lclarke@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Lawrence Clarke) (01/03/91)
Haven't heard much lately about X-Windows for the NeXT. I understand that the old X11R3 of XNeXT doesn't work under release 2.0 of NeXTstep. Has anyone confirmed this ? Is anyone working on it ? How about X11R4 for release 2.0 ? Any info would be appreicated .... /==============================================================\ | lclarke@questor.wimsey.bc.ca | c/o TRIUMF Operations | | larry@triumfcl.bitnet | University of B.C. Canada | | Compuserve: 70441,1776 | 4004 Wesbrook Mall | | Phone: +1 604 275-5902 | Vancouver, British Columbia | | FAX: +1 604 275-4184 | Canada V6T 2A3 | \==============================================================/
ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) (01/04/91)
In article <TH17u1w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> lclarke@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Lawrence Clarke) writes: > I understand that the old X11R3 of XNeXT doesn't work under release > 2.0 of NeXTstep. Has anyone confirmed this? I tried XNeXT on my NeXTStation out of perversity and it didn't work. I was actually kind-of glad about it... -- Doug DeJulio ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu
roc@sequent.UUCP (Ron Christian) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan3.135628.78@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes: >I tried XNeXT on my NeXTStation out of perversity and it didn't work. >I was actually kind-of glad about it... I've never really understood this mind set. XNeXT is just another application that runs under NeXT Step... It's like being morally indignant about the Terminal application. Ron
simmons@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu (kim h simmons) (01/06/91)
>>In article <49737@sequent.UUCP> roc@sequent.UUCP (Ron Christian) writes: >> >> Path: erb1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!roc >> From: roc@sequent.UUCP (Ron Christian) >> Newsgroups: comp.sys.next >> Date: 4 Jan 91 21:10:54 GMT >> References: <TH17u1w163w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> <1991Jan3.135628.78@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> >> Reply-To: roc@crg8.UUCP (Ron Christian) >> Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc >> Lines: 11 >> >> In article <1991Jan3.135628.78@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes: >> >I tried XNeXT on my NeXTStation out of perversity and it didn't work. >> >I was actually kind-of glad about it... >> >> I've never really understood this mind set. XNeXT is just another >> application that runs under NeXT Step... It's like being morally >> indignant about the Terminal application. >> Ron I think that the long term survival of NeXT probably depends on them having some kind of support for X11. NeXT is the only major workstation manufacturer that does not provide support for X11. As Sun and Dec and everyone else found out (much to their dismay) users (and in particular the people who buy hundreds of workstations at a time) want standards. Sun's primary windowing system is now X based. They didn't do this because they wanted to, they did it (for better or worse) in order to survive. One of these standards is X11. It is an FIP (Federal Information Processing) standard as well. Support for X11 is very important in being able to compete with Dec and Sun (something i think that NeXT can do) for these big contracts. On the other hand, maybe NeXT is not interested in this market. I really don't care about X11 on my NeXT at home, but at work, NeXT has already lost some orders to Sun and Dec because they do not come with X11. On the other hand, i could be wrong. What do you think? simmons@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu -- =============================================================================== Internet: simmons@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu Othernet: simmons@hoofers.lake.mendota --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- According to the HitchHikers guide to the galaxy, the one thing we *cannot* afford to have is a sense of perspective. ===============================================================================
lacsap@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Pascal Chesnais) (01/06/91)
In article <SIMMONS.91Jan5162317@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu>, simmons@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu (kim h simmons) writes: > On the other hand, maybe NeXT is not interested in this market. I really > don't care about X11 on my NeXT at home, but at work, NeXT has already > lost some orders to Sun and Dec because they do not come with X11. On the > other hand, i could be wrong. What do you think? > > simmons@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu ZZZZzzzzz...... This subject has been discussed over and over with pretty much every argument presented, go to the archives to see them. If you don't care about having X11 on your machine don't throw a match in this newsgroup. Currently there are no publicized plans of MIT doing any further work on XNeXT, the X11R3 server within a NextStep window. There are no plans for releasing the sources either. If you are interested in X11R4, McGill has stuff available, however their main hacker, der Mouse, stated he is no longer working on the project. The server worked under Next 1.0, but does not work under 2.0... The McGill sources are clean, and more importantly, available. pasc -- Pascal Chesnais, Research Specialist, Electronic Publishing Group Media Laboratory, E15-348, 20 Ames Street, Cambridge, Ma, 02139 (617) 253-0311 email: lacsap@plethora.media.mit.edu (NeXT)
jhr@maui.cs.cornell.edu (John Reppy) (01/07/91)
In article <SIMMONS.91Jan5162317@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu> simmons@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu (kim h simmons) writes: ... > > I think that the long term survival of NeXT probably depends on them having >some kind of support for X11. NeXT is the only major workstation manufacturer >that does not provide support for X11. As Sun and Dec and everyone else >found out (much to their dismay) users (and in particular the people who >buy hundreds of workstations at a time) want standards. Sun's primary >windowing system is now X based. They didn't do this because they wanted to, >they did it (for better or worse) in order to survive. One of these >standards is X11. It is an FIP (Federal Information Processing) standard as >well. Support for X11 is very important in being able to compete with Dec and >Sun (something i think that NeXT can do) for these big contracts. > On the other hand, maybe NeXT is not interested in this market. I really >don't care about X11 on my NeXT at home, but at work, NeXT has already >lost some orders to Sun and Dec because they do not come with X11. On the >other hand, i could be wrong. What do you think? > I agree; X-windows has its problems, but at least it allows people to do reasonable things in a heterogeneous distributed environment (such as most universities have). If NeXT is just going to be a fancy PC, then this isn't a problem; but if NeXT wants to compete with Sun and DEC, then they need to provide a way to use their equipment in conjunction with other workstations and servers. There may be a reasonable solution to this problem that avoids putting NeXT into the position of sacrificing their vision. Run NextStep as a window manager on top of a X-server that supports the DPS extensions (a la DECWindows). Then NextStep would just be another look-feel standard with toolkit (like Motif and OpenLook). It would then be possible to run standard X11 applications on the NeXT display (and be able to do thing like cut and paste between X applications and NextStep applications). Of course this would involve a lot of reimplementation, but, if the NextStep class libraries are well designed, it shouldn't have a big impact on user code. - John (jhr@cs.cornell.edu)
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (01/07/91)
In article <SIMMONS.91Jan5162317@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu>, simmons@nucst4.neep.wisc.edu (kim h simmons) writes: >>>In article <49737@sequent.UUCP> roc@sequent.UUCP (Ron Christian) writes: [...material deleted...] > I think that the long term survival of NeXT probably depends on them having > some kind of support for X11. NeXT is the only major workstation manufacturer > that does not provide support for X11. From previous discussions, many people agree with this...some don't. I haven't counted to see who is in the majority. Count me as one who agrees. I see a third party offering as acceptable (at least for my requirements) and a third party, Pencom, I believe, announced that they would offer an X11R4 server plus Motif for the NeXT. While this topic is controversial enough in its own right, someone from Pencom made a posting inquiring about copy protection schemes. I hope this means availability is imminent, that the price is reasonable (I believe someone said it would be around $300 for the X server and Motif together) and that whatever copy protection or licensing scheme they adopt is acceptable (at least to me). So if they aren't scared off by all of the hostile reactions to their copy protection post, maybe we'll see something pretty soon. Of course, another NeXT shortcoming is also involved for some of us: the lack of supported serial line protocol (SLIP or possibly its successor). For those with fast enough modems at home, it could be possible to run some X client apps on our work computers displaying on our X servers on our NeXT at home. A working implementation of SLIP is apparently available (other posters have referred to it). So maybe ALL the pieces are coming together for X usage as well as the NeXTstep environment most of buy the machines for primarily. [...more material deleted...] c.f.waltrip DDN: waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu Opinions expressed are my own.
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (01/07/91)
>>some kind of support for X11. NeXT is the only major workstation manufacturer >>that does not provide support for X11. As Sun and Dec and everyone else But NeXT is not a workstation manufacturer. One look at NeXTStep will tell you that. No, NeXT is a personal computer manufacturer. This means that standards like XWindows from the worlstation world are as inapplicable as standards for mainframe data access are. However, this is not to say that providing support is not an excellent aftermarket opportunity as it is on the Mac or Windows. With one of several products available on both of those platforms - and those are the real competitors to the NeXT computer - you will be able to run the 2 or three productivity packages that use X just fine. But there's little or no reason to force NeXT to run XWindows as a native window manager. In fact, there's a million reasons not to. Isn't somebody out there productizing XWindow servers for NeXTStep? now there's a product worth buying if you have Sun machines and applications that use this technology, but really how large is this market? Anyway, they could've done it I suppose using the X DPS extensions but why bother? Hmm, maybe there's some money to be made here... - g -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (01/08/91)
by glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang): |> [NeXT should have X...] | | But NeXT is not a workstation manufacturer. One look at NeXTStep will tell | you that. No, NeXT is a personal computer manufacturer. This means that | standards like XWindows from the worlstation [sic] world are as | inapplicable as standards for mainframe data access are. ...or UNIX, TCP/IP, SMTP, NFS, etc. Yep, who needs standards? | ... But there's little or no reason to force NeXT to run XWindows as | a native window manager. In fact, there's a million reasons not to. I agree that X isn't the greatest thing to use for the primary windowing software but it is incredibly useful to be able to access all the machines on a network regardless of the vendors. By ignoring X, NeXT can proudly ignore an important aspect of Interpersonal Comupting. | Isn't somebody out there productizing XWindow servers for NeXTStep? now | there's a product worth buying if you have Sun machines and applications | that use this technology, but really how large is this market? Or, looking back BEFORE a purchase decision, a NeXT that comes with X is a product worth buying if you've got Sun machines, Decstations, and a ton of others. The only thing really relevant about market size in this issue is that it's growing very nicely. Like it or not, a NeXT _is_ a workstation class machine, although that does not necessarily imply user-hostile tendencies. :-) | Hmm, maybe there's some money to be made here... An understatement if ever I've heard one. The money could go to NeXT (especially in the long run) if they do a decent X implementation that is a standard part, if optional, of the system facilities. Leaving such a product to third parties is not a good idea, IMHO. Too often, companies looking to buy personal computers have a checklist that includes such goodies as X and having to go out to the third parties can be sore point, especially when the third party isn't selling the product yet. :-) Please don't mistake this as a flame. I just hate to see NeXT make an ugly booboo when so much quality is already included in their offerings. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm a newcomer here, but does the |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | net ever lay any argument to rest?" | U | - Ackphtth | -- dan herrick
mwu@teri.bio.uci.edu (Matt Wu) (01/09/91)
In article <1875@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes: >But NeXT is not a workstation manufacturer. One look at >NeXTStep will tell you that. No, NeXT is a personal computer >manufacturer. This means that standards like XWindows from >the worlstation world are as inapplicable as standards for >mainframe data access are. I have to disagree. Even though NeXTStep is a nice user interface, the fact that people need to ask the net how to install modems indicates to me that it is _not_ a personal computer. And then there are responses like laughing at a first-time user's problems from experienced NeXT users. People who don't know anything about Unix are going to flail when they try to do many things that should not be difficult with personal computers. Like try hooking up an old SCSI-1 drive, installing memory or recovering from a crash. Your average Macintosh first-time user would probably freak out. Heck, even more experienced computer users might have some problems. If NeXT wants to sell computers, it can't try to walk the line between personal computers and workstations; it should either make the computers easier to use or provide power users with the tools they want. Actually, doing both wouldn't be that bad an idea, either. Matt Wu mwu@teri.bio.uci.edu my opinions represent just my opinions
aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) (01/10/91)
mwu@teri.bio.uci.edu (Matt Wu) writes: > In article <1875@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) > writes: > >But NeXT is not a workstation manufacturer. One look at > >NeXTStep will tell you that. No, NeXT is a personal computer > >manufacturer. This means that standards like XWindows from > >the worlstation world are as inapplicable as standards for > >mainframe data access are. > > I have to disagree. Even though NeXTStep is a nice user > interface, the fact that people need to ask the net how to > install modems indicates to me that it is _not_ a personal > computer. And then there are responses like laughing at a > first-time user's problems from experienced NeXT users. > > People who don't know anything about Unix are going to flail > when they try to do many things that should not be difficult > with personal computers. Like try hooking up an old SCSI-1 > drive, installing memory or recovering from a crash. Your > average Macintosh first-time user would probably freak out. > Heck, even more experienced computer users might have some > problems. > > If NeXT wants to sell computers, it can't try to walk the > line between personal computers and workstations; it should > either make the computers easier to use or provide power > users with the tools they want. Actually, doing both wouldn't > be that bad an idea, either. > > Matt Wu > mwu@teri.bio.uci.edu > my opinions represent just my opinions Two comments here: Yes, I would say the NeXT is a bona fide workstation. Consider this: Take a NextStation, remove the DSP, strip all of the nice things out of NextStep, take away Display PostScript, and what do you have? Answer: A SparcStation 1! >>> :-) Note smiley, no flames here. Admittedly, the NeXT's nice stuff, like DPS, does take overhead and thus slows down the apparent speed of the machine, that's why some hard-core workstationers would snub it. But regarding the bit about new users struggling with it, and thus disqualifying the NeXT from being a personal computer- I have never had so much pain as I did with an old Apple II clone I had many moons ago. Simple architecture, yes. Simple to attach a modem to? Well, I sure had a time of it.... My point is that the truly easy- to-use PC hasn't been around all that long, and there are still cases where users can't figure out how to do simple things. A friend of mine, a Mac user, was living with another friend of mine who used IBM's, and didn't know much about computing. The IBM fellow couldn't figure out how to format a floppy, so he asked the Mac user. The Mac user took it upstairs and formatted it in DOS on his Mac. :-)
dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) (01/10/91)
But, getting back to the real question at hand....What has been changed in 2.0 that breaks XNeXT? How hard would it be to fix it, given the availability of source to it? Is it something that would make one conside just starting over with an R4 implementation? It really doesn't matter if one *hates* X or finds it "Brain Damaged". It is an environment that is pervasive in the Workstation arena and to a small extent, available in the PC and *MACINTOSH* environments. As NeXT is hyping interpersonal computing, X, for all of its problems is just a tool that would be useful to a large class of users, who need it to handle client server computing in a heterogeneous environment. Or who would prefer doing X based development from the comfort of their NeXT machine. From one standpoint it would be *GREAT* if NeXT/Adobe made extensions to Display Postscript/NextStep to allow X to operate on NeXT platforms...as Sun has done with regard to SunTools/X with the OpenWindows 2.0 server. You'll notice that at the hardware level NeXT's floppy drive will accomodate PC floppies (and eventually Mac formatted floppys one would hope), in the interest of data sharing...support for the X Window Server would be an equivalent in the software world. As evidenced by the development of XNeXT, technically this is not something that would overly tax the R&D of NeXT. NeXT has been rather quiet on the internet of late, one would hope that in any case they have been following discussions like this. David Williams
scott@next-5.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (01/10/91)
In article <34009@athertn.Atherton.COM> dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes:
But, getting back to the real question at hand....What has been changed
in 2.0 that breaks XNeXT?
