[comp.windows.x] OPEN LOOK announced first

ian@sq.sq.com (Ian F. Darwin) (01/31/91)

> because OSF / UI
>GUI split happened not so long ago in front of our eyes
>(OSF announced development of Motif in December 88 and UI announced
>support for OL in February 89)

Yes, but UI didn't write the OL spec, Sun and AT&T did. And they announced
it in April, 1988, about 8 months before OSF's Dec'88 announcement of Motif.

The only reason I'm belaboring this historical near-trivia is that certain
OSF members are now sanctimoniously trotting out the "We need a *single* GUI
for X" line, when it's the OSF that is single-handedly (and open-handedly at
that) responsible for the fact that we have two.

Ian Darwin
ian@darwin.uucp

And to cut down the number of spurious and bogus followups, yes, Motif did
ship *something* a few months before either the XView OPEN LOOK toolkit or the
OLIT(Xt+) OPEN LOOK toolkit.

toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) (02/04/91)

It must be Monday :-)

   Decision Criteria Added After the Membership Feedback Meeting
       Intrinsics Based Solution [based on a desire for an object-oriented
	   approach and previous moves in this direction by NIST and X/Open].
       Implementation Language [stick with C for now, not C++].
       Open Architecture [viable for at least 5 years]

Aren't "object-oriented" and "C" mutually exclusive?  Here's a great quote
from the Xt tutorial at the 1988 X Technical Conference.

"C is inadequate for object oriented programming"
Charles Haynes and Joel McCormack, Digital Equipment Corp.


   For the record, I'll state again that I think Sun's biggest mistake
   was in trying to release N toolkits on the unsuspecting world.  It's
   all very fine to say Open Look is toolkit independant - so's Motif, and
   there are at least four Motif-compliant (to one extent or another)
   toolkits in existance* - but OSF is only selling one, and there's only
   one which I have to worry about being supported when I move from
   platform to platform.  With Open Look I have no idea which the vendor
   will support.  Does _Sun_ even claim to support anything other than
   XView?  I doubt it.  Their version of libXt.a has pathnames that
   point at /usr/lib/X11, but the version of SunOS4.0 I've used doesn't
   even have that directory.  That doesn't look like support to me.

I love this statement.  The ONLY Motif-compliant toolkit is the one produced
by OSF.  I don't want to speak for OSF and they can correct me if their
policies have changed but OSF will not and has no plans to certify other
toolkits as "Motif-compliant".

I asked an OSF person last October if they planned on certifying any other
toolkits and the response was:

   "Why would we want to do that?"

The only thing those of us struggling to provide a Motif-like toolkit can
say is that you can write Motif compliant applications with the toolkit.
That's it.

--
Tom LaStrange        toml@Solbourne.COM

guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (02/05/91)

>Does _Sun_ even claim to support anything other than XView?  I doubt
it.

Well, with OW 2.0, you get XView *and* OLIT; you also get a buglist file
for OLIT (admittedly, a small one), so they may support it in the sense
that they'll file away bug reports for it - dunno which they schedule to
fix in house and which they feed to AT&T.

>Their version of libXt.a has pathnames that point at /usr/lib/X11, but
>the version of SunOS4.0 I've used doesn't even have that directory.
>That doesn't look like support to me.

More relevantly, the version that comes with OW 2.0 points at
"/usr/lib/X11" but OW 2.0 doesn't provide such a directory; the pointers
should point at "/usr/openwin/lib", unless they provide a symlink to
that in "/usr/lib/X11".

>* OSF, Visix (private toolkit, I once asked about buying it and was told
>they might consider it, but only for multi-millions),

A recent posting somewhere indicated that they may sell it, or sell
*some* toolkit; no price was mentioned, so they may well charge multiple
millions for it:

  From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
  Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
  Subject: Re: Macintosh vs. X windows
  Message-ID: <1991Feb3.071036.12701@visix.com>
  Date: 3 Feb 91 07:10:36 GMT
  Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA

  In article <1991PMSat.02.14347@dircon.co.uk> uad1077@dircon.co.uk
  (Ian Kemmish) writes:
  >Also, much effort is wasted on
  >fighting the toolkit (this may be implementation rather than design bugs
  >in the version of Motif I was using, but it's still relevant to the
  >choice of whether to use it in future!).

  The common problem I've seen with most X toolkits is that they contain
  a lot of preconceptions about How Every Application Shall Be Structured,
  and tend to have very narrow APIs.  The Mac, whatever faults it may have,
  has a very broad and general API.

  There is, of course, no reason that a broad API can't be built on top
  of X--it's just that there are very few of them around, and even fewer
  are for sale to the public.

  Disclaimer: We have built such a toolkit, and we will be selling it this
	    summer.  I am therefore biased on this issue.
  -- 
  Amanda Walker						amanda@visix.com
  Toolkit Team Leader				  ...!uunet!visix!amanda
  Visix Software Inc.					 +1 800 832 8668

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/05/91)

In article <TOML.91Feb4085753@marvin.Solbourne.COM> toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) writes:
>It must be Monday :-)
>
>   Decision Criteria Added After the Membership Feedback Meeting
>       Intrinsics Based Solution [based on a desire for an object-oriented
>	   approach and previous moves in this direction by NIST and X/Open].
>       Implementation Language [stick with C for now, not C++].
>       Open Architecture [viable for at least 5 years]
>
>Aren't "object-oriented" and "C" mutually exclusive?  Here's a great quote
Obviously not, since most implementations of C++ create C :-).
Let me quote further:
    Some of the membership thought that a solution based on an object-
    oriented programming language was desirable.  However, X/Open and
    NIST, two important standards bodies, had already decided to adopt
    the MIT X intrinsics level as a base for further standarization efforts.
    These intrinsics provide an object-oriented approach to interface tookits,
    based on the C programming language.  The staff decided that while a 
    language-based multiple-inheritance, object-oriented solution would
    be important for the future, at this time it was more important to
    conform in the direction set by the standards bodies.

