Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!haven!decuac!felix!info-ultrix
From: andy@cayuga.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: DECWindows vs X
Message-ID: <56623@felix.UUCP>
Date: 6 Sep 88 12:57:25 GMT
References: <55481@felix.UUCP>
Sender: info-ultrix@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: andy@cayuga.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 32
Approved: zemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-Path:

Reply-to: andy@cayuga.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman)


In article <55481@felix.UUCP> francus@pernod.dec.com writes:
>Bundled in with Ultrix is DECwindows (based on X windows) which provides
>a consistent user interface on Ultrix and VMS machines. A user can run 
>an application on an Ultrix machine, and have the server be a VMS machine,
>and vice versa.

Um, is DECWindows restricted to running between two machines running
DEC operating systems?

>A few more points:
>Since DECwindows is a library built on top of X.11, it leaves the user
>the option of writing X.11 applications or DECwindows applications. 
>Thus DEC is commited to X as an open standard.

If so, DEC is committed to running standard software while encouraging
the development of software that isn't portable.  "We'll run your X.11
code, but we encourage you to DECWindows; it's built on X.11.  Of
course, it's proprietary.  Do you think we're stupid?"

Some committment.  When was the last time DEC passed up an opportunity
to tie people to its machines?

-andy

Disclaimer:  I speak for DEC.
--
UUCP:  {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:  andy@polya.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle