micky@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Micky Liu) (08/11/89)
I was looking for some MOTIF information and was poking around on expo the other night and found MOTIF.Xt.tar.Z in the contrib directory. What is this stuff really? The README wasn't too helpful and the source didn't build. Any ideas about what it is, what it's used for, and has anyone actually created the MOTIF Xt library? Thanx! Micky arpa: micky@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu uucp: ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!micky bitnet: malua@cuvmc
david@ics.COM (David B. Lewis) (08/14/89)
In article <1776@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu>, micky@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Micky Liu) writes: > > I was looking for some MOTIF information and was poking around on > expo the other night and found MOTIF.Xt.tar.Z in the contrib > directory. What is this stuff really? The README wasn't too > helpful and the source didn't build. Any ideas about what it > is, what it's used for, and has anyone actually created the MOTIF > Xt library? I believe that this file is the Motif Intrinsics library placed on expo about six weeks ago by Gabe Beged-Dov of HP. It should build on just about anything the MIT Xt build on. -- David B. Lewis david@ics.com ics!david@buita.bu.edu david%ics.UUCP@buita.bu.edu "An organization designing a system will produce a copy of its own communication structure." - Melvin Conway
jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans) (08/15/89)
> I believe that this file is the Motif Intrinsics library placed on > expo about six weeks ago by Gabe Beged-Dov of HP. Does that mean that Motif will eventually become available via expo / the network? How about the $1000 licence fee OSF is requiring? Johan -- Johan Vromans jv@mh.nl via internet backbones Multihouse Automatisering bv uucp: ..!{mcvax,hp4nl}!mh.nl!jv Doesburgweg 7, 2803 PL Gouda, The Netherlands phone/fax: +31 1820 62944/62500 ------------------------ "Arms are made for hugging" -------------------------
gabe@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Gabe Begeddov) (08/16/89)
/ hpcvlx:comp.windows.x / jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans) / 8:49 pm Aug 14, 1989 / > I believe that this file is the Motif Intrinsics library placed on > expo about six weeks ago by Gabe Beged-Dov of HP. Does that mean that Motif will eventually become available via expo / the network? How about the $1000 licence fee OSF is requiring? The Motif intrinsics were made available to the MIT X Consortium as part of the process of converging on the R4 intrinsics. This is independent of obtaining the OSF/Motif offering from OSF. Contact OSF or your favorite OSF vendor for more information. Some of the value added features of the Motif Xt will be in the R4 intrinsics, along with many of the bug fixes. Other features will either not be in the MIT R4 or will be in a different guise. It is HP's (and OSF's) intention to fully conform to the R4 intrinsics (once they become available) in future releases of OSF and HP intrinsics-based software. Gabe Beged-Dov
dbrooks@osf.osf.org (David Brooks) (08/16/89)
David Lewis is essentially correct. Changes to the Intrinsics, made originally by HP, are being submitted to the Consortium for possible inclusion in the standard release, and this file represents the current state of those changes. Despite the "Motif" label, the stuff on expo is not an OSF Offering and won't be supported by us. Everything else remains the same: a source license, which includes all documentation, is available for $1000, and the Preliminary Functional Descriptions are available for a handling fee of $30. There is no plan to make Motif available any other way. Please, please DO NOT EMAIL ME for information. For either of these components, call +1(617)621-8835, or write the Motif Desk at my mailing address. -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks 11 Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (08/17/89)
dbrooks@osf.osf.org (David Brooks) writes: |Everything else remains the same: a source license, which includes all |documentation, is available for $1000, and the Preliminary Functional |Descriptions are available for a handling fee of $30. There is no |plan to make Motif available any other way. $1000?????????????????????????????????????????? And they call themselves the "Open Software Foundation"? They should rename it to the "Expensive Software Foundation". Looks like their PR is a lot better than the reality. If this is typical pricing, it looks like they're going to be as expensive as AT&T, which will make them about as "open" as AT&T. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** Copyright 1989 by Sean Casey. Only non-profit redistribution permitted. *** ``Why can't anything be as simple as following the instructions???'' -me
graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) (08/17/89)
