Xref: utzoo comp.windows.open-look:1605 comp.windows.x:37250
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!dlb!shawn!root
From: root@shawn.uucp (0000-Admin(0000))
Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Openwin or X11R4
Keywords: OpenWin X11R4
Message-ID: <1991Jun06.060759.420@shawn.uucp>
Date: 6 Jun 91 06:07:59 GMT
References: <1991May29.144727.5008@javelin.sim.es.com> <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> <1991Jun3.200112.17129@wlbr.imsd.contel.com>
Reply-To: root@shawn.uucp (Admin)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Vampire Lestat
Lines: 64

mh@roger.imsd.contel.com (Mike Hoegeman) writes:

>In article <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> root@shawn.uucp (0000-Admin(0000)) writes:
>>bgeer@javelin.sim.es.com (Bob Geer) writes:
>>
>>>So, I'm tempted to "off" openwin & load up a "generic" X11R4 & Motif
>>>into a more typical directory layout -- /usr/bin/X11, etc.  Anyone got
>>>comments on this plan -- good, bad, indifferent?
>>
>>The virgin X11R4 from MIT is infinitely superior to OpenWindows, both in
>>performance, portability, and quality.  You can certainly put Motif in,
>>but the 'twm' window manager that comes free with the MIT stuff is also
>>not bad...perhaps a good intermin solution while saving money to buy
>>Motif...
>>
>>>Thanks in advance...Bob
>>
>>Mark Jeghers

>Infinitely ?? Give me a break. You probably have valid reasons on why
>you prefer the MIT X over xnews . You list none of them however.  You
>merely state it is "infintely superior". What a crock. I 've used both
>on a sun 4/370 and on various sparc workstations and it is not
>infinitely worse. 

.....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
             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.  This, to me, is
             a valid component of "portability".  Consider also that no
             Athena toolkit example programs can be demonstrated in OW.
             I'll grant you that OLIT is there for doing intrinsics 
             programming, but still I feel that the Open Windows is
             hardly "open".

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.

>I suspect that you just don't like the fact that xnews source is not
>free and that the MIT server source is. This seems to offend you deeply
>and thus xnews is trash and MIT X is God's gift to windowdom.

Nonsense.  Don't put words in my mouth.  What I have said is what I have
said.  I think OpenWindows is a very poor product and I prefer MIT X11R4
by a very wide margin.  You don't have to agree.  But don't include me
in your straw-man burnings.