>"C is inadequate for object oriented programming"
No arguments there.  Thus the word "approach".  Me, I write my Motif
code in C++.

>   For the record, I'll state again that I think Sun's biggest mistake
>   was in trying to release N toolkits on the unsuspecting world.  It's
>   all very fine to say Open Look is toolkit independant - so's Motif, and
>   there are at least four Motif-compliant (to one extent or another)
>   toolkits in existance* - but OSF is only selling one, and there's only
>   one which I have to worry about being supported when I move from
>   platform to platform.  With Open Look I have no idea which the vendor
>   will support.  Does _Sun_ even claim to support anything other than
>   XView?  I doubt it.  Their version of libXt.a has pathnames that
>   point at /usr/lib/X11, but the version of SunOS4.0 I've used doesn't
>   even have that directory.  That doesn't look like support to me.
>
>I love this statement.  The ONLY Motif-compliant toolkit is the one produced
>by OSF.  I don't want to speak for OSF and they can correct me if their
>policies have changed but OSF will not and has no plans to certify other
>toolkits as "Motif-compliant".
There are a number of levels of compliance.  There are Motif compliant
applications.  They clearly can and have been produced by other toolkits.
The second level of compliance is a toolkit that complies with the Motif
AES (Application Environment Specification).  I can certainly conceive
of a (say) C++-based toolkit which provided it's own interface, but
also provided a set of layered routines which met the AES.  And if you
had one, I'm sure that you could get it branded compliant.  Practically
speaking you'd have to worry about doing some of the Xt calls too though.
I'm not sure how you'd certify the toolkit beyond that.  I guess that Sun
does it with Open Look, but it clearly must involve a fair amount of
effort.  Given the lack of people at OSF, I'd certainly expect them to
put their resources elsewhere.

>I asked an OSF person last October if they planned on certifying any other
>toolkits and the response was:
>
>   "Why would we want to do that?"
From their perspective that's not an unreasonable question.  What did you
say?

>The only thing those of us struggling to provide a Motif-like toolkit can
>say is that you can write Motif compliant applications with the toolkit.
>That's it.

As a toolkit user that's almost enough for me.  Tell me that you provide
equivalents of all of the Motif primitive widgets, a set of constraint
managers which don't require absolute positioning and that all widgets
fully support the style guide (keyboard traversal and mnemonics are two
biggies that most miss) and I'll be happy.  Tell me I can have the source
can easily port it to any machine I port my app too and I might even buy it.
I'm no great fan of the Intrinsics.  My main toolkit constraint right now
is that I've got to have source.  I can't wait around for someone else
to do a port.

							-kee
-- 
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.

don@zardoz.coral.COM (Don Dewar) (02/06/91)

) Return-Path: <uunet!expo.lcs.mit.edu!xpert-mailer>
) Date: 4 Feb 91 13:57:53 GMT
) From: uunet!marvin.solbourne.com!toml (Tom LaStrange)
) Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc.
) Subject: Re: OPEN LOOK announced first (was: Re: Motif/Openlook, is there a trend?
) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
) References: <1991Jan23.164403@ecovsb.ncsu.edu>, <2977@sodium.ATT.COM>
) Sender: uunet!expo.lcs.mit.edu!xpert-request
) To: xpert@expo.lcs.mit.edu
) 
) It must be Monday :-)
) 
)    Decision Criteria Added After the Membership Feedback Meeting
)        Intrinsics Based Solution [based on a desire for an object-oriented
) 	   approach and previous moves in this direction by NIST and X/Open].
)        Implementation Language [stick with C for now, not C++].
)        Open Architecture [viable for at least 5 years]
) 
) Aren't "object-oriented" and "C" mutually exclusive?  Here's a great quote
) from the Xt tutorial at the 1988 X Technical Conference.
) 
) "C is inadequate for object oriented programming"
) Charles Haynes and Joel McCormack, Digital Equipment Corp.

This is definitely not true.  Object oriented programming can be done
using a traditionally functional programming language.  It does,
however, usually result in some very difficult to follow code.  In
addition, "C" does not do much enforcment, such as strong typing and
the such.  I have seed a few attempts at using the object oriented
programming model using "C".  One product that does this is Cscape,
which is a character oriented user interface programming system.  It
works pretty well, but if you ever try to look at the code and figure
out what is going on, you will get a headache.

