Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!sot-ecs!mrd
From: mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look
Subject: Re: Openwin or X11R4
Keywords: OpenWin X11R4
Message-ID: <8038@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Jun 91 12:09:39 GMT
References: <1991May29.144727.5008@javelin.sim.es.com> <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> <1991Jun3.200112.17129@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> <1991Jun06.060208.181@shawn.uucp>
Organization: University of Southampton, UK
Lines: 60

In <1991Jun06.060208.181@shawn.uucp> root@shawn.uucp (0000-Admin(0000)) writes:

[I don't want to join in the flaming - these are just my comments]

>Performance: I have used both.  The MIT stuff is faster by my perception.

I have seen several sets of benchmarks that support this.

>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
>             who is bewildered by the nearly total lack of similarity
>             between what the world largely regards as a "typical" X
>             environment and what OW sticks them with.

But you don't have to use the openwindows programs. I use xterm and
xdbx with OW all the time because I hate cmdtool, shelltool and I
never had success with dbxtool.
						        This , to me, is
>             a valid component of "portability".  Consider also that no
>             Athena toolkit example programs can be demonstrated in OW.

Its portable in as much as it is an X server which will serve any X
application. You can use what you like (bugs permitting).

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

I think that olwm is a better window manager than [tg]wm. The pin-up
menus and drag and drop capability are real improvements. I use olwm
on sun3s running the MIT server. I like the OpenLook scrollbars too
(but not enough to use shelltool). File Manager is nice, and you don't
need OW to run that (just olwm for the drag and drop).

>Quality: The server core dumps often, both on Sun 3's and Sparcs.  Dbxtool
>         constantly crashes with no good reason.  Scrollbars erratically
>         jump you in the wrong direction and have virtually worthless
>         visual feedback.  Guide is bug ridden and breaks data consistently.
>         Cursor warping is inconsistent, which is worse that having it
>         always or never.  Is this enough, or do I have to have more?
>         The MIT port is better.  SImple as that.

Well I have never had problems with the server or scrollbars. Dbxtool
leaves something to be desired. The MIT server may be better, but I
use OW to preview postscript occaisionally. Also, I find the xview
toolkit *much* easier to develop with than anything else.

Its horses for courses and you can mix and match. You don't need to
use the OW server to use the window manager, you don't need olwm to
run xview programs and you needn't use the deskset programs.

Take your pick and use the best of all worlds.

				Mark.

-- 
Mark Dobie                              M.Dobie@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET)
University of Southampton		M.Dobie@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bitnet)