Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!longway!std-unix From: mark@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: Is POSIX degenerating into OSI? Message-ID: <462@longway.TIC.COM> Date: 5 Dec 89 06:37:51 GMT References: <457@longway.TIC.COM> <458@longway.TIC.COM> Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM Reply-To: mark@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN Lines: 82 Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman) From: mark@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) In article <458@longway.TIC.COM> srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett) writes: >From: srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett) > >I agree with rich 100%. I figure that when the standards committees >start meeting it's time to start looking for the next generation gizmo. It's not exactly that. As far as windowing standard go, there is definitely the desire to have a common graphical interface so that both users and application developers have a common ground to stand on. However, it is not this desire which is being met by 1201. The users would like a common user interface (UI) so that they don't have to relearn the look and feel aspects for each and every application that comes out. The developers want a common application programming interface (API) so that they don't have to go through all the work to port their code to umpteen windowing systems on umpteen machines in order to make a successful product. There is always the problem of attempting to do too much too early and stnadardization in this area may fall prey to this common problem. The development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) is relatively new and there are a lot of different ones out there: NeWs, X, Motif, NewWave, NextStep, SunView, Macintosh, Presentation Manager, Windows, etc. The fact that there are so many shows that there is still some shakeout going on in the industry. Lawsuits like Apple's shows how ferocious the competition in this area can be. I would agree that there are some problems with the charter for 1201, however, there are problems with not taking steps to standardize GUIs as well: increased development time for new applications (also read increased expense) and longer learning time for users on new applications. My personal feeling is that 1201 should work on an application level interface so that portable applications can be built that would provide a standardized "look and feel" to the user. Obviously, there is a significant amount of work that still needs to be done in this area, but there are some relatively safe things they can say about things like desktops, windows, menus, etc. Many of the afore mentioned windowing system's user interfaces are quite similar when you take away things like whether they shade their overlapping windows, or whether they have round or square "radio buttons". They generally provide some form of desktop, windows, menues, scroll bars, etc. Most of these ideas originated at Xerox in the 1960's and 1970's making these elements of windowing systems at least as old as Unix. Instead of focusing on either the user interface or the API, 1201 is standardizing the toolkit, which I feel is too low a layer to be working on now, primarily because it does not really address the needs of the two sides that "need" the standard the most: the users and the developers. The toolkit standardization helps the vendors because they can claim conformance to a standard and then layer the toolkit between their own proprietary user interface and API, baffling users and developers alike. It also walks the fine line of "implementation details" that standard bodies usually try so hard to avoid. There are those that would say that a windowing standard will stifle their creativity to develop their own windowing system. However, this can be countered with the argument that instead of directing their creativity to something which has been done a thousand times already (such as windowing systems), they can channel their creativity into something new and truly innovative. I don't neccessarily think that it is too early to start working on a standard. Remember that it takes a long time for a standard to come into being. By merely starting work on a standard it helps to shakeout the industry to find out what is "good" and what is not. There are definitly enough systems to look at out there. I am not sure that X is the best choice, but it is a widely accepted base: the basis for any standard. I would like to see more emphasis placed on both the UI and API aspects of the standard however, so that the standard can help more than the vendors. -- Mark H. Colburn mark@Minnetech.MN.ORG Open Systems Architects, Inc. Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 89