Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: where X went wrong
Message-ID: <9009101202.AA04979@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 90 12:02:48 GMT
References: <142074@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22


    Surely you jest :-).  At a "political" level?  Even if it were possible,
    I don't think the X consortium wants to be in that position.

I didn't say the X Consortium would have anything to do with it.  (Can't I
be interested in something with that particular hat taken off? :-)

    It would be interesting to see what would
    happen if those who were completely independent of OSF, Unix International
    (the openlook group) and all the others decided to step back and evaluate
    all the good and bad about the UI's and API's available.

If you mean technical experts in this area, face it, the result would be
that you'd end up with 10 toolkits/GUIs to choose from, instead of 2 or 3. :-)

    They would then
    come up with what they feel is the "best of all worlds"

The end users I've talked to don't have much interest in the "best of all
worlds".  They just want something that works, so they can get on with it.
Any of the commercial toolkits available today would likely be acceptable
to them.