>|Everything else remains the same: a source license, which includes all >|documentation, is available for $1000, and the Preliminary Functional >|Descriptions are available for a handling fee of $30. There is no >|plan to make Motif available any other way. >$1000?????????????????????????????????????????? +And they call themselves the "Open Software Foundation"? +They should rename it to the "Expensive Software Foundation". Looks like their +PR is a lot better than the reality. If this is typical pricing, it looks like +they're going to be as expensive as AT&T, which will make them about as "open" +as AT&T. +Sean +-- +*** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean Maybe they should make everything "FREE".......let their employees work for free, let them have their premises for free.....and even bring Karl Marx from his grave to teach them how to do things for free! And explain to the rest of the "unopen" world that "open" means "free"! It will be a great idea indeed! ;-) -- Christopher Graham Digital Equipment Corp Ultrix Resource Center 2 Penn Plaza New York City
steve@UMIACS.UMD.EDU (08/17/89)
Actually (as someone who is definitely more of an OSF fan than a Unix International fan), I worry that, simply because the OPEN LOOK-compliant X11 toolkit (and maybe a window manager, I don't know for sure) *is* distributed for free, OPEN LOOK will win over Motif. I think that, when all is said and done, X11 was sure helped a lot in the popularity battle over NeWS because X11 was free, and NeWS wasn't. I think Sun learned its lesson on that, and that this is one of the reasons that the XView toolkit will be free. I'm surprised to see that OSF took a step backward in this regard. Save the world from OPEN LOOK: make Motif free! (Donning asbestos suit...) -Steve Spoken: Steve Miller Domain: steve@mimsy.umd.edu UUCP: uunet!mimsy!steve Phone: +1-301-454-1808 USPS: UMIACS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) (08/18/89)
>Actually (as someone who is definitely more of an OSF fan than a Unix >International fan), I worry that, simply because the OPEN LOOK-compliant >X11 toolkit (and maybe a window manager, I don't know for sure) *is* >distributed for free, OPEN LOOK will win over Motif. Some scientific surveys have been done ...regarding the OPEN LOOK vs Motif controversy.... So far, Motif has a wide margin lead. A good example of such survey, is the one conducted by UNIX Today! in July ' 89. Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular. There are other reasons why users may pick one UI over the other. BTW: The Motif binaries is only $40. -- Christopher Graham Digital Equipment Corp Ultrix Resource Center 2 Penn Plaza New York City (Usual disclaimers go in here)
bob@primerd.prime.com (08/18/89)
>> Everything else remains the same: a source license, which includes all >> documentation, is available for $1000, and the Preliminary Functional >> Descriptions are available for a handling fee of $30. There is no >> plan to make Motif available any other way. David, You forgot to mention that they *don't* accept Purchase Orders. Cash Only. In small, unmarked bills. I believe they also want you to put it in an envelope and leave it in the phone booth at the corner of 4th and Main after midnight. Your (ex?) Friend, bob pellegrino
bob@primerd.prime.com (08/18/89)
By the way, I forgot the smily face on my comment about OSF accounts receivable. It's true that they don't accept PO's, but they do accept MasterCard and Visa in addition to cash. You still have to leave it in the phone booth though. (GREAT BIG :-) --bob pellegrino
kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (08/19/89)
In article <1445@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: > >>Actually (as someone who is definitely more of an OSF fan than a Unix >>International fan), I worry that, simply because the OPEN LOOK-compliant >>X11 toolkit (and maybe a window manager, I don't know for sure) *is* >>distributed for free, OPEN LOOK will win over Motif. > >Some scientific surveys have been done ...regarding the OPEN LOOK vs Motif controversy.... >So far, Motif has a wide margin lead. A good example of such survey, is the one conducted >by UNIX Today! in July ' 89. Scientific surveys ? BULL. The article that you direct the readers to states it is an informal survey. If you know of *real* scientific surveys, I'd be happy ^^^^^^^^ read them. Please post locatable references to them in this newsgroup as I am sure there are others who are interested as well... >Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular. There are other >reasons why users may pick one UI over the other. Technical merit, ease of use, flexibility and extensibility come to mind as well as reliability. Before you go sounding like the marketing department, maybe you should get some real info on OPEN LOOK from the people it was designed for, the masses. All the articles that I have seen to date have been surveying people with a great deal of computer literacy. The real test of a GUI is to see just how easy it is for computer illiterates to learn and use the machine. >BTW: The Motif binaries is only $40. >Christopher Graham >Digital Equipment Corp >Ultrix Resource Center And $1000 for the sources. I am not taking sides just yet in the WW (Window Wars) but I am tired of people spewing non-facts out for the net to take as fact. -Kent+ This is my opinion only. My mail box awaits any and all comers...
graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) (08/19/89)
>>Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular. >>There are other reasons why users may pick one UI over the other. ++From: kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield)++ >Scientific surveys ? BULL.... >Technical merit, ease of use, flexibility and extensibility come >to mind as well as reliability. Before you go sounding like the >marketing department, maybe you should get some real info on OPEN >LOOK from the people it was designed for, the masses. All the articles >that I have seen to date have been surveying people with a great deal >of computer literacy. The real test of a GUI is to see just how easyit >is for computer illiterates to learn and use the machine. Thanx for reminding me of the 'proper' ways to sound in here ;-) Can you educate me on some of the features that makes OPEN LOOK more flexible and easier to use....such that "the masses" and "computer illiterates" may want it? -- Christopher Graham Digital Equipment Corp (disclaimers go in here)
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (08/20/89)
From article <1445@riscy.dec.com>, by graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham): > [crap about what GUI is better deleted] > Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular. ^^^^^^ What is free? > > BTW: The Motif binaries is only $40. ^^^ For what machine and operating system. Can you get this for SysV 3.2 operateing on a 386? -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun,dasiy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200 Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX system
sean@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Sean McLinden) (08/20/89)
In article <138@fiver.UUCP: palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes:
:From article <1445@riscy.dec.com:, by graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham):
:
:: Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular.
: ^^^^^^
: What is free?
::
:: BTW: The Motif binaries is only $40.
True, but the source is $1000. In contrast, the Sun Open Look contribution
has promised to be free. Kinda ironic, given that NeWS source is $1000
while X windows is free. All are unsupported, BTW.
Alas, there is no such thing as altruism.kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (08/21/89)
In article <1445@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: # Some scientific surveys have been done ...regarding the OPEN LOOK vs Motif # controversy.... So far, Motif has a wide margin lead. A good example of # such survey, is the one conducted by UNIX Today! in July ' 89. In article <538@ssbel.UUCP> I wrote: > Scientific surveys ? BULL. The article that you direct the readers to states > it is an informal survey. > ^^^^^^^^ kris then writes: # Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular. # There are other reasons why users may pick one UI over the other. I wrote: > Technical merit, ease of use, flexibility and extensibility come > to mind as well as reliability. Before you go sounding like the > marketing department, maybe you should get some real info on OPEN > LOOK from the people it was designed for, the masses. In article <1446@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: # Thanx for reminding me of the 'proper' ways to sound in here ;-) # Can you educate me on some of the features that makes OPEN LOOK more # flexible and easier to use....such that "the masses" and "computer # illiterates" may want it? Sorry for the misunderstanding but I was agreeing with you and was just giving examples that I think should be discussed instead of just the pricing. :-) I use Motif here and do not have access to OPEN LOOK just yet. :-) I wrote: > All the articles > that I have seen to date have been surveying people with a great deal > of computer literacy. The real test of a GUI is to see just how easy it > is for computer illiterates to learn and use the machine. If anyone knows of any *real* scientific studies comparing Motif versus OPEN LOOK please e-mail me a reference to it. I will gladly post a summary to the net if there is sufficient interest. # Christopher Graham # Digital Equipment Corp -Kent+ ---- Kent Landfield UUCP: kent@ssbell Sterling Software FSG/IMD INTERNET: kent@ssbell.uu.net 1404 Ft. Crook Rd. South Phone: (402) 291-8300 Bellevue, NE. 68005-2969 FAX: (402) 291-4362 My opinions are mine alone. My mailbox awaits...
tom@ICASE.EDU (Tom Crockett) (08/22/89)
> *Excerpts from xpert: 17-Aug-89 Re: What is that MOTIF than..* > *steve@umiacs.umd.edu (847)* > (Donning asbestos suit...) Good idea. Advocating things for free seems like a good way to draw the heat :-). But seriously, I think that if workstation software prices were cut from about $1000 (that seems to be a popular figure these days) to about $100 or less, the number of copies sold would more than make up the difference in price. Given the quantity and improving quality of free software, it's very hard to justify spending $1000 on a package if there's any other way at all of getting the job done. Tom Crockett My opinions are strictly my own, etc., etc. ICASE Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering M.S. 132C e-mail: tom@icase.edu NASA Langley Research Center phone: (804) 864-2182 Hampton, VA 23665-5225
whm@sunquest.UUCP (Bill Mitchell) (08/23/89)
