Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att-mt!cbnewsm!mls
From: mls@cbnewsm.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga
Subject: Re: Why OpenWindows instead of Motif ?
Summary: motif on SVR4
Message-ID: <1991Feb17.224556.26157@cbnewsm.att.com>
Date: 17 Feb 91 22:45:56 GMT
References: <1991Feb14.211546.21222@ugle.unit.no> <1991Feb17.130425.27667@iclswe.icl.se>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

In article <1991Feb17.130425.27667@iclswe.icl.se>, lars@iclswe.icl.se
(Lars Tunkrans) writes:

> As far as I know Motif has not yet been ported to SVR4.

Well, I don't know if anyone is selling binaries for Motif on SVR4, but it
is not a big deal to "port" the source -- there are minor makefile and compile
glitches that are not hard to work out.

However, Motif is (a) bigger (b) slower and (c) less functional[*] than the
equivalent (i.e. OLIT, based on Xt) OPEN LOOK toolkit.  (I have no idea how
it would compare to XView on the same hardware.)
------
[*] this is partly a matter of definition -- Motif *does* have more convenience
functions and more ready-to-use widget pieces than OLIT; however, there is no
component corresponding to the OPEN LOOK workspace and file managers (plus a
few other utility kinds of functions that tend to come with any OPEN LOOK
implementation.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		"O stand, stand at the window,
m.siemon@ATT.COM		    As the tears scald and start;
...!att!attunix!mls		 You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer	    	    With your crooked heart."