Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!dhingra
From: dhingra@wsl.dec.com (Satyendra Dhingra)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look
Subject: Re: Openwin or X11R4
Keywords: OpenWin X11R4
Message-ID: <1991Jun6.221145.3264@pa.dec.com>
Date: 6 Jun 91 22:11:45 GMT
References: <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> <1991Jun3.200112.17129@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> <1991Jun06.060208.181@shawn.uucp>
Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab
Lines: 64

>.....lots of rhetorical flaming deleted...
>
>In answer: I did not elaborate because I have limited time to read news
>and even less time to write long dissertations (sp?).  I still hold to
>my opinion that the MIT release is superior in performance, portability,
>and quality.  And it is *not*, as you put it, a "crock".  It is simply
>my opinion, which you need not accept.
>
>Performance: I have used both.  The MIT stuff is faster by my perception.
>
>Portability: OpenWin has little or none of the standard utilities of
>             X-Windows.  It is largely a politically motivated product,
>             meant to continue looking as much like Sun's old technology
>             as possible.  I have to deal with many an X Window student

Above commecnts are obviously coming out of complete ignorance, openlook
is totally different from sunview interface. Check out your facts 
before posting 

>             who is bewildered by the nearly total lack of similarity
>             between what the world largely regards as a "typical" X

and what is typical X, I only understand it to mean that the
server should understand the right protocol and nothing more.
Every vendor has political/financial reasons for pushing their 
own products

>             environment and what OW sticks them with.  This, to me, is
>             a valid component of "portability".  Consider also that no
>             Athena toolkit example programs can be demonstrated in OW.

Can you explain which parts don't work, and are the parts that
do not work completely compliant with ICCCM. because if not then the
problem is with your examples (in other words they are not portable).

>             I'll grant you that OLIT is there for doing intrinsics 
>             programming, but still I feel that the Open Windows is
>             hardly "open".
>

Why not, XView source is available free of charge, specs for openlook
are available in bookstores that carry such material.

>Quality: The server core dumps often, both on Sun 3's and Sparcs. 

do you have any cases that back up your claims or are you just
sitting on your terminal and dreaming up these "facts". I have
exercised the xnews server to the bone and found it very robust.

>         Dbxtool
>         constantly crashes with no good reason.  Scrollbars erratically
>         jump you in the wrong direction and have virtually worthless
>         visual feedback.  

These problems were only in the demo version, but that is all it
was, a "demo version". Have you thought of switching to decaf

>         always or never.  Is this enough, or do I have to have more?

No, in all of your "impartial" comments, you have not given one 
specific example except for making blanket statements like "this
does not work" or "this crashes".

satyendra