) 
) 
)    For the record, I'll state again that I think Sun's biggest mistake
)    was in trying to release N toolkits on the unsuspecting world.  It's
)    all very fine to say Open Look is toolkit independant - so's Motif, and
)    there are at least four Motif-compliant (to one extent or another)
)    toolkits in existance* - but OSF is only selling one, and there's only
)    one which I have to worry about being supported when I move from
)    platform to platform.  With Open Look I have no idea which the vendor
)    will support.  Does _Sun_ even claim to support anything other than
)    XView?  I doubt it.  Their version of libXt.a has pathnames that
)    point at /usr/lib/X11, but the version of SunOS4.0 I've used doesn't
)    even have that directory.  That doesn't look like support to me.
) 
) I love this statement.  The ONLY Motif-compliant toolkit is the one produced
) by OSF.  I don't want to speak for OSF and they can correct me if their
) policies have changed but OSF will not and has no plans to certify other
) toolkits as "Motif-compliant".
) 
) I asked an OSF person last October if they planned on certifying any other
) toolkits and the response was:
) 
)    "Why would we want to do that?"
) 
) The only thing those of us struggling to provide a Motif-like toolkit can
) say is that you can write Motif compliant applications with the toolkit.
) That's it.
) 

I agree with the former person's comment.  The fact that there are so
few producers of Motif toolkits, makes Motif much easier figure out.
There is not OpenMotif or MotifLook or MotifView or MotifWindows or
Motif Intrisics Toolkit (MIT?) to try to keep straight.  All the
various pieces that make up an OpenLook (or whatever ) are all part of
a Motif.  In addition, I feel more confident that the Motif sources I
get will work and be as hardware independent as possible.

) --
) Tom LaStrange        toml@Solbourne.COM
) 
) 



  +---------+
  | Coral   |
  |@@@@@*@**|
  |@@*@@**@@|     Don Dewar
  |*@@**@@@@|     Coral Network Corporation, Marlborough, MA
  |@***@@@@@|     Internet: don@coral.com
  |@@**@@@@@|     Phone:    (508) 460-6010
  |*********|     Fax:      (508) 481-6258
  |Networks |
  +---------+

toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) (02/06/91)

   )    For the record, I'll state again that I think Sun's biggest mistake
   )    was in trying to release N toolkits on the unsuspecting world.  It's
   )    all very fine to say Open Look is toolkit independant - so's Motif, and
   )    there are at least four Motif-compliant (to one extent or another)
   )    toolkits in existance* - but OSF is only selling one, and there's only
   )    one which I have to worry about being supported when I move from
   )    platform to platform.  With Open Look I have no idea which the vendor
   )    will support.  Does _Sun_ even claim to support anything other than
   )    XView?  I doubt it.  Their version of libXt.a has pathnames that
   )    point at /usr/lib/X11, but the version of SunOS4.0 I've used doesn't
   )    even have that directory.  That doesn't look like support to me.
   ) 
   ) I love this statement.  The ONLY Motif-compliant toolkit is the one produced
   ) by OSF.  I don't want to speak for OSF and they can correct me if their
   ) policies have changed but OSF will not and has no plans to certify other
   ) toolkits as "Motif-compliant".
   ) 
   ) I asked an OSF person last October if they planned on certifying any other
   ) toolkits and the response was:
   ) 
   )    "Why would we want to do that?"
   ) 
   ) The only thing those of us struggling to provide a Motif-like toolkit can
   ) say is that you can write Motif compliant applications with the toolkit.
   ) That's it.
   ) 

   I agree with the former person's comment.  The fact that there are so
   few producers of Motif toolkits, makes Motif much easier figure out.
   There is not OpenMotif or MotifLook or MotifView or MotifWindows or
   Motif Intrisics Toolkit (MIT?) to try to keep straight.  All the
   various pieces that make up an OpenLook (or whatever ) are all part of
   a Motif.

I don't understand what you mean by this last comment.

   In addition, I feel more confident that the Motif sources I
   get will work and be as hardware independent as possible.

Some people will view a single toolkit as an advantage, others will think
that a choice of toolkits is the way to go.  You are obviously in the single
toolkit camp while I'm in the multiple toolkit camp.  At least our window
system allows us the choice.

--
Tom LaStrange        toml@Solbourne.COM

toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) (02/06/91)

> In article <TOML.91Feb4085753@marvin.Solbourne.COM> toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM
  (Tom LaStrange) writes:
> >   Decision Criteria Added After the Membership Feedback Meeting
> >       Intrinsics Based Solution [based on a desire for an object-oriented
> >	   approach and previous moves in this direction by NIST and X/Open].
> >       Implementation Language [stick with C for now, not C++].
> >       Open Architecture [viable for at least 5 years]
> >
> >Aren't "object-oriented" and "C" mutually exclusive?  Here's a great quote
> Obviously not, since most implementations of C++ create C :-).

Yup, you're right :-)

> Let me quote further:
>     Some of the membership thought that a solution based on an object-
>     oriented programming language was desirable.  However, X/Open and
>     NIST, two important standards bodies, had already decided to adopt
>     the MIT X intrinsics level as a base for further standarization efforts.
>     These intrinsics provide an object-oriented approach to interface tookits
 ,
>     based on the C programming language.  The staff decided that while a 
>     language-based multiple-inheritance, object-oriented solution would
>     be important for the future, at this time it was more important to
>     conform in the direction set by the standards bodies.

> >"C is inadequate for object oriented programming"
> No arguments there.  Thus the word "approach".  Me, I write my Motif
> code in C++.

