Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!milo.mcs.anl.gov!atlantis.ees.anl.gov!korp
From: korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: OpenWindows and V.4
Message-ID: <1990Nov6.050506.605@mcs.anl.gov>
Date: 6 Nov 90 05:05:06 GMT
Sender: news@mcs.anl.gov
Distribution: comp.windows.news
Organization: Advanced Computer Application Center, Argonne National Laboratory
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.ees.anl.gov

The OpenWindows server is part of the V.4 distribution. AT&T delivers V.4
with their XWIN X-Windows server. My question is why? What is the logic
of actively promoting a window server that is a SUBSET of another that you
claim is part of your distribution. 

I know that it is not that much more difficult to port the OpenWindows server
than a straight X server, so is it just a case of NIH?

And finally a flame at all those supposed V.4 compliant vendors. I don't
see why not a single V.4 vendor has come out in support of OpenWindows. It
is not a question of X vs. NeWS, or Motif vs Open Look, all of these things
work in OpenWindows so what is the deal?

OpenWindows is X, OpenWindows is NeWS, and OpenWindows can do Open Look or
Motif. There seems to be no reason, other than politics, not to port it.
As for the common cry of "OpenWindows is a memory hog" I can only say the
following, when NeWS people bash X for using up network bandwidth they say
networks will get faster, memory is getting cheaper and faster at a larger
rate than networks get faster. So memory requirements are not an issue, the
server isn't really that piggy either.

Enough flaming, lets start talking about what to do with this new found
prize. I'm still looking for a killer app or ideas about a killer app.
I would certainly be willing to organize an effort to design and implement
such a beast.

Peter