Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!wsl.dec.com!price From: price@wsl.dec.com (Chuck Price) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Motif -> Open Look look & feel Keywords: Opinion, Pointless, Religion, Hype, Marketing Message-ID: <1990Jul3.193445.17201@wrl.dec.com> Date: 3 Jul 90 19:34:45 GMT References: <9006291804.AA06484@flatirons.Central.Sun.COM> <1990Jul3.004745.7400@wrl.dec.com> <138275@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Reply-To: price@decisv.enet.dec.com (Chuck Price) Organization: DEC Independent Software Vendor Group Lines: 97 In article <138275@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, sami@strawdog.Eng.Sun.COM (Sami Shaio) writes: |> In article <1990Jul3.004745.7400@wrl.dec.com> price@decisv.enet.dec.com (Chuck Price) writes: |> > |> > |> > |> >The claim that OPEN LOOK is better because you can get XView free clinches |> >the argument for me. You get what you pay for. I'd suggest that Motif is |> > (stuff deleted) |> > |> >-chuck |> |> Isn't it somewhat ironic to be using that kind of argument in this |> newsgroup? |> |> After all, the MIT implementation of X is also free and that doesn't seem |> to be stopping many of you. Perhaps arguments based on technical data |> might seem more convincing than "My toolkit costs more than yours". |> |> --sami It doesn't stop people from using it - but the refusal of hardware vendors (particularly Sun) to spend the extra resources to make it product quality has hurt its ability to penetrate the windowing market. Look at all the press stating that X is slow - Digital's implementation of X, and our performance contributions to X11R4, refute this statement. But those vendors who merely ship the MIT sample server as their X server, or otherwise spin their wheels in pointless counterproductive "competition", only reinforce that opinion. In the case of XView, you will most likely get what you pay for: poor performance relative to production quality toolkits, and an API and implementation with minimal remedial support. I knew the statement that "you get what you pay for" would generate controversy. I agree that there are good and many exceptions to the rule. But in many cases, it is a fact that you can't get something for nothing. A software manufacturer would be making a mistake to bet a business on free software, without any expectation of "paying". In the case of most free software, that payment is in the form of in-house support of the code, including the possibility of having to perform up front porting and bug fixing (and future porting). When you get supported software (like Motif) from a vendor like Digital or H-P, they are providing that service for you. You should expect and demand high quality, high performance implementations, and an adherance to standards. It doesn't necessarily mean that you get it, but because you paid money (by buying the workstation) you at least have some legal recourse. With free software, you are frequently on your own. This above should not be interpreted as an argument for making a selection purely on cost. I merely caution the software manufacturer to realistically weigh the risks and benefits associated with all the packages before making a decision. Those who heard me speak at Unix Expo know that while I support my company's decision to offer Motif, I personally don't take as much stock in the consistency-across-applications argument as do some. As I presented in my talk, I believe it is much more important for the software vendor to provide application consistency across platforms. I do not buy into the position that AcmeCAD should look like an OPEN LOOK application on Sun workstations and a Motif application on DECstations. I submit that AcmeCAD should look like AcmeCAD, so that when the user moves from seat to seat (or when management decides to throw our a hardware vendor), retraining on the same product is not required. (Because of my corporate bias, I would be tickled pink if the vendor decided that the application consistency would be provided by Motif. But if they pick XView, I'll do everything in my power to make sure that they ship a quality product on the DECstation and VAXstation, regardless). I am for toolkits which allow this kind of consistency. Since XView sources are available on the MIT tape, I have no problem with software vendors using this, as long as they understand the inherent limitations imposed (like push-pins not working properly with anything but olwm, etc.). I think it is up to us as X Consortium members to insure that underpinnings are in place to insure the smooth integration of a variety of different toolkits onto one desktop. Personally, I like the variety inherent in a world offering multiple, interoperable toolkits. I find it ironic that the vendor who just a year ago was bashing the entire industry for not being "open", is now adopting a position that says "we can do whatever we want because we're big". Could it be because they have lost the high ground in hardware and software technology, and are struggling to define product differentiation in commodity market? My humble apologies to those programmers who have spent countless hours developing free software, and who might have taken offense at my "get what you pay for" comment. Also my thanks - here I am using Xrn, and I didn't pay a cent for it [of course it breaks about once every 45 minutes and I have to restart it, but it's still much better than rn! :-) ]. -chuck (Please round up the usual disclaimers and insert them here...)