Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Xview vs. Motif speculation
Message-ID: <9005021519.AA03889@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 2 May 90 15:19:23 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 30

> [But] there is one thing we, the X pushers, owe to the general
> public.

> General public does NOT want to hear "mechanism, not policy".  Users,
> and small SW vendors in particular, are tired of endless
> inconsistency of user interfaces.  Nobody wants to use four different
> "policies", and nobody wants to spend money coding to four different
> policies.

> General public wants ONE POLICY.  And that's what OSF/Motif strives
> to deliver.

I think you're both right and wrong.  If you ask any one user, you
will, I expect, find you're right: that user wants just one policy.

The problem is, if you ask another user you'll find that while that
second user also wants just one policy, the two policies are completely
incompatible.

For example, there's a big chunk out there that thinks the Macintosh
policy is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and wants all their
applications to use that same policy.  I, on the other hand, also want
all my applications to use a single policy - but I find the Macintosh
policy to be the second-least tolerable policy I've ever seen.  (The
least tolerable is the NeXT's, which is very close to the Mac's.)

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu