Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!sialis!dmshq!com50!pai!erc From: erc@pai.UUCP (Eric F. Johnson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: Re: Questions about HPUX 8.0, X11R4, HP policy Keywords: Athena Widgets, X11 R4 R5 Message-ID: <1585@pai.UUCP> Date: 20 Dec 90 19:28:35 GMT Organization: Boulware Technologies, Inc., Burnsville, MN Lines: 189 In a general controversy about what HP bundles with its version of the X Window System and Motif, there are a few points that should be made. 1) HP is apparently NOT shipping the Athena widget library with its version of the X Window System. This is libXaw.a in /usr/lib. Since Motif is not a free library, many people writing free X software use the Athena widgets. If you want to use free X software and that software needs the Athena widget library, you're stuck on an HP. Jim B. Byers of HP (jbb@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com) writes that fixing bugs and support are the main reasons why HP decided not to include the Xaw library, but I think the real issue is that both the Motif library (Xm) and the Athena widget library (Xaw) depend on the X Toolkit Intrinsics (Xt)--and the OSF had to change Xt for Motif 1.0. This means that HP would have to ship two versions of Xt (one with the OSF/Motif modifications, one without). This would be a very confusing situation. I can understand why HP didn't ship the Athena widget library, as neither did Data General or SCO, but I still wish I could compile Athena widget programs on an HP workstation (I'm not letting the others off the hook either). Happily, this situation is much better with the latest versions of Motif and X. With X11 Release 4 (up to patch 18) and Motif 1.1, both Xaw and Xm can share the same version of the Xt library. 2) I'm glad that HP is spending the time to fix bugs and make sure everything works right, but does it have to take so long? X11 Release 3 came out in 1988. I received HP-UX 7.0 (with R3) in spring 1990, well AFTER I had installed MIT X11 Release 4 on our company Sun workstations. (X11 Release 4 came out in January, 1990 to the public. HP, as an X Consortium member, had it much earlier.) Yes, I want HP to fix bugs, but I also work for a company that produces X software. The differences between X11 R3 and R4 are dramatic. Release 4 is the most professional release from MIT to date. It uses a lot less RAM and the performance is much better. In addition, a number of bugs were fixed in R4, that we still have to deal with in R3. The new routines added in R4, such as XGetGCValues() and XIconfiyWindow(), are very useful, but not available on my HP. (XIconfiyWindow() can be emulated under R3--and I've done it--but you'll have fun trying to make a portable R3 version of XGetGCValues() that doesn't break the rules.) In addition, if you ask on the net, the resounding response will be to not use R3 or Motif 1.0 for commercial applications (especially due to memory leaks). Everyone advises using R4 and Motif 1.1. This is an incentive not to sell HP-based systems, but instead sell DG or Sun or whatever (Boulware Technologies, my employer, sells industrial automation systems, reselling computers from a number of vendors). I like HP equipment and have found HP boxes to be incredibly durable and resistant to untold abuse on the factory floor. But, I wish the system was more up to date. Now, HP is saying we'll receive HP-UX 8.0 perhaps sometime in March. In real terms, I expect this to be May-June (based on the experience with HP-UX 7.0). X11 Release 5 is expected sometime about July, 1991, or about the time I'll be installing R4 on the HP's. To put the time issue in another manner: 3) Our firm IS on HP software support. Could HP please (pretty please with sugar on it) release interim versions of the OS with just one feature enhanced? In this case, I don't need everything HP-UX 8.0 offers, but I would have appreciated (and still would appreciate) a 7.0 with X11 R4 and Motif 1.1 before 8.0 comes out. The issue is probably moot with 8.0 now, but how about 8.0 with X11 R5 planned for, say, December 1991 (or about 6 months after the MIT release of R5)? This would keep my HP systems more up to date and would encourage selling HP, rather than other vendors' CPUs. It would also give you HP folks time to fix bugs and test out the system. Remember, HP will get R5 from MIT a lot sooner than I will (BTI is not a member of the X Consortium at this time). If cost is an issue, I will gladly trade every Software Release/Status Bulletin from now to enternity for interim bug fix and enhancement tapes from HP. (The SR/SB is utterly useless in its present form anyway.) To be more precise, I would rather get an HP tape with X11 R5 than any and all SR/SBs, espcially if I could get the tape BEFORE X11 R6 :-) comes out. It would also be nice if HP would tell its customers when (even a ballpark figure would help) HP plans to ship X11 R5. (I mention this because I had to endure a host of HP reps talking about the wonders of X11 R3 when HP-UX 7.0 came out. Not a single HP person in the 7.0 seminar even knew about R4--which I had already installed on Suns. None of these people could even tell me if HP had ANY planes to ever ship an R4 product. So, I'm asking now, will and if so, when will HP ship X11 R5? This may seem premature, but it would be nice if HP could clue us in to its future plans. I don't need a firm date, but something like "HP-UX 9.0 [or OSF/1?] will have that, and we expect it in 2nd Q 1992" would help.) 4) Why not compile the MIT R4 on my HP, you may ask. Why not? Because HP decided to ship only object modules (.o files) with the MIT X11 R4. This means that if I have a problem, and there undoubtedly will be problems, I am SOL. When problems arose on the Suns, I could modify the source. With HP, I don't have that luxury since HP decided somehow that they would only pretend to go along with the MIT release. I wouldn't mind this if I would get more up-to-date releases of X from HP. But I don't. I was still running R2 on HP-UX 6.5 AFTER I had installed R4 on Suns (HP-UX 7.0 appeared FULLY in about the May, 1990 time frame; R4 from MIT came out in Jan., 1990). Now, it looks like I will get HP R4 about the time I install R5 on the Suns. Argh. Please ship full sources with the MIT X11 R5 and not these object modules. 5) I, at least, am not asking HP to support, enhance and fix bugs on all the X Window contrib software. (I wouldn't wish that on anybody.) But, it would be nice if all items that are considered X Consortium standards are included with the HP version of X. Generally, this is the core part of the X release tapes. Since HP *IS* a member of the X Consortium, it shouldn't be too hard to ask MIT what exactly is considered a standard part and what isn't. I would appreciate the Athena widget library included as part of HP's X. (I generally try to use Motif instead of Xaw, but for a lot of Athena-based software it's easier to compile using the Xaw widgets than it is to port to Motif.) jbb@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Jim B. Byers of HP) writes: [...much deleted...] > 5) You would be willing to compile them if you have to. (It is assumed > that you would prefer a binary. > Re: 5) The obvious problem here is obtaining the right patches etc. to > the MIT tape. I know you have a great faith in the MIT tape software > (even in the contrib) section but it is software whose major goal is > features not stable code. This is not to say that the contributors, > HP included, do not strive for good code. My point is that this is the > first time that much of this code has seen the light of day. The first time this code saw the light of day was in January, 1990, or about a year ago. Yes, a lot of the contrib code had problems. In my tests, I could only get about 40 percent of the contrib code to compile under X11 R4 on a Sun. But, I couldn't even attempt to compile most of it on an HP, even now, due to the lack of the Xaw library (and R4 features). Forty percent is better than none, I'd say. > Re: 6) I would recommend that you consider ftp-ing the libraries from > hpcvaaz as Harry describes in his response. You would prefer that > these [Athena widgets] were included in HP-UX. So would I. > This is a tough one. We wrestled with > this one when the Athena widgets first came out (R2). I believe HP was pushing the HP widget set at that time; perhaps this was part of the wrestling? Nothing against the HP widget set, but why didn't you include the Athena set as well? You obviously had to have it, since just about every standard X program in /usr/bin/X11 on the HP uses the Athena widgets, including xterm, xcalc, xclock, xload, and so on. Did HP write their own replacement for the Athena widgets? Or, did HP port the Athena widgets and then decide not to include the widget library with the HP release? > As you mentioned > people would expect us to support/bug fix them if they were in HP-UX. > It frankly has not come up as much of an issue as the libraries are > available via hpcvaaz and most commercial developers use Motif if they > are widgeteers. In short we (here on the X11/Motif/VUE team ) haven't > heard many complaints. Really. Consider this a friendly complaint. > Re: 8) The size of the MIT tape is huge, agreed. There are many parts > to it. Different people are interested in different parts. Thats the > beauty of PD software, but it is unrealistic to expect all vendors > to ship all parts to all people for "free". I think the original poster was really asking for the Athena widget library, so he could compile Athena (Xaw) programs. > I was very serious about the fact that compatibility is religion here. > While I am involved with only X11/Motif here which makes me naive > (as each of us is - knowing only a small fraction of the world's > knowledge) I know the immense amount of importance it take on here. > I am glad to have read your comments. And I hope that this helps! > Jim Byers > ITO Marketing/Lab Team Don't get me wrong, I like HP systems and I appreciate the magnitude of the work HP folks do. But, a lot of the code I use every day includes the Athena widget set. It would be nice to have this on an HP. Even more of the code I use every day would be enhanced if it could run under X11 R4. Thanks for responding anyway, notwithstanding the tone of the original query that started this thread. (Just to clarify: That query was NOT written by me.) Have fun, -Eric -- Eric F. Johnson phone: +1 612 894 0313 BTI: Industrial Boulware Technologies, Inc. fax: +1 612 894 0316 automation systems 415 W. Travelers Trail email: erc@pai.mn.org and services Burnsville, MN 55337 USA