Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!reha
From: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Motif -> Open Look look & feel
Summary: different perspective
Keywords: Perspective
Message-ID: <1990Jul4.145214.6357@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 4 Jul 90 14:52:14 GMT
References: <9006291804.AA06484@flatirons.Central.Sun.COM> <1990Jul3.004745.7400@wrl.dec.com> <138275@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Jul3.193445.17201@wrl.dec.com>
Reply-To: reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 83

In article <1990Jul3.193445.17201@wrl.dec.com> price@decisv.enet.dec.com (Chuck Price) writes:
>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.
>
There was a post indicating that sofware vendors go where the money is. This is
absolutely true! You have to look at this issue from a company's point of view.
The task is to select a platform+UI that will serve its users' needs.
Moreover, the combination must be supportable. This implies that the vendor
of the software and the hardware must have excellent service and support.
Free software contains, almost by definition, no support. A company who
decides to use such software is on its own with respect to fixing of bugs,
presence of viruses and a support base to solve problems and even just answer
a few questions. People who advocate free software have NO idea how critical
quality is! Real money and reputation is on the line every time you commit to
a piece of software that is a critical part in an operation. A $50 paid to
a vendor or even a $1000 paid to a vendor who provides support is usually
dwarfed by the amount you stand to lose if something goes wrong. You think
NYSE should use free software for booking trades? Most software vendors are
not interested in hackers who save money for years to buy a workstation and
because that is NOT where the money is. So one should discount the opinions
of that group (which is also the group who is for free software).

>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.
>With free software, you are frequently on your own.
>

No! There are NO exceptions to the rule! GNU emacs, from a company's
perspective is NOT a viable answer; as good as it is for hackers. When I
get a tape from FSF, it comes with NO guarantees. Well, that is the whole
point; a company wants packages which come with guarantees. When free
software comes with 7x24 software support and guarantees, then I will
alter my position on this issue.

XView, low quality and very little service is not a good alternative, neither
is MIT distribution of anything! X is available, with full support from OSF
members. DEC has their own server, display postscript (from original vendor
who supports it -- not like SUN's clone), and own improved implementation of
Motif and DWT which is fully supported. IBM announcements are in the same
direction with the addition of NeXTStep with full support and service. Even
Motif from OSF with their inadequate support might not cut it.

To recap, the money is with companies who are willing to pay for quality,
service and support. Big companies spend literally millions of dollars for
software and hardware; what makes people think they care about +- $100 for
good software? Such companies choosing Motif as the platform will force the
software vendors in that direction; it they do not comply they will be out
of business for neglecting that market that actually does not mind paying
extra for added service.

>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
>
>-chuck

That is definitely the wrong attitude. Look and feel across applications is
EXTREMELY important. To understand this take a look at the learning times
for software packages on the Mac. If all had their own implementation of
widgets and modes of operation, do you think Macs would have been a success.
Just about every literature on user interface design stresses the importance
of this point. A text widget MUST work exactly the same way across all
programs under the same window manager! I definitely should be able to cut
and paste text across applications. All user interface objects like push 
buttons, file selection boxes, help widgets MUST look and feel the same. If I
have to learn the l&f of a new widget set every time I buy software and
I have to go and explain to the users this new methodology, productivity
would suffer to a very large extent. When you do not have consistency accross
applications, you have just violated countless golden rules of user interface
design. That is simply BAD user interface design.

Application consistency across platforms is moot; most large companies which
will buy this software from vendors also happen to have single vendor
policies. Surely, even they had different hardware all over the place, they
would at least pick the same UI. If marketing data proves otherwise, I would
be very interested to see it.

>
>(Please round up the usual disclaimers and insert them here...)

same here.