Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:33205 comp.windows.x.motif:2019 comp.windows.open-look:689
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watsol.waterloo.edu!tbray
From: tbray@watsol.waterloo.edu (Tim Bray)
Subject: Open Look *and* OSF/Motif?  Why bother...
Message-ID: <1991Feb25.055352.7567@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Keywords: toolkit, Open Look, OSF/Motif, GUI
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1057@attc.UUCP> <1991Feb19.210822.26826@visix.com> <1991Feb20.170617.15372@cs.umn.edu> <1991Feb20.194928.3022@Solbourne.COM> <1991Feb21.184826.11191@alphalpha.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 05:53:52 GMT
Lines: 27

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
 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.

And, speaking from my developer's soapbox, let me say:

 RIGHT ON!

The Macintosh sold millions of boxes despite its lack of horsepower,
toy operating system, laughable keyboard/screen/mouse, poor application
robustness, and difficulty-of-programming features, for one reason:

 A single look & feel that was Good Enough.

Consider the potential benefit to the world if a SINGLE look and feel that is
Good Enough gets stuck on the front of Unix, an OS that is Pretty Good,
running on most of the hardware that is Pretty Good.  I don't give a flying
#$%)@!# which L&F wins, as long as *one* of them dies quickly and gracefully.
Then we can get together and bury DOS, OS/2, SAA, and the Macintosh (with some
regrets in the latter case).

Motif, you're Good Enough.  You too, Open Look.  Now will one of you please
bugger off and die.

Thanks, Tim Bray, Open Text Systems