Xref: utzoo comp.windows.open-look:310 comp.windows.x:30934
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!brsmith
From: brsmith@cs.umn.edu (Brian R. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: SunOS 4.1.1 with Open Look
Message-ID: <1990Dec20.211434.5731@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 90 21:14:34 GMT
References: <1990Dec20.145211.3999@bradley2.bradley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Lines: 27

In <1990Dec20.145211.3999@bradley2.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley2.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>The new release of SunOS appears to come with OpenLook by default.
>We already have X installed (albeit it could maybe use a rebuild
>now that I'm starting to get the hang of it).  My understanding is
>that there is some overlap in the libraries.

>What are some general opinions as to whether I should keep the Sun
>supplied (OpenLook) libraries in preference to the X built ones or
>vice versa?  I did find with another system running OpenLook (V1.0)
>that many X applications didn't have all the Widgets and such that
>they expected.  Are the Widget Libraries and other toolkits the only
>things from X I'll need to keep?

The OpenWindows X binaries (OpenLook is a user-interface
specification, not a software package) are supposedly compiled
directly from the standard MIT X source.  So, in any cases of overlap,
YOUR versions will be more up to date (fewer bugs), and functionally
equivalent.

So, if you're willing to trust *my* advice, chuck the OpenWindows
libraries that you already have compiled, like libX11, libXext, and
libXau.  (Or be cautious and save them somewhere first, and see if the
OpenWindows goodies run with the MIT ones.)
--
Brian
brsmith@cs.umn.edu