I guess XNeXT used some nasty low-level bitmap functions. They weren't
so concerned with doing it "right" as just getting it done ("they" is
MIT). It seems the functions moved out from under XNeXT.
How hard would it be to fix it, given the availability of source to it?
Source is not availiable because the functions in question were/are
proprietary, and NeXT wasn't/isn't keen on publishing them to the
world, for many and varied reasons. And they are right, as far as
that goes.
Is it something that would make one conside just starting over with an R4
implementation?
McGill already has. I'm building their server as we speak. I've plans
to start with their server and get it running under 2.0, since the author
hasn't the time to finish this up (he's also a native X programmer rather
than a native NextStep programmer, so is handicapped when working on
NeXTs). I can't give any guarentees about anything - I really don't
"know" X at all, and if the problems are deeper than the NeXT side,
I'm dead in the water. But, I'll try . . .
From one standpoint it would be *GREAT* if NeXT/Adobe made extensions to
Display Postscript/NextStep to allow X to operate on NeXT platforms...as
Sun has done with regard to SunTools/X with the OpenWindows 2.0 server.
I very much doubt it. A NextStation running X windows doesn't have much
to its advantage over an Apollo running X, or an Amiga running X. NeXT
decided to take NextStep and run with it.
NeXT has been rather quiet on the internet of late, one would hope that in
any case they have been following discussions like this.
Hmm, I've not noticed extra quietness. The most frustrating thing about
NeXT is their quietness, but I don't think they've been any quieter
of late. Guess I can't blame them there, either . . . I'm sure they
are busy on interim updates to 2.0, and 3.0 . . .
--
scott hess scott@gac.edu
Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad
<I still speak for nobody>
"Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ."
"Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by
Richard Simmons . . ."peterd@cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) (01/10/91)
In article <34009@athertn.Atherton.COM> dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes: >But, getting back to the real question at hand....What has been changed >in 2.0 that breaks XNeXT? The distribution of mouse and keyboard events seems to be handled differently, so the X code isn't get these events. At least that's what has broken McGill's X11R4 port (known as "mouse-X" to distinguish it from the earlier, X11R3 port known as "XNeXT"). >How hard would it be to fix it, given the availability of source to it? This of course depends on how or why it is broken. :-) Seriously, if NeXT would document the procedure for obtaining mouse and keyboard events from the kernel, the guy who did our port could probably get a working X11R4 for NeXTStep 2.0 out the door in a couple of days, max. They just don't seem able or willing to release this info. God knows, we've asked. >Is it something that would make one conside just starting over with an R4 >implementation? Actually, as I mentioned above, the McGill port of X is an port of the 8 bit MIT server from the X11R4 release. [ For those who known all about mouse-X, skip ahead a few lines ] mouse-X was ported by Mike Parker of the McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines (aka as "mouse@mcrcim.mcgill.ca") and he did it by converting the MIT 8 bit colour server into a 2 bit greyscale server. It works under NeXTStep 1.0a (which means it gets its mouse and keyboard events from NeXTStep, but when active it paints a DPS window in front of the NeXTSTep windows and scribbles directly into video. I use it, but rue the day we convert to NeXTStep 2.0, because (sadly), although mouse-X works fine (with a few known, documented bugs) under NeXTStep 1.0a, it fails to receive any mouse or keyboard events under NeXTStep 2.0. We have asked NeXT for help many times, but so far, none has been forthcoming, except for one suggestion to email questions to ask_next@next.com. Mike has shelved the project for now, althought has promised to come back to it later, if he can get infomation on event handling under 2.0. He would like to build a stand-alone version, by getting events directly form the kernel, but NeXT seems less than enamoured with the idea of supporting our efforts. Anyone who could provide the needed info would obviously get the first copy we release..... ;-) . . . >You'll notice that at the hardware level NeXT's floppy drive will accomodate >PC floppies (and eventually Mac formatted floppys one would hope), in the >interest of data sharing...support for the X Window Server would be an >equivalent in the software world. As evidenced by the development of XNeXT, >technically this is not something that would overly tax the R&D of NeXT. Actually, I don't believe NeXT R&D developed XNeXT. I understand it was a student project at MIT with some NeXT background support. McGill has had a working X11R4 2 bit server for months, but can't get anyone at NeXT technical support to even return my calls. I spoke to several people, and Mike Parker apparently spoke to one or two people, but we've have zero support. A NeXT person told me mouse offended some by casting aspersions on NeXTStep, he denies it. To ensure it was not a personality clash, I spoke to a couple of people myself, who promised to call back, but never did. :-( I can only conclude that, if they do want X (and I have a letter from the company promising to "support but not endorse X") they do _NOT_ want a university developed port. Fair enough, but I _do_ wish they'd announce where we can buy it from. I've been waiting over six months since I received that letter and I now have all my 63 new machines. I can't use them for one of their primary applications because we need to have X for the network-based debugger on our BBN parallel processor. Unless BBN plans to release a NeXTStep version of their debugger and no one told me? Somehow, I doubt it. Sorry to seem snarky, but I've been put on the spot over this (I was one of the people here who pushed for NeXT, on the understanding that they would solve the X problem) and I've been waiting for X since July 2. We offered to do it ourselves, we gave Pencomm the first copy of our beta release (and if that is what they want to copy protect, I might even call the McGill lawyers ;-). Now I'm waiting as apparently another firm is working out a deal with NeXT for an X port. Sorry to be crud guys, but as me 'ole dad used to say "It's time to S**T or get off the pot". >NeXT has been rather quiet on the internet of late, one would hope that in >any case they have been following discussions like this. Well, last time I spoke to my sales rep, she seemed to indicate that she'd received word of my various postings, so _somebody_ is seeing this stuff. I only wish they'd act on this one. It really is a no-brainer. You need X, and you need it in a big way. It's costing you guys sales, and it will only get worse. I can't say it any more plainly. Do it, get someone to do it, or help us to do it. And if you don't, I'm calling Sun for the next order.... - peterd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ " Although botanically speaking a fruit, in 1893 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that tomatoes are a vegetable (and thus taxable under the Tariff Act of 1883) because of the way they are usually served. " ref: Smithsonian, August, 1990. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) (01/11/91)
In case people at NeXT are reading this, let me reiterate Peter Deutsch's statement that the lack of X support is costing them sales. I am seriously considering the purchase of a NeXT machine, but am now having second thoughts because of what I have heard about the problems with X11R4 under 2.0. It doesn't matter to me how wonderful NextStep is. If it is nice, that is a plus. But the rest of our environment is X. If I don't have X, I can't run programs over the network, and I can't port software to the NeXT without major hassles. So I'm going to check on SUN again and see if I can get what I want from them. NeXT may lose a sale.
