anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) (11/14/90)
Most of the recent discussion in this group about comparisons between macs and the NeXT machines has focused on (a) price and (b) raw performance. With respect to price, it seems clear that those who cannot possibly spend $3000 or more won't be getting a NeXT soon, while those who can and who value MIPS and MFLOPS above all should prefer a NeXT over a IIsi, IIci or IIfx. Users who only want a machine in order to "run applications" out of the shrink-wrapped box will probably not give up their macs now, since the number (though not always the quality....) of such applications that run off the shelf is substantially higher than even the optimistic projections of the NeXT Software & Peripherals catalog. Alas, there's no NeXTinTax yet. However, those users who intend to use their machine even just some of the time for the development of new applications will surely find the NeXT world to be a better one (always assuming their financial circumstances are such as to make this a real matter of choice). Both the software environment and the range of bundled software tools provided by NeXT make it possible to do novel and productive things in vastly less time and with vastly less hassle than on a mac. It seems to me that readers of UseNet news are somewhat more likely to fall into this category than the average mac user. And it is precisely programmers who ought to be sensitive to another relevant issue, which I'm quite surprised not to see discussed more here: the fact that supporting Apple, for a programmer, is a form of shooting oneself in the foot so long as Apple is agressively pursuing legal actions whose purpose is to limit your freedom to write the best software you can. Of course, the specific claims in the infamous look-and-feel lawsuit may or may not impact the specific software you want to write today, but the more basic principle which Apple is attempting to establish would inevitably affect virtually all programmers. To quote from a statement of the League for Programming Freedom [1]: "Look and feel" lawsuits aim to create a new class of government-enforced monopolies broader in scope than ever before. Such a system of user-interface copyright would impose gratuitous incompatibility, reduce competition, and stifle innovation. Programmers who attempt to develop on macs under A/UX find that the range of available tools there is almost derisory, and what there is is not up to date or fully functional. To have a useful C-compiler, debugger or even a decent programming editor, it has been necessary to port the work of the GNU project to A/UX: even Apple's developers use GNUemacs and gcc. Reading about the reasons for which FSF/GNU does not support this effort, or even condone it (though they do not directly block or forbid such work on the part of others) has made many programmers see that they really ought not to support Apple; but if the only alternatives are MS-DOS machines or pure UNIX boxes, there hasn't seemed to be much of a choice. But of course there IS a choice. The NeXT offers an environment which is every bit as easy to use as the mac, every bit as powerful as the UNIX box, and as close to ideal from the programmer's point of view as is likely to be seen in the real (commercial) world. And with a clear performance edge over comparably priced Apple hardware. Programmers have been looking for ways to avoid supporting Apple and its advocacy of interface copyrights, software patents, etc. (or if they haven't, they should have been....). Now there is a clear and viable alternative that programmers should embrace and encourage, the NeXT. Support your right to develop the best programs you can: move from the monopolistic mac to the NeXT. Steve Anderson [1] more information about the League for Programming Freedom can be obtained from its offices at 1 Kendall Square, #143, P.O. Box 9171, Cambridge, MA 02139, tel. (617) 243-4091; or send internet mail to league@prep.ai.mit.edu. A number of informative documents on these issues can be retrieved via ftp from the directory u2/emacs/lpf on prep.ai.mit.edu.
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/15/90)
------ In article <ANDERSON.90Nov14082500@sapir.cog.jhu.edu>, anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) writes... [...] > Both >the software environment and the range of bundled software tools >provided by NeXT make it possible to do novel and productive things in >vastly less time and with vastly less hassle than on a mac. It seems >to me that readers of UseNet news are somewhat more likely to fall >into this category than the average mac user. Remember, though, that you should compare NextStep to MacApp on the Mac -- with all its associated tools -- not to "old-style" programming environments, e.g MacPascal, etc. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (11/15/90)
In article <ANDERSON.90Nov14082500@sapir.cog.jhu.edu>, anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) writes: [League for Programming Freedom stuff]: |> viable alternative that programmers should embrace and encourage, the |> NeXT. Support your right to develop the best programs you can: move |> from the monopolistic mac to the NeXT. I don't want to enter into the debate about whether LPF's boycott Apple strategy is right / effective, but I wonder if NeXT is really in the LPF camp. If you develop a NeXT application, and port it to another machine, including copying the "look and feel" WITHOUT using a licenced version of NeXTstep, what will NeXT's response be? They aren't giving their interface technology away - it is rumoured to have cost IBM millions. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/15/90)
------ In article <1990Nov14.184025.22185@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes... >In article <ANDERSON.90Nov14082500@sapir.cog.jhu.edu>, anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) writes: >[League for Programming Freedom stuff]: >|> viable alternative that programmers should embrace and encourage, the >|> NeXT. Support your right to develop the best programs you can: move >|> from the monopolistic mac to the NeXT. > >I don't want to enter into the debate about whether LPF's boycott Apple >strategy is right / effective, but I wonder if NeXT is really in the LPF >camp. If you develop a NeXT application, and port it to another machine, >including copying the "look and feel" WITHOUT using a licenced version of >NeXTstep, what will NeXT's response be? They aren't giving their interface >technology away - it is rumoured to have cost IBM millions. Like Guy Kawasaki said in "The Macintosh Way": "EXERCISE: Write a high-end word processor and spreadsheet for the NeXT machine. Clone the look and feel of the NeXT machine for another computer. See if NeXT sues you". :-> I remember when the Next first came out someone wrote an INIT that made that Mac look like a Next (more or less). I heard at the time that Jobs got in touch with whomever did it and told them to cut it out (maybe this was reported in MacWeek, maybe it was a bogus rumour; who knows?). Off the subject a bit, I think it takes a lot of gall to come into the Mac newsgroup and post an article telling everyone why they shouldn't program the Mac. I think that anderson@sapir has a right to do so, since this is a free country, but sheesh! Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (11/15/90)
anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) writes: >Programmers who attempt to develop on macs under A/UX find that the >range of available tools there is almost derisory, and what there is >is not up to date or fully functional. To have a useful C-compiler, >debugger or even a decent programming editor, it has been necessary to >port the work of the GNU project to A/UX: even Apple's developers use >GNUemacs and gcc. Which can be said of NeXT, HP, Sun, DG, IBM, and DEC, for that matter. None of these vendors bundles a really good environment. Some of them bundle more bits (DEC's DecStations have a decent compiler, NeXT uses GCC, etc), but most of them provide tragically bad tools. A/UX compares _very_ well to competing Unix products. Yes, there are bad tools; yes, some of the stuff is old; yes, many A/UX users have gone to using GNU tools (hey, I'm one of the people doing lots of porting!). That puts A/UX users just about even with people using other UNIX's; it's not all that much of a slam of Apple to point out flaws that every other major vendor's Unix shares. I've developed (in the past 6 months) on: A/UX, SunOS, IRIX, DG/UX, UMAX (Encore), HP/UX, and Ultrix. A/UX is behind in some areas and ahead in others. On balance, it's about the most "compatible" unix around (using SunOS as the reference point, as everyone now tends to do). If GNU tools are used to provide part of that compatibility, so are they on most of the other machines on my list. >Reading about the reasons for which FSF/GNU does not >support this effort, or even condone it (though they do not directly >block or forbid such work on the part of others) has made many >programmers see that they really ought not to support Apple; but if >the only alternatives are MS-DOS machines or pure UNIX boxes, there >hasn't seemed to be much of a choice. Yes, and it's made a lot of other programmers think the FSF is being tragically short-sighted and hypocritical. If look-and-feel suits are a bad idea (and they are, especially given 75 year copyright protection at stake), there are many more useful, less hypocritical, and less damaging means of fighting them then the boycott. The boycott has two virtues: it's very simple, and it makes people think they're doing something positive. And the FSF does try to block people porting to A/UX by refusing to accept patches from A/UX developers while accepting patches from everyone else. That's their right; they control their distribution and they have the right to refuse assistance. But they are trying, as best as possible, to block and hinder people supporting GNU tools, and to block and hinder the growth of freely distributable software. Apple distributed FSF code with A/UX 1.0; they stopped with 1.1, and rumor has it that they stopped due to pressure from the FSF. I won't dwell on NeXT's likelihood of ignoring look and feel; however, Steve Jobs is known for his support of such ideas. NeXT may find themselves on the other side of a FSF boycott one of these days, too, along with just about everyone else. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov14.184025.22185@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >[League for Programming Freedom stuff]: >NeXTstep, what will NeXT's response be? They aren't giving their interface >technology away - it is rumoured to have cost IBM millions. It's a well known fact, dude. I heard it first on National Public Radio years ago. It cost IBM 10 or 12 million. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com
wirehead@oxy.edu (David J. Harr) (11/17/90)
<Long article from anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu about how programmers should embrace the NeXT as a replacement for the Evil Empire Apple deleted...> You may not have noticed, but the LPF is not incredibly happy with NeXT at the moment either. The *OTHER* big company that the LPF doesn't like is Lotus, but right now, you have Steve Jobs and NeXT climbing into bed with them and giving out free copies of Improv to everyone who buys a NeXT before Dec. 31. Richard Stallman has encouraged everyone to *NOT* buy a NeXT until this promotion is stopped and then tell NeXT why you waited. Note, I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with LPF vis a vis Apple and Lotus, but anyone who is preaching NeXT as the new gospel of the LPF needs to look at the facts a little more. Anyway, for more info, check out comp.sys.next. I think the thread dealing with this isssue is still floating around there. The preceding has been another fine product of the fevered brain of wirehead@oxy.edu "When you need the most warped opinion, and you care enough to send the very best, use wirehead..."fnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnordfnord
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/19/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 17-Nov-90 Re: Programmers > should move.. David J. Harr@oxy.edu (1137) > You may not have noticed, but the LPF is not incredibly happy with NeXT > at the moment either. The *OTHER* big company that the LPF doesn't like > is Lotus, but right now, you have Steve Jobs and NeXT climbing into bed > with them and giving out free copies of Improv to everyone who buys a > NeXT before Dec. 31. Richard Stallman has encouraged everyone to *NOT* > buy a NeXT until this promotion is stopped and then tell NeXT why you > waited. Note, I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with LPF vis a > vis Apple and Lotus, but anyone who is preaching NeXT as the new gospel > of the LPF needs to look at the facts a little more. Anyway, for more > info, check out comp.sys.next. I think the thread dealing with this > isssue is still floating around there. That's kind of interesting, especially given that NeXT ships gcc and gdb (and gas?) and gnu emacs, possibly among others, and is (was?) apparently planning to send their Objective-C enhancements back to the FSF for inclusion in gcc 2.0. I wonder what will happen.