> >   For the record, I'll state again that I think Sun's biggest mistake
> >   was in trying to release N toolkits on the unsuspecting world.  It's
> >   all very fine to say Open Look is toolkit independant - so's Motif, and
> >   there are at least four Motif-compliant (to one extent or another)
> >   toolkits in existance* - but OSF is only selling one, and there's only
> >   one which I have to worry about being supported when I move from
> >   platform to platform.  With Open Look I have no idea which the vendor
> >   will support.  Does _Sun_ even claim to support anything other than
> >   XView?  I doubt it.  Their version of libXt.a has pathnames that
> >   point at /usr/lib/X11, but the version of SunOS4.0 I've used doesn't
> >   even have that directory.  That doesn't look like support to me.
> >
> >I love this statement.  The ONLY Motif-compliant toolkit is the one produced
> >by OSF.  I don't want to speak for OSF and they can correct me if their
> >policies have changed but OSF will not and has no plans to certify other
> >toolkits as "Motif-compliant".
> There are a number of levels of compliance.  There are Motif compliant
> applications.  They clearly can and have been produced by other toolkits.
> The second level of compliance is a toolkit that complies with the Motif
> AES (Application Environment Specification).  I can certainly conceive
> of a (say) C++-based toolkit which provided it's own interface, but
> also provided a set of layered routines which met the AES.  And if you
> had one, I'm sure that you could get it branded compliant.  Practically
> speaking you'd have to worry about doing some of the Xt calls too though.
> I'm not sure how you'd certify the toolk> it beyond that.  I guess that Sun
> does it with Open Look, but it clearly must involve a fair amount of
> effort.  Given the lack of people at OSF, I'd certainly expect them to
> put their resources elsewhere.

I guess I shouldn't have said that the ONLY motif compliant toolkit would be
from OSF.  Unfortunately this is where I disagree with you, I can't conceive
of writing a new toolkit that also has to provide the API of the OSF version.
You would probably be better off just supplying a set of wrappers on top the
real thing.

Doesn't the fact that you have to supply the AES mean that there will be no
native Lisp, Ada, or Modula2 based motif toolkits?  It seems to me that one
of the factors that would lead you to choose an alternate toolkit would be
because you prefer a totally different programming environment.

I would like to see OSF produce a Motif toolkit compliance checklist that is
API independent.  This could be similar to their application checklist
which would probably require fewer resources at OSF than having to verify
the complete API.  That is of course if they trusted toolkit makers.

No organization is likely to have the resources, or the inclination,
to provide toolkits for all languages users are likely to want.  In particular,
since the major players in OSF are almost entirely hardware vendors with
staffs who deal with "well established, safe" programming languages such as
C, it is unlikely that they will put significant resources into developing
toolkits and interfaces for less well established languages such as C++,
LISP, and things like SQL.  This is all the more reason for them to 
produce a spec of how things look and feel to the user.  It allows other
software houses to develop better Motif programming environments for users
working in these other environments, and thus strengthens the acceptance of
Motif.  The obvious example is what has happened in the OPENLOOK area, where
numerous toolkits are available.  The programmer can pick the one which
fits the programming environment they like best.  These toolkits are all
learning to work together very well, not because they are all based on the
same C based API, but because they all adhere to the same written
specification.

It's the same principle along which the X protocol spec was published.
One is not required to use the MIT server.  One uses the server most 
appropriate to the platform.  Furthermore, the provider of a platform is free
to implement the protocol in the most efficient manner for the system.  They
are able to do this specifically because a specification is provided for
how the system must look to the outside world.  A Symbolics server could be
written in LISP; a DOD special hardware server in ADA.  A cheap, superfast
Xterm server in assembler.

> >I asked an OSF person last October if they planned on certifying any other
> >toolkits and the response was:
> >
> >   "Why would we want to do that?"
> From their perspective that's not an unreasonable question.  What did you
> say?

I mentioned that Open Look certified toolkits have to conform to the Open Look
style guide which does not depend on a specific implementation.

> >The only thing those of us struggling to provide a Motif-like toolkit can
> >say is that you can write Motif compliant applications with the toolkit.
> >That's it.

> As a toolkit user that's almost enough for me.  Tell me that you provide

That's exactly what we're hoping for :-)

> equivalents of all of the Motif primitive widgets, a set of constraint
> managers which don't require absolute positioning and that all widgets
> fully support the style guide (keyboard traversal and mnemonics are two
> biggies that most miss) and I'll be happy.  Tell me I can have the source
> can easily port it to any machine I port my app too and I might even buy it
 .
> I'm no great fan of the Intrinsics.  My main toolkit constraint right now
> is that I've got to have source.  I can't wait around for someone else
> to do a port.

Should we duplicate all the bugs also :-(

Your point about fully supporting the style guide is a bit sticky though.
It appears that the style guide changes to match Motif releases rather than
staying somewhat constant.  From 1.0 to 1.1, scrollbars have additional 
functionality, file dialog boxes look different, etc.

Furthermore, the style guide has been bent to match the bugs in the
implementation.  Rather than having a style guide which says "this is how
it should work" and a list of bugs in the current implementation, the
style guide sometimes says things like "You can's set the focus frame on
this kind of object".  If you try it, the reason is obvious -- it's not
that it doesn't make sense, it's that the widget trys to do it but has some
bugs in it.  Wouldn't it make more sense to say "This is what we are aiming
for", so people can expect some sort of consistent interface, and admit to
some bugs which you are committed to fixing; instead of creating this
incredibly obtuse set of inconsistent objects and trying to write a spec to
match it?

--
Tom LaStrange        toml@Solbourne.COM

garya@Solbourne.COM (Gary Aitken) (02/07/91)

> I agree with the former person's comment.  The fact that there are so
> few producers of Motif toolkits...

I love this one.  Clearly, your are from the "C is the only language worth
programming in" camp.

Let's take a hypothetical case.  OSF releases Motif, and the 
toolkit is written in FORTRAN.  So now the one and only toolkit which you
don't have any problems with only comes with a FORTRAN API.  Or pick another
one.  What if it derived from something written for a PC in BASIC?  