dan@cortex.neuro.bcm.tmc.edu (Dan Johnston) (01/12/91)
In article <17136@csli.Stanford.EDU> poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: >In case people at NeXT are reading this, let me reiterate Peter Deutsch's >statement that the lack of X support is costing them sales. I am seriously >considering the purchase of a NeXT machine, but am now having second >thoughts because of what I have heard about the problems with X11R4 >under 2.0. It doesn't matter to me how wonderful NextStep is. If it >is nice, that is a plus. But the rest of our environment is X. >If I don't have X, I can't run programs over the network, and I can't >port software to the NeXT without major hassles. So I'm going to check >on SUN again and see if I can get what I want from them. NeXT may lose >a sale. Here's another similar story. The lack of X has cost NeXT many sales recently at my institution. They were very interested in NeXT but when they found out there was no X, they bought suns. dan ________________________________________________________________________ Dan Johnston, Ph.D. Internet:dan@cortex.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu Professor of Neuroscience Bitnet:dan%cortex.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu@CUNYVM or dan%cortex.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu@PSUVAX1
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/12/91)
In article <1117@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes:
Big F---ing Deal. As far as I'm concerned, stuff like
[stuff used by the rest of the world deleted]
are all "foreign compatibility" products. None of these are
native to the NeXT. I don't want to pay for their development or
their support in bundled systems. Third parties are perfectly
capable of venturing into these arenas, and deserve all the
profits they can milk out of you suckers.
I also have a very low opinion of people who resort to emotional
blackmail.
People can't throw away a $100,000 investment. The NeXT has to be
able to coexist in existing environments like DOS, and X.
NeXT has better things to worry about... like developing a
C2-certifiable release. That's going to count for a lot more,
since the really big customers won't even look at NeXT without
that, and it's not something a third party can easily address.
Not porting X themselves is one thing, but they could have supported
the others that were doing it. How far did the people get that were
supporting XNeXT? R4 does run under NeXTStep 1.0. How much work
would it take to get it to work under 2.0 if NeXT helped the
programmer? NeXT is throwing away easy money! Even Macintoy has X
support.
As it is, we see NeXTs having a lot fewer deficiencies than Suns.
As soon as the color NeXTs start shipping in volume, we'll have
a hard time justifying more SPARCstations--they're just too damn
expensive to bring up to a similar level of functionality.
As soon as.... NeXT has had machines on the market for more than 2
years. As soon as NeXT has a low cost machine.... How many people
can justify spending $2000 on a color monitor alone?
-Mikelacsap@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Pascal Chesnais) (01/12/91)
In article <F64hb774@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > In article <1117@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > > > People can't throw away a $100,000 investment. The NeXT has to be > able to coexist in existing environments like DOS, and X. > Hmmm maybe I should have them cart away the IBM 6000 here since it does not run Mac applications... we have $ks invested in Macs:-) Look why doesn't everyone find something real to flame about, or better yet port X to the NeXT... The sources are all there, and there is nothing in the NeXT environment that would stop someone from doing it. > NeXT has better things to worry about... like developing a > C2-certifiable release. Or innovating how workstations will deal with sound and movies in one platform. X does not rationalize digital movies with sound yet. When NeXT comes out with their color product it it will be cool to see how they dealt with synchronization issues, and use that knowledge to improve other window systems like X. > Not porting X themselves is one thing, but they could have supported > the others that were doing it. How far did the people get that were > supporting XNeXT? R4 does run under NeXTStep 1.0. How much work > would it take to get it to work under 2.0 if NeXT helped the > programmer? NeXT is throwing away easy money! Even Macintoy has X > support. Here I have to go on record, the MIT effort had FULL cooperation from NeXT including sending the group to California to work with the NeXT software engineers... The problem was that MIT sent students who are free agents and went on to other things (including one working for NeXT). The same is true with the McGill effort, Mike is a student hacker, not guaranteed to be around n-months down the line. As posted in an earlier message, Pencomm is getting the full cooperation from NeXT... I suppose this has to do with the assumption (maybe a false one) that the guys working on the Pencomm effort will not graduate in 3 months. The other problem is that neither the MIT group or the McGill effort had the benefit of doing the NeXT Developer course prior to their ports... Having gone through it I can see how things would have been done differently in both ports, and both would have worked in 2.0... ALL major manufacturers started off with their own window system, and then eventually supported X. I have seen this evolution over a few years, NeXT is a young company, and is seeing what they can offer that is DIFFERENT from everyone else. A noble effort that resulted us in taking sound in the workstation for granted. People are kludging in sound into X... Just as they did with Color a few years ago... > As it is, we see NeXTs having a lot fewer deficiencies than Suns. > As soon as the color NeXTs start shipping in volume, we'll have > a hard time justifying more SPARCstations--they're just too damn > expensive to bring up to a similar level of functionality. > As soon as.... NeXT has had machines on the market for more than 2 > years. As soon as NeXT has a low cost machine.... How many people > can justify spending $2000 on a color monitor alone? We can... but technically there is nothing stopping you from buying the monitor from another source... You will find out that good quality monitors are expensive no matter who you buy them from... Sure you can connect a shitty low cost monitor on your machine, but you get what pay for... NeXT does not manufactur monitors, so you will not see a big price break... Enough flaming, who has a neat hack to share??? pasc -- Pascal Chesnais, Research Specialist, Electronic Publishing Group Media Laboratory, E15-348, 20 Ames Street, Cambridge, Ma, 02139 (617) 253-0311 email: lacsap@plethora.media.mit.edu (NeXT)
rgc@wam.umd.edu (Ross Garrett Cutler) (01/13/91)
In article <4850@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> lacsap@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Pascal Chesnais) writes: >In article <F64hb774@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: ... >ALL major manufacturers started off with their own window system, and then >eventually supported X. I have seen this evolution over a few years, NeXT ... Correction...DEC's first major windowing system was X (they and MIT wrote it!). And with DPS on top of their X, it's not a bad system. -- Please email -- I'll summarize. Ross Cutler University of Maryland, College Park Internet: rgc@wam.umd.edu
dan@gacvx2.gac.edu (01/13/91)
In article <1117@toaster.SFSU.EDU>, eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > In article <3573@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> dan@cortex.neuro.bcm.tmc.edu > (Dan Johnston) writes: >>Here's another similar story. The lack of X has cost NeXT many sales >>recently at my institution. They were very interested in NeXT but >>when they found out there was no X, they bought suns. > > Big F---ing Deal. As far as I'm concerned, stuff like > ...Stuff deleted... > X11Rwhatever ...Stuff deleted... > > are all "foreign compatibility" products. None of these are > native to the NeXT. I don't want to pay for their development or > their support in bundled systems. Third parties are perfectly > capable of venturing into these arenas, and deserve all the > profits they can milk out of you suckers. > > I also have a very low opinion of people who resort to emotional > blackmail. > ...stuff deleted... > As it is, we see NeXTs having a lot fewer deficiencies than Suns. > As soon as the color NeXTs start shipping in volume, we'll have > a hard time justifying more SPARCstations--they're just too damn > expensive to bring up to a similar level of functionality. > > -=EPS=- > -- > Imagine a world without human suffering. Imagine a world without X. I would feel better about NeXT not supporting X if it was more open to having NeXTstep on other platforms. Several times I have heard NeXT people saying "no we will not port NeXTstep to any SUN platform." NeXT does not have to bundle X, it just needs to be available from someplace... The same goes for other things on your list. -- Dan Boehlke Internet: dan@gac.edu Campus Network Manager BITNET: dan@gacvax1.bitnet Gustavus Adolphus College St. Peter, MN 56082 USA Phone: (507)933-7596
bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (01/13/91)
In article <1991Jan12.143514.38@gacvx2.gac.edu> dan@gacvx2.gac.edu writes: > I would feel better about NeXT not supporting X if it was more open to > having NeXTstep on other platforms. Several times I have heard NeXT > people saying "no we will not port NeXTstep to any SUN platform." > NeXT does not have to bundle X, it just needs to be available from > someplace... The same goes for other things on your list. Good points. X has succeeded, despite its brain-damage, because even the stupid customers have recognized the benefits of an inter- operable environment. NeXT should either become more friendly towards an X port (boo!) or start porting NextStep to other platforms (yay!). I am sure that there are lots of technical innovations, added features, bundled applications, and other typical NeXT innovations that would allow the NeXT hardware/software package to continue its leadership role in NextStep. Of course, greater adoption of NextStep by the industry would slow down the frantic pace of NeXT evolution, which would be a Bad Thing(tm). There is a lot to be said for keeping your hardware base pure (and under your control). Further, remember that any really good idea has to be forced down peoples' throats, as compared to being adopted by popular acclaim. I am reminded of that quote mentioning the adoption of U*IX as a standard being more a matter of chance than anything. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (01/14/91)
In article <17136@csli.Stanford.EDU> poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: >In case people at NeXT are reading this, let me reiterate Peter Deutsch's >statement that the lack of X support is costing them sales. I am seriously >considering the purchase of a NeXT machine, but am now having second >thoughts because of what I have heard about the problems with X11R4 >under 2.0. It doesn't matter to me how wonderful NextStep is. If it >is nice, that is a plus. But the rest of our environment is X. >If I don't have X, I can't run programs over the network, and I can't >port software to the NeXT without major hassles. So I'm going to check >on SUN again and see if I can get what I want from them. NeXT may lose >a sale. Count me in on this too, and I'm planning on a home system without a network interconnect. All I've seen in terms of NextStep support for kanji (Japanese: JIS code), and hantzu (Chinese: GB (mainland) and BIG5 (Taiwan)) is vapor. I'm still not convinced either that the terminal emulator in 2.0 is completely in accordance with ANSI terminals yet. I regularly access systems which require you to be on a *correct* ANSI terminal. Terminal under 1.0 was horrible, and I've heard some bad things about the new one in 2.0. xterm, kterm, and ccxterm under XNeXT work now. But the news that XNeXT is broken on 2.0 with no fix in sight is devastating news. I am seriously planning to buy a NeXTstation, but I have an attractive quotation from DEC for a DECstation 2100 and I'm going to be giving SUN a call. NeXT is still the leading contender, if only for compatibility with my office system, but X may tip the balance. _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" _|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / R90/6 pilot, DoD #0105 "Gaijin ha doko?" |_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Niichan ha gaijin." --|-- /| |||| |___| /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Chigau. Omae ha gaijin." /|\ | |/\| _______ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909 "Iie, boku ha nihonjin." / | \ | |__| / \ / \MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU "Souka. Yappari gaijin!" Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.
peterd@cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) (01/14/91)
In article <1117@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >In article <3573@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> dan@cortex.neuro.bcm.tmc.edu > (Dan Johnston) writes: >>Here's another similar story. The lack of X has cost NeXT many sales >>recently at my institution. They were very interested in NeXT but >>when they found out there was no X, they bought suns. > >Big F---ing Deal. As far as I'm concerned, stuff like [* list of things deleted *] >are all "foreign compatibility" products. None of these are >native to the NeXT. I don't want to pay for their development or >their support in bundled systems. . . . > >I also have a very low opinion of people who resort to emotional >blackmail. Well, I assume you are referring to me and my posting chastizing NeXT. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see it the same way. I had spoken to Judy Roy (East Coast Sales Director) who told me to write a letter to Ron Weissman, and that was my intention when the X debate resurfaced (again!). As I saw a number of people posting, I felt I had to share my experiences on the subject, so I went public instead. In addition, as I tried to make clear and perhaps failed, I now believe the issue is really not whether NeXT will ever support X in some form. I now believe that if nothing else, we will have it from Pencomm soon. No, I wrote to share with the net my experience getting programming support from NeXT for a large project. It doesn't really matter to me that the project was X, or that Mike Parker might have offended some dedicated NeXT employee by criticizing NeXTStep, or even that we hadn't yet sent someone to the NeXT Developers' Camp (we're scheduled to have a camp here at McGill, but couldn't do it until our machines arrived and had been installed). To me, the issue now is that NeXT has been less than helpful to a good client in a tight spot and I thought that was worth sharing with others in my line of work. I do hope it makes NeXT change their ways, but if not at least others will know what happened. A _lot_ of people keep writing asking us for mouse-X, or an update on mouse-X progress, etc. If you don't want it or need it, great, then you aren't in the tight spot the rest of us are in. Still, if you plan to do software development, you'd better find out how the others are getting their support. I haven't cracked the secret password yet. Having said that, I want to make clear I'm not jumping up and down mad. I understand NeXT is a young company and still on the learning curve. They can't do everything themselves. We might have tried harder, might have insisted on speaking to different people, etc. I wasn't the programmer doing the calling, so there was certainly an element of "telephone tag" confusion. Besides, I don't expect them to jump through hoops just for me and I don't think anyone can claim I've been sitting up here in the snow flaming NeXT over the past six months. Still, we are having problems, and I thought other netters were entitled to know the details. Look, I still like the company and their products and I'm still glad I have one on my desk. Ours are now in service and I expect they will give a good account of themselves this semester. But NeXT made a promise, I'm having problems and although I don't know what they're saying or doing in California or Boston, nobody is calling me to help sort things out. I thought you people would want to know. I know I would. >NeXT has better things to worry about... like developing a >C2-certifiable release. That's going to count for a lot more, >since the really big customers won't even look at NeXT without >that, and it's not something a third party can easily address. Sorry, but I don't think "they" will look at it without X, as well. It's now what the marketers call a "checklist item". That matters to you, because every sale makes the company better able to support _all_ customers. >As it is, we see NeXTs having a lot fewer deficiencies than Suns. >As soon as the color NeXTs start shipping in volume, we'll have >a hard time justifying more SPARCstations--they're just too damn >expensive to bring up to a similar level of functionality. I suppose it depends upon what you're doing and what you are doing it with. In my line of work (university teaching and research) interoperability is a must, on all fronts. Our researchers are still ordering Suns, IBMs, etc. That's the world I live in. If NeXT doesn't want to play in this sandbox, fine. But if they do, they have to bring the right pail and shovel. - peterd -------------------------------------------------------------------------- +-------+ Peter Deutsch McGill University | u # u | peterd@cs.mcgill.ca School of Computer Science |/\/\/\/| | a a | "As God is my witness, Andy. I thought that turkeys \ a / could fly!" \___/ - Mr. Carlson, in WKRP in Cincinatti... --------------------------------------------------------------------------
