Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!david From: david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: OpenWindows deficiencies (was Re: xdm problems) Message-ID: <6447@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Date: 15 Nov 89 14:51:47 GMT References: <127763@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <8911142118.AA02142@zooks.Morgan.COM> Reply-To: david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Lines: 30 jordan@morgan.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes: >Jeff Nisewanger (Window Systems Group) writes: >>The use of xdm is not supported under OpenWindows 1.0. >Is anyone else getting sick of the things that have come to be >convention in the X world not being supported by "Open-Windows" ...? I >know that XView is not based on the Intrinsics, but you would think >that the least Sun could do is provide a shared-library-built libXt ... I think it is comical how they call it OpenWindows. Its exactly as stupid as DEC calling their byte-swapped MIPS machines "open." It is clear that those vendors with proprietary mind-sets are going to die off. It is too bad that Sun started out with an open strategy and now has taken the suicidal DEC route towards proprietary systems. Sun just continues to insult the intelligence of its customers by calling its closed, dead-end products and systems "open." OpenWindows, SPARC, s-bus, sun-specific VME, ... DECwindows, byte-swapped MIPS, sue-anybody-who-tries-to-use-it-bus, ... See any similarities? You may balk at my including DECwindows in with the closed systems, because it currently is just X. But DEC FORTRAN was once just FORTRAN too... PS: Is there going to be a GOOD implementation of X11R4 on EISA-based 386/486 SystemVR4 machines? PPS: Is there going to be a GOOD implementation of SVR4 on EISA-based 386/486 machines which will support DOS applications with individual X windows instead of taking over the entire screen resource?