> ... makes Motif much easier figure out

Hmmm.  Guess it depends on what your frame of reference is. 
-- 
Gary Aitken

Solbourne Computer Inc.    ARPA: garya@Solbourne.COM
Longmont, CO               UUCP: !{boulder,sun}!stan!garya

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/07/91)

In article <TOML.91Feb6102541@marvin.Solbourne.COM> toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) writes:
>Should we duplicate all the bugs also :-(
God, I hope not.

>Your point about fully supporting the style guide is a bit sticky though.
>It appears that the style guide changes to match Motif releases rather than
>staying somewhat constant.  From 1.0 to 1.1, scrollbars have additional 
>functionality, file dialog boxes look different, etc.
Open Look didn't stand still either.  (BTW, what changed in scrollbars?)
I thought it was clear that FileSB was going to change - the old one
was horrible, and it wasn't compliant with PM/MSW.  If you want to watch
Motif's direction, I'd look there and at IBM's SAA stuff.  And of course
you become an OSF member so you can influence it.  But that's a problem
for any company that's doing a clone toolkit - including those in the OL
camp.  The theory behind OSF is that the process of change is open to
members, so that you can find out what's going on.  If the practice isn't
living up to the theory, then you have a valid complaint.  But I've got
to believe that OSF members have more influence/feedback on Motif changes
than Sun customers.

>Furthermore, the style guide has been bent to match the bugs in the
>implementation.  Rather than having a style guide which says "this is how
I know.  OSF is a little hung up on binary compatiblity.  Due in no small
part to the fact that most of their members are hardware vendors rather
than toolkit users.  They just want compatible libraries on their machines -
they don't actually try and use the things to do work.

-- 
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) (02/07/91)

In article <1991Feb6.175037.5331@Solbourne.COM> garya@Solbourne.COM (Gary Aitken) writes:
>> I agree with the former person's comment.  The fact that there are so
>> few producers of Motif toolkits...
>
>I love this one.  Clearly, your are from the "C is the only language worth
>programming in" camp.
>
>Let's take a hypothetical case.  OSF releases Motif, and the 
>toolkit is written in FORTRAN.  So now the one and only toolkit which you
>don't have any problems with only comes with a FORTRAN API.  Or pick another
>one.  What if it derived from something written for a PC in BASIC?  
>
>> ... makes Motif much easier figure out
>
>Hmmm.  Guess it depends on what your frame of reference is. 

Wait.  I'm not saying I object to having multiple toolkits.  Only
that I prefer to have *1* industry standard toolkit (at least for
a given language).  The issue here is support.  OSF/Motif is a toolkit
which I expect vendors to support on their hardware, so I won't have
to worry about porting it whereever I go (we're talking theory here,
don't ask me about practice :-).  Having other toolkits with other APIs
is fine, and even having vendors support them is fine.  I just want to
know that I've always got one I can depend on to be there.  If I need
something that another toolkit provides, or I prefer it for some other
reason, then I can byte off the support problem myself.  My problem
with Open Look right now is that there is *no* standard toolkit which
I can rely upon finding standard on all platforms - not even platforms which
claim to be in the OL camp.

-- 
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.

esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman) (02/07/91)

From article <TOML.91Feb6090339@marvin.Solbourne.COM>, by toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange):
> 
> 
>    In addition, I feel more confident that the Motif sources I
>    get will work and be as hardware independent as possible.
> 
> Some people will view a single toolkit as an advantage, others will think
> that a choice of toolkits is the way to go.  You are obviously in the single
> toolkit camp while I'm in the multiple toolkit camp.  At least our window
> system allows us the choice.

Exactly. Also it is not always a case of likes and dislikes -
it all depends on what hat you are wearing. If you are
an independent software vendor you most likely to hook up with
the wood behind the Sun's arrow - SPARC/SVR4/OpenWindow platform. The
market share is a magic magnet in software business.

The choice of OpenLook toolkits is a critical advantage.
The XView toolkit allows for a migration of over 2,800 (!) existing
SunView applications. Such a migration is not really
automatic, although in some primitive cases you may succeed, but it
is a reasonably easy one. This allows Sun to move from supporting
suntools to concentrating on OpenLook toolkits: XView, OLIT, and TNT.
The TNT toolkit for
NeWS, which replaced the "Light" toolkit or NeWS 1.1, is a really
neat thing, and the ability to access simultanuously X and a
full-blown "red book" PostScript impresses the hell out of me.

			--Ed G.

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/08/91)

In article <2995@sodium.ATT.COM> esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman) writes:
>Exactly. Also it is not always a case of likes and dislikes -
>it all depends on what hat you are wearing. If you are
>an independent software vendor you most likely to hook up with
>the wood behind the Sun's arrow - SPARC/SVR4/OpenWindow platform. The
>market share is a magic magnet in software business.
I definitely agree that market share if the magnet - that's why I
chose Motif.  It runs on over 150 hardware platforms *including* Sun's.
we'll consider doing an Open Look interface as soon as the market demands
it - but so far we haven't had any requests.  People seem perfectly happy
with Motif.  SPARC != Open Look, no matter what Sun may say.

>The choice of OpenLook toolkits is a critical advantage.
>The XView toolkit allows for a migration of over 2,800 (!) existing
>SunView applications. Such a migration is not really
That's nice if I have any, but I don't, so it's not really relevant.

