Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ico!attc!marbru From: marbru@attc.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: choice of toolkits Message-ID: <1238@attc.UUCP> Date: 13 Mar 91 16:23:39 GMT References: <9103110058.AA02712@mole.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar11.115350.26950@alphalpha.com> <1991Mar13.003649.1108@convex.com> Reply-To: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) Organization: Auto-trol Technology, Denver Lines: 29 In article <1991Mar13.003649.1108@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >Well, so far as I know, the OSF/Motif toolkit doesn't support shared/dynamic >libraries even on the platforms that have the capability -- ie., SunOS. > Even if you were right for Motif 1.1, WHY should OSF support SunOS specific implementation of shareable libraries when: - Sun is NOT a memeber of OSF - Sun does everything imaginable to prevent Motif usage on it's hardware/sw As far as I know, OSF does not bother to "support" shareble libraries (inlib) for HP/Apollo Domain (their shareableas were superior to today's SunOS implementation years ago). Neither it supports shareable libraries for VMS. But in both cases the party interested (HP/Apollo, DEC) in porting Motif to their platform does what is necessary. So *might* Sun Microsystems, (if they elected to do so). So *do* many Motif providers for SunOS platform. > >This shortcoming and the resultant immense size of executables comprise the >lion's share of my discontent with Motif. > If you decided to be your "provider" of Motif for SunOS, supporting shared (or any other) libraries is upon to you. At least that's what I assume, being a Motif "provider" for our in-house use (for some of our platforms). -- =*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*= Martin Brunecky {...}sunpeaks!auto-trol!marbru (303) 252-2499 (sometimes also: marbru@auto-trol.COM ) Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404