david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) (11/15/89)
jordan@morgan.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes: >Jeff Nisewanger (Window Systems Group) <jdn@sun.com> writes: >>The use of xdm is not supported under OpenWindows 1.0. >Is anyone else getting sick of the things that have come to be >convention in the X world not being supported by "Open-Windows" ...? I >know that XView is not based on the Intrinsics, but you would think >that the least Sun could do is provide a shared-library-built libXt ... I think it is comical how they call it OpenWindows. Its exactly as stupid as DEC calling their byte-swapped MIPS machines "open." It is clear that those vendors with proprietary mind-sets are going to die off. It is too bad that Sun started out with an open strategy and now has taken the suicidal DEC route towards proprietary systems. Sun just continues to insult the intelligence of its customers by calling its closed, dead-end products and systems "open." OpenWindows, SPARC, s-bus, sun-specific VME, ... DECwindows, byte-swapped MIPS, sue-anybody-who-tries-to-use-it-bus, ... See any similarities? You may balk at my including DECwindows in with the closed systems, because it currently is just X. But DEC FORTRAN was once just FORTRAN too... PS: Is there going to be a GOOD implementation of X11R4 on EISA-based 386/486 SystemVR4 machines? PPS: Is there going to be a GOOD implementation of SVR4 on EISA-based 386/486 machines which will support DOS applications with individual X windows instead of taking over the entire screen resource?
graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) (11/16/89)
In article <6447@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) writes: > I think it is comical how they call it OpenWindows. Its exactly as > stupid as DEC calling their byte-swapped MIPS machines "open." > I am shocked that you believe your own silly hype! Is this what comp.windows.x is about? Should we sit mute and read such nonsense? I don't see how you can link hardware technology with openess without expalining what you mean. Digital's RISC machines are little endian like the Sun 386 and the millions of all Intel-based PC machines sold to-date. Does that make them un-"open"? Making a piece of technology *available* is what really makes that technology open. I am not claiming that everything is perfect and dandy....but, your noise evades reality. > > OpenWindows, SPARC, s-bus, sun-specific VME, ... > DECwindows, byte-swapped MIPS, sue-anybody-who-tries-to-use-it-bus, ... Sun and DEC has made available the sources for their toolkits.....so I do not see the point of your diatribe. > PS: Is there going to be a GOOD implementation of X11R4 on EISA-based > 386/486 SystemVR4 machines? > PPS: Is there going to be a GOOD implementation of SVR4 on EISA-based > 386/486 machines which will support DOS applications with individual X > windows instead of taking over the entire screen resource? The contradiction and ignorance dispalyed here is disturbing! Who own 386/486 SystemVR4 machines? Glasnost? ;^) Or, all this stuff is manna from heaven?! Christopher Graham Digital Equipment Corp Ultrix Resource Center New York City
david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) (11/18/89)
In article <1517@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: > >In article <6447@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV >(David E. Smyth) writes: > >> I think it is comical how they call it OpenWindows. >Making a piece of technology *available* is what really makes that >technology open. No, multi-vendor availability makes a technology "open." VAXes are *available*, but they obviously are not "open." One can buy a PC from lotsa companies, they are obviously "open." >Sun and DEC has made available the sources for their toolkits.....so I >do not see the point of your diatribe. Sun is just trying to cause a diversion, to break up the continuity within the trend towards X. They could have provided X a long time ago, but no, they have their own little isolated drum to beat: NeWS. NeWS was a good idea. So was CP/M. But both lost. Not necessarily to "better" solutions, but to more widely used solutions. A PC which runs CP/M and MS-DOS provides no useful value over a pure MS-DOS machine, and less value if it makes running MS-DOS sorta wierd. OpenWindows makes running X sorta weird. Lotsa-vendor availability = Open. example: X, Motif Very-few-or-one-vendor support = Closed. example: Open{Windows,Look}
elvis@athena.athena.ee.msstate.EDU (surfer) (11/20/89)
Will someone please define "Open" before we all go crazy with this meaningless argument... -John West- elvis@athena.ee.msstate.edu MADEM Project **** Research Center for Advanced Scientific Computing Mississippi State University P.O. Drawer EE (601) 325-8234 (voice) Mississippi State, MS 39762 (601) 325-2298 (fax) USA ........the opinions presented here are those of the King..........