mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) (04/08/90)
>> the very fact that xview is free [...]. [...] telling everyone `X >> must be better - look at all of these things that you can get for >> free'. > I don't know what you mean by 'free'... Ftp to expo and fetch XView. Now ftp to expo and fetch Motif. What's that? You can't find Motif? Run that by me again about how XView is no more free than Motif? > but very soon, some companies will make Motif the default environment > when you purchase their computers. I, for one, am not interested in paying for something I can't use. Well, I guess that must mean they're not interested in selling to me. > Hopefully, this will remove any illusions that other kits are 'free' > and Motif is not.... Read my first paragraph of reply over again. Where's the illusion? Ask Dave Mack what happened when he tried to send out a bug report for Motif. Would that have happened with XView? Hardly. > and thus help minimize the Motif-vs-Xview diatribe and noise levels > on this network. A worthy end. I don't care about Motif-vs-XView; I use (and will continue to use) neither. But I won't sit still for this sort of doublespeak about "free". Motif is definitely not free in the sense of freedom, and for the sense of $, I'll just note that including the cost in with the cost of the machine doesn't make it free; the "Open" Software Foundation will still extract their $whatever. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.COM (Dick St.Peters) (04/09/90)
Christopher Graham <graham@fuel.enet.dec.com> writes > I don't know what you mean by 'free'...but very soon, > some companies will make Motif the default > environment when you purchase their computers. > Hopefully, this will remove any illusions that other > kits are 'free' and Motif is not... By this reasoning NeWS would have been free if "some companies" had been willing to license it and deliver it with their systems. As I recall, certain companies backing X were once quite willing to leverage the attraction to free source. If they are unhappy that the world has come to expect it, they have no one to blame but themselves. For those of you demanding free source and irate that OSF is charging for it, the original press release announcing OSF said that it would license its software, i.e., that it would be a software vendor. But most of you seem to have believed the hype that it would be some sort of benign entity. Folks, you have been had, and you too have no one to blame but yourselves. -- Dick St.Peters, GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com uunet!dawn.crd.ge.com!stpeters
moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) (04/09/90)
graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: >I don't know what you mean by 'free'...but very soon, >some companies will make Motif the default >environment when you purchase their computers. Nope. That is not how some of us define 'free'. Sun has been shipping suntools as the default environment for Suns for years. We've never called that free, now, have we? I haven't seen people getting up and saying that DECWindows is free, even though DEC has been shipping it as the default environment for their Ultrix workstations. Anyone seen SGI claiming that their 4Sight/NeWS is free because they ship it as the default environment for their machines? How about SunOS? Ultrix? Irix? etc. (all come as default environments) But then, some of us feel really unhappy without source code to the things we run; something to do with the fact that we don't like the phrase "fixed in the next release" that we seem to often get from vendor hotlines. 'free' in our context means -- free to use && free to port && free to fix && free to enhance && free to experiment with && free to develop from &&"free to redistribute'. So we can write spiffy code ourselves that does the things we want to do; so we can take code from existing applications and use it as a base for further development, so we can share programs/fixes with our colleagues at other Universities when they want to collaborate on or use the stuff we do i.e freedom from proprietary vendor systems -- freedom to buy new, different hardware should our present vendor decide they don't really think they they can provide new generation hardware at prices we can afford, or provide working operating systems, or compliance with new standards or... Obviously, these may not necessarily be vendor definitions of 'free'. We often see interesting reactions when we ask sales reps "and how much is a source license?". To us, 'free' does not mean "We don't charge you extra for it, it's bundled with the system". Mark.
graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) (04/10/90)
>'free' in our context means -- free to use && free to port && free to >fix && free to enhance && free to experiment with && free to develop >from >To us, 'free' does not mean "We don't charge you extra for it, it's >bundled with the system". So.....one honest question..... Any suggestions how the software companies should pay for the time and money invested/spent in building and *supporting* the software that you suggest be available via ftp from every coner of the universe? The last time I checked, even University/academic programmers did not work for free..... Why ask for Motif only? Why not ask for free source for every product built by these companies? You will then advancing the true spirit of a 'competitive economy'...and help keep these companies in business.....and keep us all employed...so we can continue with this wonderful networking and discussions ;-) On a more serious note, I can understand the hassles with software and 'lawyers'...maybe the academics/'free' advocates should propose to spend some time on 'something' (eg.. creating new widget ideas and code for OSF) in return for 'free' Motif. ....no? Hey... even Glastnost is not 'free' ;-) Christopher Graham Digital Equipment Corp Ultrix Resource Center New York City "I speak for myself......not representing anybody or firm" Internet: graham@fuel.enet.dec.com UUCP: ...!decwrl!fuel.enet.dec.com!graham
jimf%saber@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU (04/11/90)
|Any suggestions how the software companies should pay for |the time and money invested/spent in building and *supporting* |the software that you suggest be available via ftp from every coner of |the universe? [...] |Why ask for Motif only? Why not ask for free source for every product |built by these companies? I'm not for everything being freely available, but programmer's toolkits that support an interface that you're trying to make a standard so that people will buy your product over someone else's (ie Motif for OSF/1 vs Open Look for Sun/AT&T) are probably a good idea to write off (ie give away for free). Forcing companies (especially the small ones that have fast turnaround times) to pay for a toolkit so they can build applications for your system is (bluntly) a stupid idea. Let's face it, OSF/1 is where the money is supposed to come from, not OSF/Motif. What OSF should be doing is saying "Hey, here's our toolkit, build applications for us so that when OSF/1 comes out we'll have a thousand applications already built" instead of forcing companies to gamble cash on whether or not OSF/1 is going to come out on time or even at all. This is why there are often developer's discounts on hardware. The hardware vendor realizes that no consumer in their right mind is going to buy a system with no software. Now back to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress. jim frost saber software jimf@saber.com
mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) (04/11/90)
>> 'free' in our context means -- free to use && free to port && free >> to fix && free to enhance && free to experiment with && free to >> develop from [...]. To us, 'free' does not mean "We don't charge >> you extra for it, it's bundled with the system". > So.....one honest question..... > Any suggestions how the software companies should pay for the time > and money invested/spent in building and *supporting* the software > that you suggest be available via ftp from every coner of the > universe? The last time I checked, even University/academic > programmers did not work for free..... Well, how did X, which *is* available via ftp from every corner of the universe, get written? Why am I getting paid to write software which I will be glad to send out to anyone on the net who asks? (And if I am forbidden to send it out, I will quit working here.) Sometimes, having something available is worth some money even if no money can be (or perhaps "is") made from the thing itself. > Why ask for Motif only? Why not ask for free source for every > product built by these companies? I do. If we can't get source we don't run it. (There are a few exceptions, which have been imposed on me from without.) > ...maybe the academics/'free' advocates should propose to spend some > time on 'something' (eg.. creating new widget ideas and code for > OSF) in return for 'free' Motif. ....no? If Motif were freely available lots of free types *would* be spending time creating new widgets and other code for it. I can be so sure of this because similar things are constantly happening with software that is free: X, Xt, XView, gnu-emacs, gcc, etc.... der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
bobp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (robert.phillips) (04/11/90)
In article <1601@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: > > >So.....one honest question..... > >Any suggestions how the software companies should pay for >the time and money invested/spent in building and *supporting* >the software that you suggest be available via ftp from every coner of >the universe? The last time I checked, even University/academic >programmers did not work for free..... They don't work for free, but for what the going pay scales are at most places, they might as well be working for free. Pick up a copy of the GNU manifesto and check it out. It may not be the most feasible plan, and I am certainly not about to give up my "phoney-baloney job" (Mel Brooks gets me every time), but it IS a suggestion. > >Why ask for Motif only? Well, because Motif is USEFUL. The request is something of a compliment, although the phrasing might not give that impression. > > >Christopher Graham >Digital Equipment Corp >Ultrix Resource Center >New York City > >"I speak for myself......not representing anybody or firm" Rob Phillips AT&T BL 190 River Rd. Summit, NJ 07901 201-522-6359 attunix!bobp The above opinions are mine and mine alone (except for the lines beginning with the little ">"'s). If you can figure out what AT&T's opinions are, please contact me at any of the above addresses (I am KIDDING).
moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) (04/12/90)
>Any suggestions how the software companies should pay for >the time and money invested/spent in building and *supporting* >the software that you suggest be available via ftp from every coner of >the universe? I merely defined what "free" means to some of us. I did not suggest that anyone give Motif or any other software away. (Check back to my posting <90Apr8.221709edt.3362@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> again if you wish) But don't tell us that software that's bundled with a vendor's operating system is comparable in "freedom" to src that we can ftp or pay a modest distribution tape fee for. [I didn't say it was comparable in support or quality, either] I quite understand that OSF has to charge money for their source licenses. Membership has its privileges. If not, what would be the point of being a member. (We pay for source licenses for lots of software that we consider important. Or interesting. Whether we consider Motif important enough to pay for is another can of worms.) OSF deems it advantageous to their business to licence Motif and ask for Real Money(TM). Sun deems it advantageous to distribute XView src freely and widely, even though it forms part of their OpenWindows distribution. Both are business decisions i.e. risks -- I doubt if there was much altruism involved in either. (ok, so I'm a cynic) I assume the goal is to capture a larger market share by touting compliance with a "industry standard" look and feel. "Just so long as it's MY industry standard and not theirs":-) Some vendors say they'll ship Motif as part of their standard operating system distributions. When they do, we'll try it out. Oddly enough, that's exactly the approach our Lab manager took with a certain other window system, that was promised as part of a certain vendors standard operating system release a couple of years ago. (We happened to have a lot of machines from that vendor) In the meantime, a large fraction of our users got to like X, some of the hacks here wrote/ported/improved some applications for X, often in their non-existent spare time. The users around here like said applications enough that they now think of them as standard parts of X. If X10 or X11R2 cost a thousand dollars, I doubt if we'd have gotten funds to buy it just because "we want to see what it's like, maybe we'll like it and port our applications to it or write some toys for it". At least the battleground seems to have shifted to Motif and XView from X vs. "your favourite proprietary window system". Those of us that use vanilla X can watch peacefully from the sidelines, and enjoy the feeling of growing old with an obsolete GUI (or lack thereof:-) Mark. --- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" "We must welcome the future, remembering that it will soon be the past; and we must respect the past, knowing that it was once all that was humanly possible." - George Santayana's "The Life of Reason".
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/14/90)
In article <1601@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: >Any suggestions how the software companies should pay for >the time and money invested/spent in building and *supporting* >the software that you suggest be available via ftp from every coner of >the universe? The last time I checked, even University/academic >programmers did not work for free..... Software companies, no. OSF, yes. OSF is currently financed for 3/4 years by the sponsors and the membership. I would propose that the results of that sponsership are valuable that they will be willing to continue funding it in the future, and that it will therefore have no need to charge for its products. So why pay money as an OSF sponsor/member? To help mold the direction of, and receive early access too, what OSF does. Considering that the alternative is investing money in OSF, and then buying its products, and then tossing them out because something more widely available won, I think it's a small price to pay. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alphalpha Software, Inc. | Voice/Fax: 617/646-7703 | Home: 617/641-3805 | | 148 Scituate St. | Smart fax, dial number. | | | Arlington, MA 02174 | Dumb fax, dial number, | BBS: 617/641-3722 | | nazgul@alphalpha.com | wait for ring, press 3. | 300/1200/2400 baud | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) (05/02/90)
> [But] there is one thing we, the X pushers, owe to the general > public. > General public does NOT want to hear "mechanism, not policy". Users, > and small SW vendors in particular, are tired of endless > inconsistency of user interfaces. Nobody wants to use four different > "policies", and nobody wants to spend money coding to four different > policies. > General public wants ONE POLICY. And that's what OSF/Motif strives > to deliver. I think you're both right and wrong. If you ask any one user, you will, I expect, find you're right: that user wants just one policy. The problem is, if you ask another user you'll find that while that second user also wants just one policy, the two policies are completely incompatible. For example, there's a big chunk out there that thinks the Macintosh policy is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and wants all their applications to use that same policy. I, on the other hand, also want all my applications to use a single policy - but I find the Macintosh policy to be the second-least tolerable policy I've ever seen. (The least tolerable is the NeXT's, which is very close to the Mac's.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu