Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!pico!wisdom
From: wisdom@pico.cs.umn.edu (Scott Wisdom)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Alternatives to the Window System from Planet X
Message-ID: <1990Oct23.043359.3318@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 90 04:33:59 GMT
References: <34207@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <tim.656621816@ggumby>
Sender: news@cs.umn.edu (News administrator)
Distribution: comp.sys.next
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept.
Lines: 37
Nntp-Posting-Host: pico.cs.umn.edu

tim writes:
>Neither NeXTstep nor NeWS let you run over the network.  This is a very
>important feature of X that very few other window systems ever had.
...
>Finally, that brings us to NeXTstep.  It is a good environment, except
>that it doesn't run over the network.

I usually don't get involved in these trivial little
battles about who's best, because both NextStep and
X windows both have their strong points (NextStep is good,
and X is free). BUT: I think you should know that NextStep
DOES run over a network quite well, just like X.
I also have run mathematica the same way.


I developed a few X windows applications, before NextStep
came along. Now I'll develop X only if:

1. NextStep fades away
	*and*
2. X becomes TRULY object oriented with appropriate
	toolkits MUCH more advanced and integrated than
	anything currently available (something on the same
	level as NeXTStep).

>I might like the NeXTstation even more if it ran *just* X (skip NeXTstep
>altogether)

Hmmm.  You didn't know NextStep ran over a network? You
might like the NeXTstation better if it *just* ran X? Just how
well do you really understand NeXTStep?

I bet money you don't.

-Scott Wisdom
wisdom@heckle.cs.umn.edu <-- Send e-mail here, bitte
Coda Music Software Hacker