Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM!fgreco
From: fgreco@dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems
Message-ID: <9011062334.AA16216@islanders.>
Date: 6 Nov 90 23:34:06 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 77

> 
> For starters, I agree with you that the means by which X has been made
> a standard is the most undesirable way to do it, but it is the only
> way that seems to work.

	The market has always decided *real* standards.  Has and always will.

	The way that X (and OSF/Motif, and the X toolkit in general) was 
	foisted upon the computing community by DEC/IBM/HP pounding their
	collective chests and declaring it a standard, insulting
	everyone's intelligence by stating that they've always been behind
	Unix and open systems, is certainly not a desirable way of 
	selecting an technology that companies use to conduct business 
	and universities use to help with their research.

> X was made a standard because there came a
> need for some software that had capabilities much of which X
> satisfied, because many programmers started using it, and because
> industry momentum toward "open systems" pushed the "big players" into
> needing a platform on which to build the UNIX GUI's.

	Yes, back then the time was ripe for some decent standard
	GUI software for Unix.  The Macintosh GUI had teased 
	Unix developers with its growing commercial success, and Sunview (which
	predated the Mac's UI), was not portable or very "user friendly"
	(gees...I hate that term).

	However, I believe that X was *really* made a de facto standard primarily 
	because DEC (and IBM to some degree) did not want NeWS to become
	another NFS.  Despite the low licensing fee of NFS, both DEC and IBM
	had to swallow a lot of humble pie when they had to license Sun's
	technology; big corporations do not like to do this.  Its bad PR
	when you license a competitors technology.  Hence the funding to
	MIT by DEC.  (Note that IBM just happens to be funding a spin-off
	to commercialize the Andrew File System, and another to commercialize
	Xerox OOP/Database/GUI technology with Metaphor...IBM doesn't 
	really want Sun *or* DEC stuff!)

	What also helped X was the early "alpha" condition of NeWS.  Sun
	couldn't help it; they were in a race.  Their strategy was to 
	rush NeWS development to compete.  In retrospect, this was a lousy game plan.
	We all know what happens when you develop software in this environment.
	Many people got burned.

> In fact, the
> computing model that X was designed to fit is a somewhat outdated one.
> That does not mean to say that X is not a fantastic technical
> achievement.  Moreover, I think X has proved itself to be a useful tool
> in leveraging UNIX as everybody's OS.
> 
	Yes, I agree.  X's view of the world is complex and somewhat outdated.
	However, Rob Scheifler, Jim Gettys, et al have done a marvelous job.
	They are to be complimented and commended for their tremendous
	efforts.

> About your concerns relating to X's performance...  X is a relatively
> young beast considering its complexity.  There is certainly time for X
> to make up for its shortcomings.

	I certainly hope that its shortcomings are made up fairly
	quickly for the group that I heard that's building an air traffic 
	control system in X....:-z
	
> Your concerns a very well founded, but we are in the Vietnam syndrome
> at this point -- there seems to be no turning back.

	That's the reason why you continue to use X Window technology ?!...

	I've been developing in X for some time now, its nice but
	just doesn't feel right for certain applications.  Considering 
	the recent moves made by Sun in regards to NeWS (and OW in general),
	I, for one *will be* turning back.


	Frank G.

	[insert usual caveat]