[comp.windows.x] HP's Object Only

tinguely@plains.UUCP (Mark Tinguely) (01/06/90)

I do not want to start a war words against any vendor, nor upset anyone
(Myself and NDSU, as an institution, have in the past and hope to continue
in the future, a friendly relationship with HP, Sun, DEC, and Apple. I am
sure everyone at NDSU will quickly point out my ideas are my own).

I am a little surprised to see that MIT distributed the R4 HP server section 
in object format only format. I understand that the HP server does not contain
MIT code (so I read this as the server was created by HP). I also understand
that HP has the right to distribute their software in this manner if they so
chose.

My point is that X is popular because it works on many different machines
and operating systems and that open-ness was encouraged. What I am wondering
is this a future trend for the other vendors?

-- 
Mark Tinguely           North Dakota State University,  Fargo, ND  58105
  UUCP:       		...!uunet!plains!tinguely
  BITNET:      		tinguely@plains.bitnet
  INTERNET:   		tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu

rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (01/07/90)

    I am a little surprised to see that MIT distributed the R4 HP server section 
    in object format only format.

MIT distributed in the form that HP supplied it to us.  Source is nice, but
binary is better than nothing.  You will also note that IBM distributed the
8514 support in binary form.

tinguely@PLAINS.NODAK.EDU (Mark Tinguely) (01/07/90)

is this a trend for the future or is it too early to tell. I still have X11R3
sources, but others may be starting at the X11R4 and miss out in the examples
of drivers for these hardware platforms. 

I relaise that this is NOT a MIT decision nor did I want to chastise HP
for sending object only, it was an observation and concern.

Keep up the good work. I imagine that you are proud of the wide adoption of
the X statndard.

--mark.

rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (01/07/90)

    is this a trend for the future or is it too early to tell.

I have no idea.  A few vendors have talked to us about providing the
equivalent of their product server to us for inclusion in our distribution,
in the form of object modules to link into the sample server.  (You would
have to ask HP and IBM to find out how the R4 objects compare with their
own product servers, I don't know.)  The object form protects them in
various ways, but still provides "enthusiasts" the ability to track MIT
changes to other parts of the server.  It also cuts down the vendor's
workload considerably; they don't have to maintain two completely independent
versions (we at MIT try hard to avoid supporting vendor-specific code), yet
they still provide free use through MIT.  I don't think that's such a bad
deal, for all concerned.

cheeks@edsr.eds.com (Mark Costlow) (01/07/90)

In article <3079@plains.UUCP>, tinguely@plains.UUCP (Mark Tinguely) writes:

> I am a little surprised to see that MIT distributed the R4 HP server
> section in object format only format. I understand that the HP server
> does not contain MIT code (so I read this as the server was created by
> HP). I also understand that HP has the right to distribute their software
> in this manner if they so chose.
 
I was a bit suprised too.  I was also a bit perturbed since the binaries
they distributed contain HP-UX 6.5 dependancies.  I got the server
running under 6.2, but I had to do some naughty things that I wouldn't
recommend to anybody else in order to get it to work.

> My point is that X is popular because it works on many different machines
> and operating systems and that open-ness was encouraged. What I am wondering
> is this a future trend for the other vendors?

I certainly hope not.  I can't decide which is worse:

   HP, who contributed support for all devices, but in binary form.  or

   SUN, who won't tell anyone how the GX works, so we have to put up with
   poor performance.

Oh well, either way, you get what you pay for I suppose.  :-)

> 
> -- 
> Mark Tinguely           North Dakota State University,  Fargo, ND  58105
>   UUCP:       		...!uunet!plains!tinguely
>   BITNET:      		tinguely@plains.bitnet
>   INTERNET:   		tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu

Mark

cheeks@edsr.eds.com    or     ...uunet!edsr!cheeks