are all opinions in the above. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
cflatter@zia.aoc.nrao.EDU (Chris Flatters) (03/15/91)
der Mouse writes (on donating Motif to GNU): > I think this would be a bad move on their part. Once they do this, it > will be more or less permanently infected with the GPV. The OSF will > then be unable to even ship it with their systems, never mind sell it. > Donating it to the X Consortium strikes me as a much better move, if > they really want to make it generally available. Donating to the X consortium is a good alternative. BTW: the part of the GPL that most vendors find objectionable (the bit that involves software written using GNU libraries) has been removed from version 2. Chris Flatters
meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) (03/15/91)
In article <9103131659.AA19248@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@zia.aoc.nrao.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes: | One possibility would be for OSF to donate the Motif toolkit and mwm to | the GNU project. In fact this might be seen as a fair trade since OSF/1 | contains GNU software. In practice the vendors that supply Motif technology | to OSF will probably object to this. Similarly USL could donate OLIT | to the GNU project but might have some problem persuading their shareholders | (who think that USL should make a profit) that this is a good thing. Sigh..... It's splitting hares, but OSF/1 proper does not contain GNU software. The compiler suite that we use and support is shipped on a separate tape. It is up to the various companies buying source, to decide whether to use the GNU compilers, or come up with their own compiler suite. Some of the changes we've made are fed back to the FSF (about half of the compiler changes I made for instance). What gets fed back and incorporated depends on our time available, and the FSF's current interests/schedules. We've also done the work to allow our object file format to be used by the FSF if they want (or anybody else, since it has an X11 style copyright). Getting back to X11, in terms of Motif licensing issues, I have no opinion..... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?
db@sunbim.be (Danny Backx) (03/15/91)
Anthony A. Datri (datri@convex.com) wrote : > Well, so far as I know, the OSF/Motif toolkit doesn't support shared/dynamic > libraries even on the platforms that have the capability -- ie., SunOS. NOT TRUE ! Shared library support is not in the OSF sources for Motif. However, several people have successfully built shared library versions of Motif, and are selling them. [I am one of them.] We have OSF/Motif shared libraries for Suns. For more information about our offering, please contact Jean-Pierre Mesozy (jpm@sunbim.be). > This shortcoming and the resultant immense size of executables comprise the > lion's share of my discontent with Motif. It is true that most, if not all, software vendors currently aren't shipping their applications with shared library support yet... Danny Backx System Engineer, BIM Networks E-Mail: db@sunbim.be (or uunet!mcsun!ub4b!sunbim!db) Telephone: +32(2)759.59.25 Fax : +32(2)759.47.95 Postal Mail : Danny Backx BIM Kwikstraat 4 3078 Everberg Belgium
pd@x.co.uk (Paul Davey) (03/19/91)
We at IXI also sell a Motif development kit for Suns with shared libraries. As a software supplier we ship static binaries for X.desktop since, 1) The shared libraries will often not be installed on end user machines 2) We don't want to pay a royalty to OSF by shipping shared libraries with our product We have however (I believe) supplied dynamic versions of X.desktop when customers have asked for this specially. I understand that OSF is addressing the problem of licencing dynamic libraries which are not supplied by the manufacturer (ie Sun). I usually recomend that folk develop with dynamic libraries and normally sell a static version. Obviously on machines where the dynamic libraries are provided by the manufacturer life is much simpler. -- Regards, pd@x.co.uk IXI Limited Paul Davey pd@ixi.uucp 62-74 Burleigh St. ...!uunet!ixi!pd Cambridge U.K. "These are interesting times" +44 223 462 131 CB1 1OJ USA: 1 800 XDESK 57