-- 
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.

wggabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) (02/08/91)

From article <2995@sodium.ATT.COM>, by esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman):

> it all depends on what hat you are wearing. If you are
> an independent software vendor you most likely to hook up with
> the wood behind the Sun's arrow - SPARC/SVR4/OpenWindow platform. The
> market share is a magic magnet in software business.

Yes it is - and though Sun has more market share than any other single vendor,
add up the market shares held by HP, DEC and IBM and compare them to Sun.
If an ISV is going to make his wares available on a variety of platforms, 
following the OSF/Motif path make the most sense. Also, if doing 3D graphics,
Sun has yet to integrate SunPHIGS with X. XGL is immediate mode only (no
display list) which makes it very unattractive for a large number of 3D 
applications. The other vendors mentioned have integrated their 3D graphics 
packages with X. I'm sure Sun will eventually have this capability (considering
that they were the PEX SI implementors) but it is currently an advantage the 
other's have, and a big reason alot of people are still running SunView rather 
than switching to OpenWindows.

The opinions expressed above are those of my own and do not neccessarily reflect
those of my employer.
-- 
Rob Gabbard 				    UUCP: uunet!sdrc!wggabb
Technical Development Engineer   	INTERNET: wggabb%sdrc@uunet.uu.net
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation

guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (02/11/91)

>>The choice of OpenLook toolkits is a critical advantage.
>>The XView toolkit allows for a migration of over 2,800 (!) existing
>>SunView applications. Such a migration is not really
>That's nice if I have any, but I don't, so it's not really relevant.

Not really relevant to you, and to those who don't have SunView
applications, at least.  Others *do* have them, so it may be relevant.

However:

1) I don't know to what extent this is *intrinsic* to OPEN LOOK - i.e.,
   I don't know how much effort would be involved in making a
   Motif-compliant XView, nor whether it would be easier or harder to
   convert SunView applications to Motif-XView applications than to
   convert them to current-XView applications.  (The XView source is
   available; start hacking away. :-))

2) I saw a claim somewhere that there exists, or will soon exist, a tool
   to convert SunView applications to Motif-Xt (or "-lXm", if you will)
   applications.  Dunno how well that'll work relative to converting
   them to XView applcations.

chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (02/11/91)

In article <823@sdrc.UUCP>, wggabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) writes:
> From article <2995@sodium.ATT.COM>, by esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman):
> 
> > The market share is a magic magnet in software business.
> 
> Yes it is - and though Sun has more market share than any other single vendor,
> add up the market shares held by HP, DEC and IBM and compare them to Sun.

     Well, that is pretty interesting.  If you go by dollar volume, you get:

	Sun		29.1
	HP		22.7
	DEC		17.1
	IBM		 3.5

so Sun is outstripped, 43.3 to 29.1.  But if you add up unit sales, you get a
far more interesting number:

	Sun		151,000
	HP PA		 10,000
	MIPS		 45,900
	IBM POWER	  8,000

and Sun is leading, 151,000 to 63,900.  Moreover, the MIPS number includes
ALL MIPS-based platforms (mostly MIPS, DEC, and SGI), while the Sun number
excludes Sun clones (another 36,000 systems).

     These unit volume numbers are for RISC systems only, and do not include
HP's 680x0 systems.  The numbers are for calendar year 1990.  Even with the
680x0 systems included, Sun enjoys a clear advantage in unit volume.  A further
conclusion when including the  dollar volume figures is that Sun ships more
systems at lower cost than any other vendor.  Sun's overall unit sales share is
just over 40 percent.  HP is next, with about 25 percent.

     Another instructive number: the volume share changes since 1989.  Sun is
up 1 point, IBM is up 0.9, HP is down 1.4, and DEC dropped an amazing 3.3
points.  Every quarter, Sun ships around 5,000 more systems than it did the
previous quarter.  (Right now, Sun is shipping around 45,000 machines each
quarter).  This means that Sun ships more extra systems each quarter
than MIPS ships in an entire year.  In six months, Sun ships more extra
systems than SGI or IBM's entire volume.  And in a year, Sun ships more extra
systems than DEC entire annual output.  I find it amazing that Sun's growth
rate exceeds its competitors' growth volume.

     More fun with numbers: 45,000 systems/quarter is 15,000/month, or about
500 systems every day of the year.  That's 21 systems an hour, or a machine
every 3 minutes or so.  So when you arrive at work on Monday, somewhere around
1,500 new SPARCstations arrived on desktops since you left work on Friday.

     Just imagine: every three minutes, someone boots a brand-new SPARCstation!
We've got to find this person! :-)

** Data sources: Alex Brown Investors Report (unit sales) and Dataquest
   (dollar volume).

-- 

Chuck Musciano				ARPA  : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation 			Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912			AT&T  : (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902			FAX   : (407) 729-3363

A good newspaper is never good enough,
	but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever.		-- Garrison Keillor

esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman) (02/11/91)

From article <823@sdrc.UUCP>, by wggabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard):
> From article <2995@sodium.ATT.COM>, by esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman):
> 
>> it all depends on what hat you are wearing. If you are
>> an independent software vendor you most likely to hook up with
>> the wood behind the Sun's arrow - SPARC/SVR4/OpenWindow platform. The
>> market share is a magic magnet in software business.
> 
> Yes it is - and though Sun has more market share than any other single vendor,
> add up the market shares held by HP, DEC and IBM and compare them to Sun.
All I have in front of me is the estimate for 1990 number of 
workstation shipments made around the September 1990 by Goldman Sachs.
	Sun - 170,000
	Digital - 15,000
	HP - 75,000
	IBM - 15,000
Sun ships over 60% more then DEC,IBM, and HP together: 170,000
vs 105,000. I assume this estimate reflects what is going on
right now.


