Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!hsdndev!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: choice of toolkits
Message-ID: <1991Mar11.115350.26950@alphalpha.com>
Date: 11 Mar 91 11:53:50 GMT
References: <9103110058.AA02712@mole.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: asi
Lines: 32

In article <9103110058.AA02712@mole.ai.mit.edu> rms@mole.ai.mit.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes:
>If you choose a free toolkit, such as one distributed in the X
>distribution, then your programs will be more useful.  For example,
>anyone who uses X will be able to compile them.
Assuming their vendor has provided the binaries, or the user has taken
the time to port the toolkit.  Note that the latter is not likely
outside of the immediate X hacker community.

>On systems where shared libraries are used, most sites may not have
>the proprietary toolkit, and thus may be unable even to run your
>programs.
Why are shared library sites more or less likely to have a proprietary
toolkit?

>Some of you may hope to use the GNU system when it is completed.  The
>GNU system will come with all the free toolkits, but it won't come
>with any proprietary ones.
There are over a dozen companies providing Motif for Suns.  What
makes you think they won't provide it for GNU either?  Or will
linking it with the GNU libraries put GNU restrictions on it?

How about some constructive input here.  Like an effort to write
a PD Motif toolkit (since that's the only commercial toolkit you
seem to think worth attacking :-).
-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.