In article <8908171153.AA02417@fnord.umiacs.UMD.EDU>, steve@UMIACS.UMD.EDU writes: > > Actually (as someone who is definitely more of an OSF fan than a Unix > International fan), I worry that, simply because the OPEN LOOK-compliant > X11 toolkit (and maybe a window manager, I don't know for sure) *is* > distributed for free, OPEN LOOK will win over Motif. I think it's somewhat apples and oranges to compare XView and Motif. From what I've seen of the XView manual, XView provides an OPEN LOOK user interface, but using a SunView-style programming interface. If you want an OPEN LOOK widget set, you'll have to get that from AT&T and it's $1000. I wonder if it's a little misleading to call XView a "toolkit". Personally, when I hear "toolkit" and "X" in the same sentence, I think of widgets. If OSF is interested in reducing the ranks of OPEN LOOKers, it seems to me that an interesting thing for them to produce would be MotifView -- SunView on the programmer side and Motif on the user side. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Mitchell whm@sunquest.com Sunquest Information Systems sunquest!whm@arizona.edu 930 N. Finance Center Dr. {arizona,uunet}!sunquest!whm Tucson, AZ, 85710 602-885-7700
dave@fps.com (Dave Smith) (08/24/89)
In article <YYwIIyz0-csGBRyMYD@work8> tom@ICASE.EDU (Tom Crockett) writes: >But seriously, I think that if workstation software prices were cut from about >$1000 (that seems to be a popular figure these days) to about $100 or less, the >number of copies sold would more than make up the difference in price. > >Given the quantity and improving quality of free software, it's very hard to >justify spending $1000 on a package if there's any other way at all of getting >the job done. $1000 for source to a large package sounds pretty fair to me. This source license is aimed at vendors, not at individual users. One consequence of the (relatively) low source license cost is that vendors will be encouraged to make _working_ binaries available at low cost. Most likely vendors will just bundle the product with the OS. When I figure in the amount of time it takes me to get "free" software up and running on a machine, the "free" software costs on the order of one to two hundred dollars. In addition, documentation needs to be printed out, reproduced, etc. This all assumes that the author wrote good code (which has been my experience most times, but...) and didn't code in weird assumptions about the hardware or OS. If there's bugs in the code, the cost goes up a lot. Our initial cost on X was $500 for the tape from MIT. X is "free" software; we pay no redistribution fees. However, in order for us to take X from its initial state to a product we can support and distribute has cost us quite a few thousand dollars of time spent testing the software, fixing the little problems it has with our machine and bringing the documentation into our format. "Free" software is wonderful stuff and I'm most amazed at the quality of the stuff. Nonetheless, it does have costs associated with it, in the amount of time needed to bring it to a working state. For the college student or home user the time is "free." For a company, someone has to be paid to get it running. If I have a need for something at work and two products exist to fulfill it, one costing $1000 with phone support, etc. and the other one "free", I will recommend we spend the $1000 since we'll end up doing it anyway. The cost is even greater with the "free" software than the time that I will spend getting it to work, since there are opportunity costs involved; the amount of time I spend getting the software to work is time that I could have spent getting our product ready so that we can make money. David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave or dave@fps.com "Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man
neff@pitstop.West.Sun.COM (Mike Neff) (08/24/89)
In article <538@ssbell.UUCP> kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) writes: >In article <1445@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: >> >>>Actually (as someone who is definitely more of an OSF fan than a Unix >>>International fan), I worry that, simply because the OPEN LOOK-compliant >>>X11 toolkit (and maybe a window manager, I don't know for sure) *is* >>>distributed for free, OPEN LOOK will win over Motif. >> >>Some scientific surveys have been done ...regarding the OPEN LOOK vs Motif >>controversy.... So far, Motif has a wide margin lead. A good example of >>such survey, is the one conducted by UNIX Today! in July ' 89. > >Scientific surveys ? BULL. The article that you direct the readers to states >it is an informal survey. If you know of *real* scientific surveys, I'd be >happy ^^^^^^^^ >read them. Please post locatable references to them in this newsgroup as >I am sure there are others who are interested as well... Another thing for people to consider when reading stuff like this in the trade rags is that a poll like this is what companies want to *publicly* state. What they in fact really do often times is very different.than what their stated plans are or is in fact not talked about at all. This poll is *not* a scientific analysis, as both UNIX Today and Kent point out. I'm not saying that the poll is necessarily inaccurate but let me point out where it could be flawed. Consider the amount of current Sunview applications in the marketplace and compare that with the amount of window-based applications made for other Unix platforms. Many software vendors might not want to lose sales of current product by "preannouncing" their future product plans to commit to OPEN LOOK since many are heavily dependent on revenue from the large Sun user base. Alternatively, in many situations announcing support for Motif might be helpful in getting sales on platforms such as the new DECstation, DG and a few others who've endorsed Motif but don't necessarily use it solely ( i.e. - DECWindows, New Wave, NeXTstep ). This is likely since there aren't many existing window-based applications available for these platforms at present ( for any number of reasons ... current market share, newness of binary format, previous bent towards time-shared tty environments, etc. ) and therefore the ISV can gain more new markets on these platforms instead of lose sales of current product. To summarize it's my *opinion* that given the current state of the industry, it is more advantageous in general for an ISV to publicly state its plans towards Motif support than OPEN LOOK support. This is why I believe the polls you mentioned showed quite a few in the "undecided" (50%) column. Many may in fact fit in to the undecided category, but many may not be wanting to take a public position even though privately they may have already committed themselves. The real story will unfold with time. > >>Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular. There >>are other reasons why users may pick one UI over the other. > >Technical merit, ease of use, flexibility and extensibility come to mind as >well as reliability. Before you go sounding like the marketing department, >maybe you should get some real info on OPEN LOOK from the people it was >designed for, the masses. All the articles that I have seen to date have >been surveying people with a great deal of computer literacy. The real test >of a GUI is to see just how easy it is for computer illiterates to learn >and use the machine. > I won't comment on this, since this is a somewhat subjective issue and I don't want to get involved in a "my interface is better than yours" flame war. I personally have more experience using OPEN LOOK than Motif so I'll admit my bias. I think it should be up to users and developers like Kent to make these kind of judgements. I only hope that whatever "standard" gets adopted is what end users *and* developers want after being well-informed of what each toolkit/interface implementation has to offer in the areas which Kent talks about. Additionally, I hope that the press helps communicate this feedback accurately and more in depth to aid this decision process. I too would like to see some real "scientific" studies posted. >>Christopher Graham >>Digital Equipment Corp >>Ultrix Resource Center > > -Kent+ Mike Neff Systems Engineer Sun Microsystems, Inc. The above material represents my opinions only and doesn't neccessarily represent the position of my employers.
david@ics.COM (David B. Lewis) (08/25/89)
One last comment before I join the moratorium on Motif talk: In article <138@fiver.UUCP>, palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > From article <1445@riscy.dec.com>, by graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham): > > Making something 'free' does not necessarily make it more popular. > ^^^^^^ > What is free? Making something generally available makes it more popular and helps it to win the GUI wars, technical merits aside. > > > > BTW: The Motif binaries is only $40. > ^^^ This is the amount which the hardware vendor has to kick back to OSF for each binary sold (up to 5000 copies; price goes down thereafter). It is NOT the price which the vendor charges for the Motif binaries; that could range from $0 to several hundred dollars. -- David B. Lewis david@ics.com ics!david@buita.bu.edu david%ics.UUCP@buita.bu.edu "More than ninety years ago, H.G. Wells foretold time travel, yet to this day the time machine stands as an example of a vision unfulfilled." -- lead sentence from a MacWorld article on the unrealized promise of optical storage
rprobst@SUN.COM (Richard Probst) (08/30/89)
Bill Mitchell writes: > I wonder if it's a little misleading to call XView a "toolkit". > Personally, when I hear "toolkit" and "X" in the same sentence, > I think of widgets. Since you're speaking personally, you are welcome to think whatever you want to... ;-) ... but in this case, you're simply wrong. There are several X toolkits that are not based on the widget work from MIT. Interviews is an X toolkit. Andrew is an X toolkit. And XView is an X toolkit. "Toolkit" implies a particular architecture, which all of these systems share. It does not imply widget-set-and-Xt-intrinsics. The Xt-based systems are X toolkits, since they also have this architecture. but they are not the only X toolkits. (Personally, when I hear "operating system" and "POSIX" in the same sentence, I think of UNIX(tm). But that is also wrong.) Bill Mitchell continues: > If OSF is interested in reducing the ranks of OPEN LOOKers, > it seems to me that an interesting thing for them to produce > would be MotifView -- SunView on the programmer side and Motif > on the user side. This could certainly be done. We are about to make the XView source code freely available. Anybody who wants to (OSF or otherwise) can take the XView source and modify it to support the Motif look-and-feel. Since there are more than 2000 SunView applications, this may be an attractive business opportunity. And since the OPEN LOOK GUI spec is approximately a superset of the Motif GUI spec (except, primarily, for the keyboard traversal), this would not be all that hard. Of course, Sun continues to promote OPEN LOOK as the technically superior GUI spec; all I am saying is that we are giving the XView source code away so that others can port it or modify it as they choose. Let me just add that I personally would welcome OSF following Sun's lead and making the Motif source code freely available, with no royalties or licensing restrictions. Any takers? --Richard Probst (rprobst@sun.com)
asente@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Asente) (08/30/89)
In article <8908292118.AA07788@paba.sun.com> rprobst@SUN.COM (Richard Probst) writes: >Of course, Sun >continues to promote OPEN LOOK as the technically superior GUI >spec; Let's not get started on that, please. Several people from Sun have stated in public forums that many features of Open Look were picked not because they were technically superior but because, to avoid lawsuits, they were different from other interfaces that shall remain nameless. -paul asente asente@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!asente