> If an ISV is going to make his wares available on a variety of platforms, 
> following the OSF/Motif path make the most sense.

In view of the above it is not as clear and facts show that ISVs
develope for OL approx 3 times more then for Motif, according
to >Personal Workstation< magazine monthly surveys.

> Also, if doing 3D graphics,
> Sun has yet to integrate SunPHIGS with X. XGL is immediate mode only (no
> display list) which makes it very unattractive for a large number of 3D 
> applications. The other vendors mentioned have integrated their 3D graphics 
> packages with X. I'm sure Sun will eventually have this capability (considering
> that they were the PEX SI implementors) but it is currently an advantage the 
> other's have, and a big reason alot of people are still running SunView rather 
> than switching to OpenWindows.
> 

I agree with all of that, but it looks that time is on Sun's side
right now.

--Ed Gokhman

esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman) (02/11/91)

From article <5858@auspex.auspex.com>, by guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris):
> 
> 1) I don't know to what extent this is *intrinsic* to OPEN LOOK - i.e.,
>    I don't know how much effort would be involved in making a
>    Motif-compliant XView,
> <...>
> 2) I saw a claim somewhere that there exists, or will soon exist, a tool
>    to convert SunView applications to Motif-Xt (or "-lXm", if you will)
You still typically choose X11/NeWS to migrate, so that you can run
SunView applications as is for a while. That is how Sun preserves the
installed base of customers. In the future I suspect a lot of
neat desktop publishing applications will be NeWS-based, which
would keep the interest to Sun's software base going. --Ed

wggabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) (02/12/91)

From article <5478@trantor.harris-atd.com>, by chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano):
> 	Sun		151,000
> 	HP PA		 10,000
> 	MIPS		 45,900
> 	IBM POWER	  8,000
>      These unit volume numbers are for RISC systems only, and do not include
> HP's 680x0 systems.  The numbers are for calendar year 1990.  Even with the
> 680x0 systems included, Sun enjoys a clear advantage in unit volume.  

Considering that the 680x0 units account for most of HP's business on both the
HP and Apollo end I think excluding them here is a bit deceptive.  While
I will admit that I don't know the numbers, I know they are significantly higher
than those for HP-PA.


-- 
The statements above are my own and do not neccesarily reflect the opinion of 
my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Gabbard 				    UUCP: uunet!sdrc!wggabb
Technical Development Engineer   	INTERNET: wggabb%sdrc@uunet.uu.net
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation

wggabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) (02/12/91)

From article <3005@sodium.ATT.COM>, by esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman):
> In view of the above it is not as clear and facts show that ISVs
> develope for OL approx 3 times more then for Motif, according
> to >Personal Workstation< magazine monthly surveys.

I wouldn't be using Personal Workstation to get my facts.  One person here even
pointed out that they reviewed a Motif based application that wasn't included
in their chart.  If you want to get a good idea of who's doing what, keep an
eye on Unix Today, Digital Review and UNIX World (1st 2 are weekly, 2nd is 
monthly).  The weeklys contain the most product announcement info while UNIX 
World, although a bit on the short side for technical info, contains good
reviews of some lower end GUI-based products.  For good solid techinical info,
UNIX Review has no equal.

-- 
The statements above are my own and do not neccesarily reflect the opinion of 
my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Gabbard 				    UUCP: uunet!sdrc!wggabb
Technical Development Engineer   	INTERNET: wggabb%sdrc@uunet.uu.net
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/13/91)

In article <3005@sodium.ATT.COM> esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman) writes:
>In view of the above it is not as clear and facts show that ISVs
>develope for OL approx 3 times more then for Motif, according
>to >Personal Workstation< magazine monthly surveys.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  >Personal Workstation< is lying.
They haven't updated their list of Motif applications even when they've
*reviewed* new Motif applications.

-- 
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.

irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide') (02/13/91)

In article <823@sdrc.UUCP> wggabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) writes:
>From article <2995@sodium.ATT.COM>, by esg@sodium.ATT.COM (Edward Gokhman):
>
>> it all depends on what hat you are wearing. If you are
>> an independent software vendor you most likely to hook up with
>> the wood behind the Sun's arrow - SPARC/SVR4/OpenWindow platform. The
>> market share is a magic magnet in software business.
>
>Yes it is - and though Sun has more market share than any other single vendor,
>add up the market shares held by HP, DEC and IBM and compare them to Sun.
>If an ISV is going to make his wares available on a variety of platforms, 
>following the OSF/Motif path make the most sense. Also, if doing 3D graphics,
>Sun has yet to integrate SunPHIGS with X. XGL is immediate mode only (no
>display list) which makes it very unattractive for a large number of 3D 
>applications. The other vendors mentioned have integrated their 3D graphics 
>packages with X. I'm sure Sun will eventually have this capability (considering
>that they were the PEX SI implementors) but it is currently an advantage the 
>other's have, and a big reason alot of people are still running SunView rather 
>than switching to OpenWindows.
>
>The opinions expressed above are those of my own and do not neccessarily reflect
>those of my employer.
>-- 
>Rob Gabbard 				    UUCP: uunet!sdrc!wggabb
>Technical Development Engineer   	INTERNET: wggabb%sdrc@uunet.uu.net
>Structural Dynamics Research Corporation

Let's look at the actual "market share" figures.

