Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!pico!barry From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: X11 opinion. Message-ID: <627@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> Date: 28 Oct 90 03:23:25 GMT References: <9224@helios.TAMU.EDU> <564@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <577@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> Sender: news@MATH.UCLA.EDU Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research Lines: 92 In article ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >Do you really think there is hope that the company that is promoting >Lotus software will make NeXTStep freely available to run on other >platforms? First, it need not be absolutely free---as long as the licensing fees are modest (after all, Unix has prospered in the presence of such licensing fees). Though the freer, the better. But, if they really want to contribute to the evolution of computing, and not just be another blip on the chart, they will make NeXTStep available---in time. > What do you think IBM would say about this action? How >about the investors in NeXT Inc.? Since NeXT is private, NeXT has few investors per se, which is one reason such a decision could be made. Consider the principal players: Steve Jobs---a radical guy, as we know. Adobe---They recently released their PostScript font specs, rather than divide the computing world between conflicting standards (In response to Apples move to develop their own proprietary font technology) H. Ross Perot---A multibillionaire, old, and a leader in the applications of computers to data processing---at this point, he should be more interested in leaving a valuable legacy than making more $. Cannon---I don't know about their management, but if it is typical japanese, they consider the long term; in the long term, standardization of NeXTStep would be beneficial. IBM---Well, I don't count on IBM for progressive action, but all they did was license NeXTStep, so I doubt they have too much say, particularly down the road a few years. >Do you know something you are not >telling? No! I don't know anything about the legal complications of such a move. All I know is that once a good GUI is developed, it should be put forth as a standard, it should be made widely available to advance the state of computing. I think NeXTStep is good enough. I think Steve Jobs is forward thinking enough to realize this, and to act on it. Think ahead for a moment: eventually, the operating systems and GUIs for personal computers will converge to some standards---I doubt we'll see continuing and unending competition between different ``species''. At some point, what exists will be ``good enough''---good enough that future alternatives will not offer enough benefit to cause users to switch. For example, among operating sytems, ``good enough'' probably means easy portability, virtual memory, multitasking, support for multiple processors, and a good set of utilities---and non-proprietary. Freedom from restrictive backward compatabilities is also good in the long run. (so perhaps Mach kernel will standard Unix shells and utilities will turn out to be ``good enough''). Among GUI's, the keys are: portability, network support, a rational imaging model, and good programmer utilities---and nonproprietary. X11 has 3 of the five. But it suffers from having been developed a little too soon, before a good imaging model was availabl, before good utilities/programming models were conceived, and before good hardware was in place---sure, X is backwards compatible with the Abacus, but at what cost? :-) On the otherhand, NeXTStep has all the desired features (object orientation, Interface builder, PostScript imaging model), except its not free. Forutnately, this defect is much easier to fix than those of X---maybe. Given that NeXTStep is good enough to sweep the GUI world if it were allowed to do so---and advance computing in the process---an innovator like Jobs will make it available to everyone, once the company is stable and profitable. For the only alternative is that NeXTStep will dissappear, once a non-proprietary GUI of similar quality comes about. -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)