ric@rioja.ifs.umich.edu (Richard Campbell) (02/10/89)
What's the beef between Adobe and Sun?? I've just started reading Adobe's Display PostScript System Reference manual and it sounds like Adobe doesn't like Sun's NeWS system at all. In the manual's Question and Answers section, Adobe proudly reports that several OEMs are supporting DPS including NeXT, DEC, and IBM. Then, on the *last* page, the question pops up, What about NeWS? Adobe says that NeWS is an imaging model and window system instead of DPS which is just an imaging model; that NeWS's imaging model is not compatible with PostScript; that NeWS's extensions are not the same thing as DPS; and that NeWS can't use the Adobe Type Library. It was my understanding that Sun had committed to full Postscript and DPS compatibility. Given this, and the fact that DPS and NeWS are practically the same thing (DPS has .psw files; NeWS .cps files, et alia, ad nauseum...), what happened between the two companies to cause such low esteem and bad feelings? Why the attempt by Adobe to effectivly scuttle NeWS???
sjs@jcricket.ctt.bellcore.com (Stan Switzer) (02/10/89)
> What's the beef between Adobe and Sun?? I've just started reading > Adobe's Display PostScript System Reference manual and it sounds > like Adobe doesn't like Sun's NeWS system at all. Indeed, Adobe and Sun should rally to what is certainly their common cause. Notwithstanding the IBM NeXTStep deal, Microsoft has been making noises along the lines of "What's so great about PostScript? The presentation manager does the same stuff." Now, we all know that this is only true to a very rough approximation, but PC types run leminglike whichever way Gates & Co. point. But is it all hype? Decide for yourself: they are already talking about developing their own page description language. We risk seeing all of the benefits of this wonderful technology swept away because of least-common-denominatorism of the very worst kind. Let's face it, X and PM application developers will be very hesitant to use DPS extensions because it will limit their products to those users who run extended servers. ONLY with NeWS can you say with certainty "It's in there." Only in NeWS can a programmer confidently take advantage of the power of PostScript. Now the problem is this: What's in it for Adobe? Let's examine some possibilities: 1) Sun goes fully DPS compatable in NeWS and licenses some documentation, technology, or something from Adobe. 2) Sun licenses Adobe font format technology and consequently can use Adobe fonts. This makes NeWS better (much better), and creates a whole new (very big) market for Adobe fonts. Adobe fonts are very fine indeed. 3) NeWS/DPS creates new markets for Adobe software products such as Illustrator. 4) DPS display technology sells PostScript printers. There ARE ways for both parties to benefit from ending this stupid war. If Adobe and Sun cannot come to some kind truce about PostScript and don't start working together, both NeWS and eventually PostScript will go down the drain. This would be a damn shame. Stan Switzer sjs@ctt.bellcore.com "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." [Now, where DID I put that bagel?]
