Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!canon!laukee
From: laukee@canon.co.uk (David Lau-Kee)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: Open Windows 2.0 released (Sun press release)
Message-ID: <1990Aug22.091909.10471@canon.co.uk>
Date: 22 Aug 90 09:19:09 GMT
References: <11722@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Aug21.154152.27532@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Organization: Canon Research Europe, Guildford, UK
Lines: 64

msc@ramoth.esd.sgi.com (Mark Callow) writes:
 [ ... ]
>|> Three toolkits, XView, OLIT and TNT(TM), are available to develop
>|> OPEN LOOK applications.  The TNT toolkit is used to develop
>|> PostScript-based applications for NeWS.  All toolkits give the user a
>|> consistent look and feel.
>|> 
>The last sentence is an outright lie.  The TNT toolkit does not have
>the new pseudo 3d appearance.  This is just part of what makes NeWS
>an obviously second class citizen in OW 2.0.  The poor set of demos is
 [ ... ]
>I'm very disappointed at the lack of progress NeWS.  From the demos
>it looks like not much has changed since NeWS 1.0 (yes I do mean NeWS
>1.0, I don't mean X11/NeWS 1.0).

I don't want to get into a "define look & feel" argument, and I basically
agree with much of what you're saying.  Only the xview libraries give you the
level 2 OPEN LOOK compliance (though I can't say for sure whether it has
actually passed the compliance tests/checks).  Both OLIT and TNT are level 1
toolkits.  The OL spec is interesting in that level 2 is said to be a superset
of level 1... I was wondering, a while ago, whether or not it was possible to
have a "superset interface" which can be said to have the same look and feel.
Since we all seem to be a bit hot around the collar over OW2, the answer seems
to be "no".  (And doesn't OL say that the colours of window borders are meant
to be the same??)

 If you speak to many Sun guys they'll spin a consumer-pressure
line on you... getting Sunview developers to switch as quick as possible, in
the least painful manner; also Sun are unconstrained in the design and
development of xview, whereas OLIT is a little bit NIH. As regards TNT, you'll
notice that it is still called an experimental, developers toolkit... and yes,
that means it is still practically unuseable for non-experimental developers.
NeWS has changed from 1.0, you now get tNt (which doesn't work), as well as
a new lite (which doesn't work), and, err... well, the startup screen is much
nicer.

I think we all freak at Sun implying that OW2 is somehow "finished".  It
isn't.  Then again, unless OW is pushed *now* as a useable system - moreso, as
the window system of choice - they'll start cutting their losses, and guess
which part will be the first to go!

NeWS is still the Bastard Stepchild.  But I'm beginning to adopt the "fuck-em"
attitude... wait a couple of years, and as long as NeWS is still a part of OW
then you'll see users foaming at the mouth over some great "X" applications.
They won't know they're NeWS, and they won't care.  It'll be a big in-joke.
NeWS developers will have secret handshakes.  Users and managers
could have made an effort to go for NeWS instead of sheep-ing along the nice
secure, safe, "does it run Fortran", "my programmers like infix",
head-in-the-sand-but-who-gives-a-damn-since-we're-all-in-this-together road of
standards, compliance and mundaneness are the sad, everyday, ordinary people
of this world.  They don't dream, they have no vision, let them have xview, a
marriage made in heaven.  Leave NeWS for the rebels... those wild-eyed boys
and girls who know how to have a good time.  I'm done saving the world, now
I'm hacking for myself.

Bugger... that coffee was strong.

-------------
David Lau-Kee
Canon Research Centre Europe,
17/20 Frederick Sanger Rd, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU25YD, UK.
NRS: laukee@uk.co.canon, INET: laukee%canon@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
UUCP: laukee@canon.uucp, PATH: ..!mcsun!ukc!uos-ee!canon!laukee
Tel: +44 (0) 483 574325 Fax: +44 (0) 483 574360