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (01/14/91)
> the fact that people need to ask the net how to >install modems indicates to me that it is _not_ a personal >computer. Take the average personal computer user and ask him or her to install their own modem. They will need help. Installing communication software and hardware has never been a job for Joe Secretary or Jim WordProcessor. Anyway, I am not sure what problems with this the NeXT has in particular; I plugged my modem into the serial port, just like I've done on my Macs and PC's, and ran my comm. software. I really don't see what the difference is that you're citing here. My comments about workstation vs. personal computer is strictly in terms of marketing thrust, applications that are available, and are not related to MIPS or anything else; I know full well that I have a workstation on my desk. But I also know that the NeXT is the only workstation that really does provide the level of ease of use that users get from Macintoshes and to a lesser extent PC's without exposing a user to Unix. So, I'm really referring to positioning here and not reality. The NeXT is a good inexpensive Unix workstation but there are already plenty of those so it's better to think of it (when you're writing software anyway) as a personal computer and not expect your customers to have a field service person holding your hand the way that VARS do for workstation installations. -g -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (01/14/91)
All of these postings wherein people are gnashing their teeth over the lack of X support on the NeXT are really strange to me. If there's a market for this, and if NeXT is dropping the ball, then put your money where your mouth is and do it yourself and make all of the money you think the vendor of such a product will make. However, if you ask yourself whether NeXT users would rather see a good presentation building package, good illlustration tools, a great outliner, spreadsheets, dBASE development environments and so on before they would want an X server (forget the client - noone will write apps for it), you'll probably decide what almost everybody has decided - it's not worth the effort. Has the lack of a decent X server for DOS hurt DOS? How huge an impact will the 2 X servers available have on the Exploding MSWindows market? No mindshare at all. A few Unix sites will be greatful and the 2 companies will make a little money, but I guarantee you that Software Ventures will make more money off of MicrophoneII for MSWindows and the NeXT than you'll ever make on a good X Windows server for the NeXT or Windows. -g -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (01/14/91)
In article <1117@toaster.SFSU.EDU>, eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > In article <3573@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> dan@cortex.neuro.bcm.tmc.edu > (Dan Johnston) writes: >>Here's another similar story. The lack of X has cost NeXT many sales >>recently at my institution. They were very interested in NeXT but >>when they found out there was no X, they bought suns. > > Big F---ing Deal. As far as I'm concerned, stuff like > > AppleTalk > Cobol > DECNET > GIF Viewers > Macintoy binary compatibility > MSDOS or OS/2 emulation > Portable NetWare > RJE > SNA > X11Rwhatever > ports of various braindamaged PC word processors > > are all "foreign compatibility" products. None of these are > native to the NeXT. I don't want to pay for their development or > their support in bundled systems. Third parties are perfectly > capable of venturing into these arenas, and deserve all the > profits they can milk out of you suckers. > I think the "foreign compatibility" point is a good one; hence my previous post to this thread wondering about the status of Pencom's (or is it Pencomm?) port of X11R4. I do hope, however, that the loss of sales is something of a big deal to NeXT and that they are not above trying for a little commercial success while they are saving the world from Pee Cees, Macs, etc. A little commercial success may help assure that they'll be around long enough for some of us to get to use the environment that is most interesting about the NeXT if only we can convince the uninterested that we can fit in to the degree necessary. But I agree that I would like them to pick carefully and to make good use of third party developer capabilities as your post suggests. Previous postings on this topic have suggested that maybe NeXT's support of third party development of X servers may have left something to be desired...but this may be miscommunication. [...stuff deleted...] > > NeXT has better things to worry about... like developing a > C2-certifiable release. Well, maybe that's a biggie. Or maybe they ought to get out of the operating system development business as much as possible by transitioning to OSF/x (where x should equal 1? 2? you be the judge). Adopting OSF as the NeXT OS would probably permit NeXTstep to be ported to more platforms (if that's of any interest to NeXT) and would give them maximum platform independence for future NeXTs. But product strategies aside, things like "I'd like to see C2 level security in a future OS release" represent the sort of user feedback that a company can use. DEC's user organization, DECUS, provides a priority-ordered list of things that DECUS members have suggested and voted upon for wishlists for DEC products (or at least for VMS). Maybe it's about time for a national NeXT users' group to start doing the same sort of thing. > That's going to count for a lot more, > since the really big customers won't even look at NeXT without > that, and it's not something a third party can easily address. > > As it is, we see NeXTs having a lot fewer deficiencies than Suns. > As soon as the color NeXTs start shipping in volume, we'll have > a hard time justifying more SPARCstations--they're just too damn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Previous posters have been saying that they're in a different situation. But we're glad to hear someone's got a better situation:^) > expensive to bring up to a similar level of functionality. > > -=EPS=- > -- > Imagine a world without human suffering. Imagine a world without X. c.f.waltrip DDN: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
lacsap@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Pascal Chesnais) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan12.184047.12724@wam.umd.edu>, rgc@wam.umd.edu (Ross Garrett Cutler) writes: > In article <4850@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> lacsap@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Pascal Chesnais) writes: > >In article <F64hb774@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >ALL major manufacturers started off with their own window system, and then > >eventually supported X. I have seen this evolution over a few years, NeXT > ... > Correction...DEC's first major windowing system was X (they and MIT wrote it!). When I posted my message I was sure I had seen another window system at Digital... remember these are the guys who brought you VMS on the Vaxens before Unix/Ultrix(officially)... So not wanting to stick my foot too deep down my throat I asked Jim Getty (one of the two co-authors of the original X release) if there existed an official window system at Digital prior to X, here is his response: Sure. It is called UIS. People still use it (though we don't make it work on newer hardware these days). - Jim --- pasc -- Pascal Chesnais, Research Specialist, Electronic Publishing Group Media Laboratory, E15-348, 20 Ames Street, Cambridge, Ma, 02139 (617) 253-0311 email: lacsap@plethora.media.mit.edu (NeXT)
poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) (01/14/91)
In article <2014@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes: >All of these postings wherein people are gnashing their teeth over the >lack of X support on the NeXT are really strange to me. If there's a >market for this, and if NeXT is dropping the ball, then put your money >where your mouth is and do it yourself and make all of the money you >think the vendor of such a product will make. You're missing the point. We're NOT complaining about NeXT not doing X itself. We're complaining about NeXT not cooperating with people implementing X by providing necessary information. This goes not only to X but also to the more general issue of whether NeXT will have an open systems philosophy, which allows people to use the machine as they see fit, or will go the route of so many computer manufacturers and try to sell appliances. On the X issue, please note that Pencom's forthcoming release indicates that NeXT is cooperating with somebody on X. Bill Poser
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan14.001459.13161@cs.mcgill.ca> peterd@cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes: >>NeXT has better things to worry about... like developing a >>C2-certifiable release. That's going to count for a lot more, >>since the really big customers won't even look at NeXT without >>that, and it's not something a third party can easily address. > >Sorry, but I don't think "they" will look at it without X, >as well. It's now what the marketers call a "checklist >item". C2 is a *low* classification, and fairly simple to meet. When the U.S. Federal Government says "C2 security is a minimal requirement for computer purchases" they're not only talking to UNIX workstation vendors, or UNIX vendors, or workstation vendors, or of machines that run TCP/IP, or machines for which X implementations exist. MISfits and other more-money-than-brains types jump on this--security paranoia is rampant. These guys don't care HOW the job gets done--it could be in punched cards and JCL for all they care--but they want to feel In Control of their data. When the public sector customers and Fortune 500 companies ask "are your machines secure?" NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. If you say "no" you'll lose millions of dollars in sales because your products won't be considered NO MATTER WHAT FEATURES THEY OFFER. The big money doesn't come from selling to academics, and comp.sys.next/NEXT-L are not representative samples of the target market. As an end-user, I'm no fan of C2--I think it's obnoxious. But I realize that its importance is many orders of magnitude greater than One of Many window systems. NeXT no more needs to support X than FORTRAN. Just because some customers are up to their nostrils in that which stinketh, doesn't mean that NeXT has to lower itself to the same level. If you want it, get it from a third party and stop holding the rest of us back. Where would we be if we couldn't progress beyond Intel 8080s? Where would we be if we couldn't progress beyond MSDOS? Where would we be if we couldn't progress beyond WordStar? Where would we be if we couldn't progress beyond X11? I can still remember being asked by management what I thought about getting quad-Z80 UNIBUS cards to be able to run CP/M applications on a VAX 11/780. This was a time when _everybody_ ran CP/M--it was the common denominator among lots of different vendors' equipment. Fortunately I was able to convince them of the folly in this, and the "cutting edge" stayed sharp. The new technology blossomed, and the old perished. You have to be willing to let go of the past or you're doomed. Kiss your X goodbye. -=EPS=- -- If you really believe that X11 will be with us for years to come and everyone's in too deep to get out now, look how many record stores still sell vinyl LPs. The handwriting is on the wall.
js@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jay Sekora) (01/14/91)
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >I also have a very low opinion of people who resort to emotional >blackmail. You mean saying ``I want thus-and-such in a workstation, and I'm not going to give you guys my money unless I am assured I can get it on your platform'' is emotional blackmail? Does that mean Radio Shack could sue us all for emotional blackmail since we're not willing to buy a Color Computer II when what we really want is a SPARCstation? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ---js@princeton.edu
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (01/14/91)
In article <1120@toaster.SFSU.EDU>, eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > In article <1991Jan14.001459.13161@cs.mcgill.ca> > peterd@cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes: >>>NeXT has better things to worry about... like developing a >>>C2-certifiable release. That's going to count for a lot more, >>>since the really big customers won't even look at NeXT without >>>that, and it's not something a third party can easily address. >> >>Sorry, but I don't think "they" will look at it without X, >>as well. It's now what the marketers call a "checklist >>item". > [...material (much of which I agree with) deleted...] > You have to be willing to let go of the past or you're doomed. > Kiss your X goodbye. Even granting your point that X is passe, letting go of old technology need not be done "cold turkey". Using your LP vs. CD analogy below, We did not have to give up our favorite LPs when CD technology was new and we couldn't get CD versions. We could incorporate both a turntable and a CD player into our sound system without having to replace the entire sound system. This led to a remarkably fast transition from LPs to CDs. Would it have been as rapid if we'd have had to replace our entire sound systems? We'll never know, but I don't believe so. For many of us, the only way to have our CDs (NeXTstep) NOW is to be able to plug in our turntables (X). It's not a problem confined to the academic community either. But, as many of us posting on this topic keep saying, we do not require that NeXT provide the turntables so long as they don't make it hard for third parties to do so...and the Pencom postings indicate NeXT is cooperating so we're all happy now:^) > > -=EPS=- > -- > If you really believe that X11 will be with us for years to come > and everyone's in too deep to get out now, look how many record > stores still sell vinyl LPs. The handwriting is on the wall. c.f.waltrip DDN: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (01/15/91)
bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes: >Further, remember that any really good idea has to be forced down >peoples' throats, as compared to being adopted by popular acclaim. I >am reminded of that quote mentioning the adoption of U*IX as a >standard being more a matter of chance than anything. Since I couldn't find evidence of your tongue-in-cheek, I assume you really believe this! My experience as a developer is that if you can only get your ideas adopted by forcing them on the end user, then those ideas must be crap. Yes, popular acclaim based on premature understanding or lack of comprehensive information can backfire when the populace discovers that what they didn't know *could* hurt them. UN*X succeeded not by chance, but because nothing else has come out that has offered as comprehensive, extensible and cost-effective a solution. ---------------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) (01/15/91)
In article <1120@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >In article <1991Jan14.001459.13161@cs.mcgill.ca> > peterd@cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes: >>>NeXT has better things to worry about... like developing a >>>C2-certifiable release. That's going to count for a lot more, >>>since the really big customers won't even look at NeXT without >>>that, and it's not something a third party can easily address. >> >>Sorry, but I don't think "they" will look at it without X, >>as well. It's now what the marketers call a "checklist >>item". > >C2 is a *low* classification, and fairly simple to meet. When > [much stuff about C2 deleted --SJB] >target market. > >As an end-user, I'm no fan of C2--I think it's obnoxious. But I >realize that its importance is many orders of magnitude greater >than One of Many window systems. NeXT no more needs to support X >than FORTRAN. Just because some customers are up to their >nostrils in that which stinketh, doesn't mean that NeXT has to >lower itself to the same level. If you want it, get it from a Time out here for a moment. Remember when Mr. Jobs used to tell the world quite loudly the same thing about floppy drives on NeXT computers? And what is NeXT, Inc. doing *now* about floppy drives on NeXT computers? There may indeed be lessons to be learned from history. >third party and stop holding the rest of us back. > > [more text deleted --SJB] > >You have to be willing to let go of the past or you're doomed. Being willing to let go of the past may be quite a different critter from being willing to forget the past or from failing to learn from it. George Santayana's famous quotation appears to apply. >Kiss your X goodbye. > > -=EPS=- >-- >If you really believe that X11 will be with us for years to come >and everyone's in too deep to get out now, look how many record >stores still sell vinyl LPs. The handwriting is on the wall. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG Systems Programming Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu * * BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Visit the scenic Illinois Craters! Just 10 minutes * * from New Chicago! * **********************************************************************
shawn@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Shawn Broderick) (01/15/91)
NeXT is supporting third parties who are porting X, contrary to popular belief. Shawn Broderick
poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.133940.5618@uncecs.edu> jfreem@uncecs.edu (Joe Freeman) writes: >As I understand it, you folks did an X port that TAKES OVER the frame buffer. >NextStep vanishes and you hot key back and forth. There are a couple of real >problems with doing that: [Reasons 1 and 2 ommitted]. >3) It violates one of major look-and-feel portions of the system. > "A user always has a familiar environment in front of them". > One of the strong points of the system is this consistency. > >Judging by your posting, I doubt if any of this will change your opinion but >I thought other folks should know some of the problems with the approach. First, if you will pay attention to my posting, you will see that I have nothing whatever to do with any X implementation for the NeXT. I want one, but I'm not doing one. And I have not advocated any particular approach to the implementation. All I have said is that I need X and probably won't buy a NeXT if I can't have it. I've also said that it looks like Pencom's implementation solves my problem. But I would like to respond to disadvantage number (3) above, on two levels. First, I think that "consistency", is greatly over-rated and ill-defined, as Jonathan Grudin has pointed out in his recent papers. Second, the fact is that there are a lot of interfaces out there and that many of us don't want to be bound to NextStep. NextStep is very nice in many ways, but it is more important to me to be able to network to non-NeXT machines and to be able to run software not developed on the NeXT than to have a 100% consistent interface. I also note that interface issues are to a considerable extent separable from window system issues, as X illustrates rather well. How about a NextStep implementation on top of xlib, so that people who like NextStep can have that interface for their X software, on and off the NeXT? Bill
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (01/16/91)
In article <14324@milton.u.washington.edu> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >In article <17136@csli.Stanford.EDU> poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: >> So I'm going to check >>on SUN again and see if I can get what I want from them. NeXT may lose >>a sale. >Count me in on this too, and I'm planning on a home system without a >network interconnect. >I am seriously planning to buy a NeXTstation, but I have an attractive >quotation from DEC for a DECstation 2100 and I'm going to be giving >SUN a call. NeXT is still the leading contender, if only for >compatibility with my office system, but X may tip the balance. Well, considering that you continually flame NeXT and its computers and its software in this forum, I'm surprised that you still want to buy one. However, if I were NeXT, I'd hope you bought a Sun, too, if only so you would then post flames to comp.sys.sun instead. One lost sale would be a good bargain. :-), sort of. -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us NeXT/PostScript developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785 (fax 851-1470)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/16/91)
In article <SHAWN.91Jan15065306@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> shawn@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Shawn Broderick) writes:
NeXT is supporting third parties who are porting X, contrary to
popular belief.
Shawn Broderick
Any word on when a version will ship? I'd like to tell people that
the NeXT does X, but I'd hate to think that I was promising them
vaporware.
Is Word Perfect shipping yet? They said that they would ship around
the middle of December(1990). I hope that it's file compatible with
the DOS version. Having the world's most popular word processor on
the NeXT will make a lot of people happy.
-Mikebb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (01/16/91)
bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew)'s original quote: >> Further, remember that any really good idea has to be forced down >> peoples' throats, as compared to being adopted by popular acclaim. I >> am reminded of that quote mentioning the adoption of U*IX as a >> standard being more a matter of chance than anything. In article <200@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: > Since I couldn't find evidence of your tongue-in-cheek, I assume you > really believe this! My experience as a developer is that if you can > only get your ideas adopted by forcing them on the end user, then those > ideas must be crap. Yes, popular acclaim based on premature > understanding or lack of comprehensive information can backfire when > the populace discovers that what they didn't know *could* hurt them. Well, I intended it only partially tounge-in-cheek. That is, it is a cynical and sarcastic comment, but it is mostly true. For proof in one example, remind yourself of all the noise and bluster with technical merit of zero that accompanied the introduction of the NeXT. Truth is, these people realized in some measure what a wonderful and extremely competitive product it is, and therefore how it challenged thier own particular piece of pie. Hence, they rushed to protect themselves by making all sorts of noises with their mouthes, some of which actually succeeded in misleading the newcomer. For example, I have gotten quite a few mail messages asking me about DPS, from people who are morally certain that it only exists and has meaning as an extention to an X server. I try and tell them that that is only the case for the particular example they have run across (primarily DECwindows), but sometimes it takes 3 mail messages to get them to believe me. Another example of a non-problem was the original pricing of floptical disks. Orginally, they were about $50, which is ballpark to the $40 60 Meg cartridge tapes that the rest of the industry uses to distribute workstation software. The fact that they were several times bigger and automounting and immediately browsable with the finder instead of having to be read off with maintenance commands (tar, dd) was another advantage. But no, everyone and thier sister had to scream about pricing... > UN*X succeeded not by chance, but because nothing else has come out > that has offered as comprehensive, extensible and cost-effective a > solution. Nonsense. If this were the case, why is Microsoft so bent on writing their own OS from scratch (OS/2) instead of using U*IX? Why hasn't the window-manager-writing segment of the workstation community recognized the technical superiority and beauty of a device- independent Postscript-based window system like NeWS or NextStep, and at the very least stolen some concepts or features from it? I could complain at length, but I hope you see where I am coming from now. -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
shawn@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Shawn Broderick) (01/16/91)
X11R4: Ship dates on the product I have knowledge of are not set.
Guesses? Betas in March. Only a guess. Remember that
few things can push the development process faster than
a clamoring market. Email me for info.
WordPerfect: I was told by Bruce Blumberg that it shipped last
Thursday. Call NeXTConnection (800-800-NeXT).
Shawn Broderick
BrennerBroderick, Inc.
shaw@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu non-NeXT mail
merk!bb!shawn NeXT mailjenniwoo@violet.berkeley.edu (02/04/91)
EPS' declaration (1/14?) that X is doomed to go the way of all "standards," i.e: to be eclipsed by yet another, provokes several questions I'd like to pose for further discussion in this or a tangent "thread:" 1. By when do you (whomever) expect this demise? (Corrollary: what is expected longevity of X, which I assume is the "best" networked "windows" system to come along and just about to "come into its own.") My X-illiterate programmer's intuition says X is going be strong into the mid-90s. 2. What's on the "horizon" to replace X - and how soon would it arrive? Wild guesses welcome... 3. With or without a replacement in mind, just what features of X beg replacement, beg (further) enhancement? 4. What features of NextStep now or soon might provide a better solution to the problems / growth potential of X? ---------- Jennifer Woodward "jenni the woo" jenniwoo@sutro.sfsu.edu Grad. Stu. Educational Technology, San Francisco State U.