lchirica@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Laurian Chirica) (02/11/89)
> I've just started reading > Adobe's Display PostScript System Reference manual Could anyone please tell me how I can get a copy? -- Laurian M. Chirica (lchirica@polyslo.calpoly.edu) Computer Science Department ..!ucbvax!voder\ California Polytechnic State University ..!sdcrdcf!csun |!polyslo!lchirica San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-(805)756-1332 ..!lll-crg!csustan/
"Michael_Powers.Henr801M"@XEROX.COM (02/14/89)
>If Adobe and Sun cannot come to some kind truce about PostScript and >don't start working together, both NeWS and eventually PostScript will >go down the drain. This would be a damn shame. I don't think that Sun and Adobe will be able to "work together" outright. The reason why Adobe has done so well with Postscript in the first place is because of it's low profile. (What I mean by low profile is that: 1) it is not a major hardware vendor 2) it is not allied directly with one particular vendor and 3) it's a relatively small company). If Adobe were to push NeWS or even appear to be pushing NeWS then I do believe that the OSF members (who also happen to be OEMS of DPS) would be quite upset. Adobe cannot afford that. They cannot alienate DEC, IBM, HP, and the whole PC world just to gain the advantage of NeWS customers. Personally I agree that it would be nice to have Adobe and Sun working together rather than playing these political olympics. But it just is not going to happen with the current client of OSFism and the workstation war that is heating up. Mike Powers Xerox Corp. powers.henr801m@xerox.com "What's InterPress?" :)
stefan@unicads.UUCP (Stefan) (02/15/89)
In article <890213-155306-7860@Xerox>, "Michael_Powers.Henr801M"@XEROX.COM writes: > >If Adobe and Sun cannot come to some kind truce about PostScript and > >don't start working together, both NeWS and eventually PostScript will > >go down the drain. This would be a damn shame. > > I don't think that Sun and Adobe will be able to "work together" outright. > > [some reasons why not...] > > Personally I agree that it would be nice to have Adobe and Sun working > together rather than playing these political olympics. But it just is not > going to happen with the current client of OSFism and the workstation war > that is heating up. > > Mike Powers Well, I don't happen to agree with Mike's perspective on this issue. I'll generalize here and say that the rank-and-file at Adobe Systems seem to bear no ill will towards Sun (indeed, you have only to look at their hardware :->). However, I don't think the same may be said about the views of "those in charge". Sun has made a number of attempts to get Adobe to pull the NeWS wagon together with them. All seem to have been met with disdain (if not legal threats). [disclaimer here - I have no knowledge of any overtures made in the last 7-8 months]. The problem lies not with Sun, but with Adobe. I think there is a general perception at Sun that Adobe sees (saw?) NeWS as a threat to the future of PostScript (their lifeblood). When NeWS came along it represented a significant advance over "printer" PostScript. The extensions to PostScript that made it interactive seemed to set a whole new direction. That's the threat that Adobe perceives - the loss of the chance to guide the future direction of PostScript. I think it has little to do with OSF or their relationship to other companies (re Powers' comments). As long as NeWS is perceived by Adobe to threaten Adobe's control of the future direction of PostScript they will continue to put it down (as non-conforming, etc.). I know it's bullshit but what can you do with small minds? Stefan -- Stefan Fielding-Isaacs Unicad, Boulder, Co. (303) 443-6961 CAD/UIMS software sun!unicads!stefan or boulder!unicads!stefan
amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (02/16/89)
stefan@unicads.UUCP (Stefan) writes:
[ ... ]
That's the threat that Adobe perceives - the loss of the chance to
guide the future direction of PostScript. I think it has little to
do with OSF or their relationship to other companies (re Powers'
comments).
I think that given the relatively small size of Adobe, that they are
not entirely unjustified in this, but there also seems to be another
issue at work as well, and it's one that many other companies in this
industry, large and small, seem to have problems with. It can be best
summed up in the phrase, "but that's not how we planned to use it!"
You can see it in the Display PostScript vs. NeWS debate. Adobe's
position seems to be that PostScript *should not* be used to implement
a window system, even if it can be. Apple has held a similar view
with regards to AppleTalk--for several years they hotly claimed that
AppleTalk *should not* be used for big networks, or for cheap TCP/IP
transport, or whatever, even though it works quite well for these
things. They are finally reacting to market demand, but it's still
painfully slow going...
In a sense, the cleanliness of PostScript's design works against
Adobe. Its very extensibility and flexibility means that it can be
used for things besides imaging, whether or not Adobe designed it that
way...
--
Amanda Walker ...!uunet!lts!amanda / lts!amanda@uunet.uu.net
InterCon, 11732 Bowman Green Drive, Reston, VA 22090
--
Calm down; it's only ones and zeros...greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (02/16/89)
Sigh. I guess I have to jump into this a little bit.... In article <335@unicads.UUCP> stefan@unicads.UUCP (Stefan) writes: >In article <890213-155306-7860@Xerox>, "Michael_Powers.Henr801M"@XEROX.COM writes: >> >If Adobe and Sun cannot come to some kind truce about PostScript and >> >don't start working together, both NeWS and eventually PostScript will >> >go down the drain. This would be a damn shame. >> >> I don't think that Sun and Adobe will be able to "work together" outright. >> >> [some reasons why not...] >> >> Personally I agree that it would be nice to have Adobe and Sun working >> together rather than playing these political olympics. But it just is not >> going to happen with the current client of OSFism and the workstation war >> that is heating up. >> >> Mike Powers I basically liked this message. Our business is to make our customers happy, whoever they may be. We don't have the luxury of being able to develop technology on the off chance that somebody within the user community might use it, because (as it was pointed out) we are not a hardware company. We depend on people licensing the technology from us. > Sun has made a number of attempts to get Adobe to pull the NeWS wagon > together with them. All seem to have been met with disdain (if not > legal threats). [disclaimer here - I have no knowledge of any overtures > made in the last 7-8 months]. Adobe has also made a number of attempts to get Sun to license Display PsotScript from us, all of which have met with, well, non-action. I certainly wouldn't use a word like "disdain" without having been at the meeting myself :-) The disagreements hinge at least in part on the controversy over source code. Adobe is a system software technology company, and Sun is a hardware and software company. It would not make sense for us to license something from them just to sell back to DEC :-) > The problem lies not with Sun, but with Adobe. I think there is a > general perception at Sun that Adobe sees (saw?) NeWS as a threat to > the future of PostScript (their lifeblood). When NeWS came along it > represented a significant advance over "printer" PostScript. The > extensions to PostScript that made it interactive seemed to set a > whole new direction. Adobe is realistically not in a position to license NeWS, are they? We have a proprietary implementation of a PostScript interpreter dating from 1985, and are well known as its inventor. What would you have us do differently? Adobe has already licensed Display PostScript to IBM, DEC, NeXT, and Sytex, and probably will license it to many more. It is our own technology and it is not positioned directly against NeWS. NeWS is different, and although we perhaps could have copied it, licensed it from Sun, or been compatible with it in other ways, it would not have met our customers' needs. If it would have, our customers could have used NeWS to begin with. The incompatibilities are due to different ideas as to how it should be done, and are not "deliberately" different to force incompatibility. That approach doesn't lend itself to good technology, which is what we try to develop. > That's the threat that Adobe perceives - the loss of the chance to > guide the future direction of PostScript. I think it has little to > do with OSF or their relationship to other companies (re Powers' > comments). Adobe defined the PostScript language, and we will continue to do so. So-called "clones" which implement additional verbs will always exist. [And I'd rather not take a position on whether or not NeWS is a clone; the statement is still generically true]. And new PostScript language procedures can be defined at any moment, even by user-level programs. Realistically, I don't think there is a threat to the future direction of PostScript. We are, naturally, worrying about the future direction of our products. PostScript is our product. It is not like FORTRAN, which is just a programming language that has many implementations. [No flames about this, please]. > As long as NeWS is perceived by Adobe to threaten Adobe's control > of the future direction of PostScript they will continue to put > it down (as non-conforming, etc.). I know it's bullshit but what > can you do with small minds? We don't put NeWS down, we have just implemented a different strategy. We do try to be careful about the terminology, and we don't like people to call it "PostScript", because that is our registered trademark. If you call it NeWS and it works for you, then we are very happy with that, because it indeed supports the spirit of the PostScript language. Display PostScript is now a product. NeWS is a product, I think. They are perhaps different solutions to the same problem, but they are not compatible at the moment. Of the two paths to compatibility, we would simply like to see Sun license Display PostScript from us. Of course, I hate to participate directly in these controversies, but I do want our position to reasonably well understood. Glenn Reid Adobe Systems
chan@hpfcmr.HP.COM (Chan Benson) (02/17/89)
> Display PostScript is now a product.
More info please. It is available as a porting base from Adobe? From
particular manufacturers for their machines?
The impression I got from the DEC/Adobe presentation at the recent
X Conference was that it was not yet a product.
-- Chan Benson
HP Fort Collins
chan@hpfcmi.HP.COM