Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!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: Re: OpenWindows deficiencies (was Re: xdm problems)
Message-ID: <6460@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 17 Nov 89 19:41:58 GMT
References: <6447@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <127763@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <8911142118.AA02142@zooks.Morgan.COM> <1517@riscy.dec.com>
Reply-To: david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (David E. Smyth)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 30

In article <1517@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes:
>
>In article <6447@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, david@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
>(David E. Smyth) writes:
>
>> I think it is comical how they call it OpenWindows.  

>Making a piece of technology *available* is what really makes that
>technology open.   

No, multi-vendor availability makes a technology "open."  VAXes are
*available*, but they obviously are not "open."  One can buy a PC from
lotsa companies, they are obviously "open."

>Sun and DEC has made available the sources for their toolkits.....so I
>do not see the point of your diatribe.

Sun is just trying to cause a diversion, to break up the continuity
within the trend towards X.  They could have provided X a long time
ago, but no, they have their own little isolated drum to beat: NeWS.

NeWS was a good idea.  So was CP/M.  But both lost.  Not necessarily
to "better" solutions, but to more widely used solutions.  A PC
which runs CP/M and MS-DOS provides no useful value over a pure
MS-DOS machine, and less value if it makes running MS-DOS sorta wierd.

OpenWindows makes running X sorta weird.

Lotsa-vendor availability = Open.		example: X, Motif
Very-few-or-one-vendor support = Closed.	example: Open{Windows,Look}