Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: jim@ncd.COM (Jim Fulton)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: GUI WARS!
Message-ID: <9103022016.AA00225@hansen.com>
Date: 2 Mar 91 20:16:11 GMT
References: <1991Mar1.210030.26900@csn.org>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 49


    With 20-20 hindsight, it seems to me the problem is due to MIT's "no
    policy" philosophy.  In my opinion these problems, which are getting
    worse every day, could have been avoided had MIT not been so reluctant
    to take a stand

... which would very likely have prevented a number of vendors from
supporting X in the first place.  Clearly there is a middle ground that might
have worked, but everybody had their hands too full then to risk it.


    I don't really think it matters which look and feel
    is used, what is important that it be the same everywhere.

I tend to agree with you, but at the time there were a significant number of
people who didn't.


    But it's too late now.

I'm not so sure of this.  As other people have pointed out, the two are
beginning to converge in many ways.  Also, the market is still getting
its teeth (i.e. large customers requiring one or the other).


    The best examples of standards are those that are de facto

Which is the reason why MIT didn't provide a look and feel.  Such de facto
standards typically have a lot of time and effort already invested in them by
someone, and there were no large toolkits available then.  


    The take home lesson: when producing a new product, especially one
    that requires a new technology, don't be timid about specifying the
    interfaces and annointing them as the standard.

Gee, some people have complained that X has done too much of this!  :-)


    Even if you make
    mistakes, and parts must be redone, the community of users will be
    better off in the long run.

Perhaps.  But, if you try to standardize on something that is clearly 
unsuitable, people will give up on you.  I'm not arguing that it couldn't
have been done, just that it's not a simple matter.


							Jim