Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!SPIFF.DEN.MMC.COM!brett
From: brett@SPIFF.DEN.MMC.COM (Brett Ballantyne)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re:  What's what in OPEN LOOK/OpenWindows (long)
Message-ID: <9009191654.AA05730@spiff>
Date: 19 Sep 90 16:54:52 GMT
Sender: root@athena.mit.edu (Wizard A. Root)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 33


      In article <9009181549.AA29380@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>,
      cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes:
      |> 
      |> As a matter of morbid curiosity, has OSF ever made the reasoning that
          lead
      |> to their choice of a combination of elements from DEC, HP andMicrosoft
      |> public?

   David Brooks of OSF then replied:
   Sure; a Rationale is an essential part of our process.  The User
   Environment Component rationale is quite a thick document, and
   certainly went to all Members.  I can't find my copy right now.  Kee?

Not to start another Motif vs. OPEN LOOK holy war, but how thick does
a document have to be to state they adopted a GUI L&F submitted by
those companies who give them money?  I've read several places that
OPEN LOOK is technically superior to Motif (a debatable issue to be sure,
but that seems to be the general consensus -- at least in the trade
rags I read), so why would they choose Motif?  Simple.  IBM, DEC, HP, etc.,
give OSF money and Sun and AT&T don't.  I'm not saying that's wrong,
but to claim to have industry's best interest at heart and not just
OSF member's interest at heart is misrepresentation and *that* is wrong.
If I'm mistaken, please set me straight, but that's the way the world
appears from the window I look out of.

A disclaimer:  I'm not religiously tied to Motif or OPEN LOOK -- as long as
the UI is easy to use and is coherent, most of my users don't care what the
widgets look like.

Brett Ballantyne

brett@spiff.den.mmc.com