Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usenet!ogicse!emory!samsung!uunet!ora!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: cflatter@zia.aoc.nrao.EDU (Chris Flatters)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: choice of toolkits
Message-ID: <9103131659.AA19248@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 91 16:59:52 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 60


Kee Hinkley writes (in reply to Richard Stallman):

RMS> Some of you may hope to use the GNU system when it is completed.  The
RMS> GNU system will come with all the free toolkits, but it won't come
RMS> with any proprietary ones.

Kee> There are over a dozen companies providing Motif for Suns.  What
Kee> makes you think they won't provide it for GNU either?  Or will
Kee> linking it with the GNU libraries put GNU restrictions on it?

The point is that the GNU project intends to produce a free operating
system.  Vendors can port the Motif toolkit or OLIT to GNU, in which case
you can develop Motif or OLIT applications (depending on your preference)
under GNU.  However these applications will not run on any GNU installation
unless the Motif toolkit or OPEN LOOK toolkit is made available on terms
similar to the GNU general public license.  In summary you can write
software to run under GNU O/S using a proprietary, for-money, toolkit
but you can not write *GNU* software unless you use a free toolkit.

Kee> How about some constructive input here.  Like an effort to write
Kee> a PD Motif toolkit (since that's the only commercial toolkit you
Kee> seem to think worth attacking :-).

One possibility would be for OSF to donate the Motif toolkit and mwm to
the GNU project.  In fact this might be seen as a fair trade since OSF/1
contains GNU software.  In practice the vendors that supply Motif technology
to OSF will probably object to this.  Similarly USL could donate OLIT
to the GNU project but might have some problem persuading their shareholders
(who think that USL should make a profit) that this is a good thing.

Note that one implementation of OPEN LOOK (XView) is already free, although
its free nature is being undermined by the ludicrous prices charged by
third party vendors for ports (yes, Unipress, I mean you!).  On the other
XView is harder to port than Xt-based toolkits: in the case of Xt-based
toolkits most of the work has already been done if Xt is available.  

Another interesting candidate on the horizon is InterViews 3, which is
supposed to have a Motif-like look-&-feel (or so I am told).  This might
well become the winning GNUish X toolkit if it is patched to compile with
GNU C++ or when the GNU C++ library develops enough AT&T C++ compatibility
to compile InterViews.

As far as I am concerned (as a programmer), irrespective of technical merits
(and I think OPEN LOOK is far, far easier to learn and use than Motif) the
winner in the Motif vs OPEN LOOK GUI war will be the first one to have
an implementation that is freely available, in the sense that if it isn't
already on the machine on my desk I can put there in less than a day
without forking over money I can't afford.

[ In case anybody is wondering, I don't think that the Athena widget set
is suitable for writing applications that will be used by anyone apart
from X-windows hackers on the grounds of not having any real conventions
that encourage consistent behaviour (ie. a style guide) and having little
aesthetic appeal.]

		Chris Flatters

PS. standard disclaimers apply to the above opinions (especially where
they are controversial).