Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:33219 comp.windows.x.motif:2024 comp.windows.open-look:692 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!olivea!uunet!visix!amanda From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look Subject: Re: Toolkit for Open Look *and* OSF/Motif Look and Feel Keywords: toolkit, Open Look, OSF/Motif, GUI Message-ID: <1991Feb25.215857.5136@visix.com> Date: 25 Feb 91 21:58:57 GMT References: <1991Feb20.170617.15372@cs.umn.edu> <1991Feb20.194928.3022@Solbourne.COM> <1991Feb21.184826.11191@alphalpha.com> Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Lines: 42 >This stuff about being able to do two GUIs is nonsense. Not because >it isn't possible. Not because it isn't easy. But simply because >WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO IT! It's a waste of time, resources and it >hurts the industry. Then what exactly should we do? There is no single standard, except perhaps in the Mac market (which is rather healthy because of it...but I digress). Should I have to tie my own success to a gamble on which "standards body" is going to win the marketing wars? Should I have to limit the market for my software to selected pieces of a fragmented marketplace? If you think so, why? Speaking for the moment strictly as an application software developer, I don't bloody *care* whether Open Look is better than Motif, or vice versa. I just want to sell software, and I want to sell it on as many workstations as I possibly can. Multiplatform environments are a way to make that as easy as possible. I don't get to change the fact that my potential customers are running several different window systems with even more "look and feels," sometimes decided by corporate fiat. I don't want to get into internal political decisions, and I don't get to "fix the industry." I may not agree with the fact that "standards" have become nothing more that marketing buzzwords, but I still have to deal with the situation. The only alternatives I see are: - Don't write software until "the market settles down" - Limit your market on a basically arbitrary basis - Multiply your development effort in order to expand your market None of these is economically feasible in the commercial arena, or, at least, the commercial arena *I'm* in... Saying "we shouldn't have to do it" isn't very useful unless you have an alternative to suggest. -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- "I think you should profit from the mistakes of others. You don't live long enough to make them all yourself." -- Lowell Ferguson