From the article "Top 10 UNIX companies" in "Unix World", December 1990:

Vendor    1990 UNIX revenue    Change from 1989
-----------------------------------------------
HP        $2.8    billion      +33%
Sun       $2.75   billion      +29%
DEC       $1.6    billion      +23%
Unisys    $1.0    billion      +25%
IBM       $0.99   billion      +32%


UNIX sales in Europe 1989 (from Dataquest):
Vendor                  Value of shipments
------------------------------------------

Others                  $1334 million
Intel-based PC UNIX      $971 million
HP/Apollo                $558 million
Sun Microsystems         $305 million
Siemens                  $296 million
Unisys                   $232 million
NCR                      $222 million
Digital Equipment        $210 million
Altos                    $191 million
Philips                  $134 million


Bo

   ^   Bo Thide'--------------------------------------------------------------
  |I|       Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|  Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Telex: 76036 (IRFUPP S).  Fax: (+46) 18-403100 
 /|F|\        INTERNET: bt@irfu.se       UUCP: ...!uunet!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ -----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw

steve@wattres.uucp (Steve Watt) (02/14/91)

In article <857@sdrc.UUCP> wggabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) writes:
>From article <5478@trantor.harris-atd.com>, by chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano):
>> 	Sun		151,000
>> 	HP PA		 10,000
>> 	MIPS		 45,900
>> 	IBM POWER	  8,000
>> [some stuff removed] Sun enjoys a clear advantage in unit volume.  
>
>Considering that the 680x0 units account for most of HP's business on both the
> [ more removed ]

It should also be pointed out the the IBM RS/6000 was only available for the
last 3 months (or so) of 1990.  Not a bad showing for a brand new product, if
you ask me.  Comparing total sales volume is mostly meaningless.  It's much
better to compare sales volume for a comparable amount of time.

  In general (bias coming), I would prefer that people do two things for
postings like this:
	1)  Don't post.  (Well, I can hope, anyway...) :)

	2)  If you must post, take *all* systems and factors into account.

  I know of a fairly large number of IBM RTs that are running Motif (painful
though it is), and I know that SCO's Open Desktop is doing fairly well, and
it's also Motif-based.  Sorry, but I don't have any figures of number of RTs
or 80x86en that are running Motif, but I suspect there are a lot of them.
-- 
Steve Watt
...!claris!wattres!steve		wattres!steve@claris.com also works
Never trust a computer bigger than you can lift.

chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (02/14/91)

In article <1991Feb12.172735.5137@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
> I've said it before, I'll say it again.  >Personal Workstation< is lying.
> They haven't updated their list of Motif applications even when they've
> *reviewed* new Motif applications.

     To their credit, PW only reports shipping apps.  It may often be that
the review looks at pre-release or beta software, and the app counts will
be updated when the tool finally ships.  I know that in the reviews I've
written for various trade publications, I often get beta software to review.
The vendor wants the review to be the latest and greatest, so you get lots of
"almost there" tools to review.

-- 

Chuck Musciano				ARPA  : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation 			Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912			AT&T  : (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902			FAX   : (407) 729-3363

A good newspaper is never good enough,
	but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever.		-- Garrison Keillor

vonn@fay.UUCP (Vonn Marsch) (02/15/91)

Rob Gabbard writes:
> I wouldn't be using Personal Workstation to get my facts.  One person here even
> pointed out that they reviewed a Motif based application that wasn't included
> in their chart. 

Was the application in question a developer or programming tool?

PW says they don't include those on their chart.

-Vonn (vonn@statsci.com)

preece@urbana.mcd.mot.COM (Scott E. Preece) (02/16/91)

From: jcb@frisbee.eng.sun.com (Jim Becker)
|    In article <1991Feb12.172735.5137@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
|    > I've said it before, I'll say it again.  >Personal Workstation< is lying.
|    > *reviewed* new Motif applications.
|
|         To their credit, PW only reports shipping apps. ...
|
|Well, they also claim to factor out the applications that  aren't  for
|end users. So those don't make it into the list. This includes all the
|developers tools and such.
|
|If  you look at their new list for Windows 3.0, there are only about a
|hundred  applications.  There are reported to be over 800 applications
|available however. Grains of salt the size of manatees, if you ask me.
---
Not counting development tools makes a lot of sense from the point of
view they are trying to serve.  The availability of development tools
*may* mean that *someday* there will be end-user applications, but if
I'm shopping for a workstation for anything but software development
(and development is the tail that is having less and less market impact
on the delivered dog), I could care less about what *may* be available
*someday*.
---
|
|By this metric Unix in general would probably score with a count  done
|on two hands.. :-)
|
---
As an end-user environment, UNIX by itself deserves a count done on two
hands.  The people who are buying UNIX today do not care about and will
never see or use the tools that make UNIX dear to us.  They will use
WINZ or Framemaker or UNIPLEX or whatever, and will never, ever see a
shell prompt, let alone invoke a tool.  The tools themselves, of course,
are old and rusty and weren't state of the art when they were new,
anyway, and no company in the UNIX market is spending dollar one to
upgrade them, so they never will be...

I have no idea whether the PW list is an accurate reflection of the
collection of applications that are available and shipping, but if you
want to verify it, they ran the actual list, as well as the numbers, and
you can intersect it with the set of things you know are shipping...

I'd be a little surprised if there were 800 applications available today
for Windows 3.0, just from what I've seen around, but that's just an
impression, not a measured fact.

--
scott preece
motorola/mcd urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:	uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,	 arpa:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com