Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!spike
From: spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: NeWS "open" / "standard"?
Message-ID: <SPIKE.91Jun15175047@world.std.com>
Date: 15 Jun 91 22:50:47 GMT
References: <91164.101625BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
	<Jun.14.20.57.44.1991.8139@athos.rutgers.edu>
Sender: spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua)
Followup-To: comp.windows.news
Organization: Software Tool & Die
Lines: 20
In-Reply-To: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu's message of 15 Jun 91 00: 57:45 GMT


hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

>The market had just adopted NFS, and they hoped the same would happen
<with NeWS.  It didn't, partly because other vendors were becoming
>scared of Sun, and wanted nothing to do with anything else they
<initiated, and partly because software for X was available sooner.
>(It's pretty clear that the first plausible product in an area wins,
<except in areas where an official standards process can be used to
>impose a new standard.)

	Some how I think that the fact X was freely available had a
lot to do with it.  X was quickly ported to a large range of machines,
mainly, in my opinion, because the source was there for people to play
with.  NeWS costs money and only ran (as far as I know) on SUNs and
SGIs.

->Spike
-- 
The World - Public Access Unix - +1 617-739-9753  24hrs {3,12,24,96,192}00bps