smb@data.com (Steven M. Boker) (05/11/91)
In article <282AE226.3250@deneva.sdd.trw.com> thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) writes: > >NeXT give NeXTstep to FSF? This would be a wonderful, weird thing. >How likely is this? NeXTstep is one of the technologies that NeXT >has invested in that is superior to competition. It gives them a >difference that is valuable to users. Giving such away would be a >complex decision, I imagine, for NeXT. > A complex decision indeed. However, NeXT did offer NeXTstep in the OSF Request For Technology for GUIs. OSF ended up picking Motif and AIX. But then they changed their mind about AIX in favor of Mach. I think that they really are locked onto Motif in order to have Microsoft look-and-feel. I see three major clusters at this point. Sun and ATT are one cluster. They have the lead and the momentum. OSF is the second cluster. They are fairly disorganized and some might say that they don't have a clear purpose other than not-Sun (or should I say !Sun). The third cluster is forming around Microsoft. Microsoft feels that it is strong enough to cohese a group of venders around Windows running over OS/2 or SCO !Unix. Where does NeXT fit in to all of this? Thats a good question. And a complex one. NeXT could easily be content to be one of the side players like Amiga or Apple. Sure they can sell enough units to be a nice strong company and make lots of money. The question is whether NeXT as a company has the ambition to be a major force. If they decide that they want to compete with the consortiums, they have got to attract other vendors to their side. One of the major reasons that I was excited about NeXT when they first announced was the $10M licensing of NeXTstep by IBM. I was under the impression that NeXT was committed to opening their system up. Open systems is why the IBM-PC (and clones) sold so well. It sure wasn't that the technology was better than Apple's. And the same goes for Sun. Open systems meant that Sun defined the standards. A bold approach that has paid off handsomely. Its a gamble, but I think it is one which will be a big win for NeXT should they decide to release the specification for NeXTstep to FSF. NeXT would be able to _define_ the market. People would vote with their choice of platform and GUI. Every time someone bought another manufacturer's machine and ran NeXTstep, someone wouldn't be buying that same machine and running X-Windows. Once NeXT achieved critical penetration levels, corporate customers would start specifying NeXT since it was the standard. We NeXT users should be aware that if NeXT achieves this level of success, it would be smart for them to have higher prices. We would pay for the priviledge of having a "genuine" NeXT. I'm not sure it is in my own best interest for NeXT to pursue this course, but I do believe that it is in NeXT's best interest to find a way to "open" NeXTstep. The FSF or some independent organization like Mt.Xinu might be the best bet. Steve -- #====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====# # Steve Boker # "Two's bifurcation # # smb@data.com # but three's chaotic" # #====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#====#
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (05/11/91)
In article <1991May10.192720.10614@data.com>, smb@data.com (Steven M. Boker) writes: [...material deleted...] > > I see three major clusters at this point. Sun and ATT are one cluster. > They have the lead and the momentum. OSF is the second cluster. They > are fairly disorganized and some might say that they don't have a clear > purpose other than not-Sun (or should I say !Sun). The third cluster > is forming around Microsoft. Microsoft feels that it is strong enough > to cohese a group of venders around Windows running over OS/2 or SCO !Unix. I believe you're referring to the so-called ACE consortium with DEC, Microsoft, Intel et al. ACE will support two hardware architures (Intel and MIPS R4000) and two Operating Systems: "portable" OS/2 and OSF/1 UN*X which will be implemented by SCO using ULTRIX code contributed by DEC (consisting of the work they've already done on adapting OSF/1 to the MIPS chip) as the starting point. The UN*X GUI will be Motif and not Microsoft Windows (though I wouldn't be surprised to see a Windows implementation on the MIPS box any more than seeing Motif on the Intel box). Certainly the ACE MIPS box (OSF/1, of course, being a Mach implementation) is a candidate for a NeXTstep port. A graphics monitor will be standard and the box will be fast (by today's standards:^) c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (05/12/91)
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Dr. Ron Weissman, Director of Higher Ed. at NeXT (ronald_weissman@next.com): ---------------------------------------------------------- To: Ronald_Weissman@NeXT.COM Subject: freely available NeXTStep Dr. Weissman: I would like to see NeXTStep made freely available, for example through the Free Software Foundation (FSF), under a GNU-like public license. If NeXTStep were freely and conveniently available, it would soon be ported to a large class of machines (as has occurred for all other GNU/FSF software); then many more people could run and develop NeXTStep apps, benefitting both users and developers. Of course NeXT benefits too, since they have the premier hardware/software platform for running NeXTStep (not to mention all the positive publicity this gift would generate). But it is important to act on this soon, before NeXTStep loses its edge over other GUI's, particularly X. The innovative features of NeXTStep (excellent development environment, user friendly interface to Unix, object orientation, quality styling, etc) are all being copied by other window systems (for example, there are now about a dozen Interface Builder-like programs for X/Motif). In a few years, the gap will have narrowed to the point where NeXTStep would not spread rapidly even if it were free---at that point, the potential gain of free availability is lost. I realize there are technical/licensing obstacles to releasing NeXTStep, such as: (1) NeXTStep needs to run on top of Mach OS, Objective C (2) NeXTStep needs Display PostScript. but (1)' Mach & Objective C are going to be available from the FSF, and (2)' the GNU project is well on the way to completeing Display GhostScript, a freely available equivalent of Display PostScript. So it seems these barriers could be overcome; more creative solutions may also be possible e.g. perhaps NeXT can simply distribute NeXTStep under the GNU General Public License. I, and many other NeXT supporters, would like to see the issue of freely distributing NeXTStep receive timely attention, hopefully prior to releasing 3.0. I think NeXTStep has fulfilled its proprietary mission, and can best serve us in future as a freely available, widely used environment. Thank you for your consideration, Dr. Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet) -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)