Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!WSL.DEC.COM!price
From: price@WSL.DEC.COM
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Open Look vs. DECwindows
Message-ID: <8809140426.AA09272@eros.pa.dec.com>
Date: 14 Sep 88 04:26:35 GMT
References: <12124@steinmetz.ge.com>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 75


Dick St. Peters writes:

> In other words, DEC proposes a standard on which DEC has a 2-year head
> start, a standard developed in secret with no input from other vendors.
>
> Chuck, remember how evil this sort of thing was when you thought it
> was what Sun/AT&T had in mind ?  How ironic that you're trying to use
> OSF as a vehicle for it now.

Well, gee whiz, Dick, I guess we shouldn't allow the industry to share
in work that has been ongoing at DEC long before this standards war started.

I think it is rather noble of DEC to offer valuable code (it cost us a
lot to generate this system) to an independent body (OSF), so that the
entire industry can share it in the future in a vendor neutral fashion.
(And note that the key word is *offer*. OSF is not required to select it).
It was noble of IBM to offer AIX. And noble of the other vendors to offer
their technology. AT&T/Sun chose to keep their technology proprietary,
and to merely offer license on *their* terms. They refuse to play in
a vendor neutral world.

Yes, we developed the code internally as a DEC product, and we adhered to
all our standard DEC policies regarding external disclosure. However, we
have made review copies of the spec available for some time (as early as
December 1987). When it became clear that OSF would be requiring a user
interface system, we immediately worked to develop our XUI licensing
strategy, and to more publicly discuss the DECwindows style. Until that
time, we followed standard product procedure. We didn't know until then
that we would or could be publicly offering it as an industry standard. We 
have no crystal balls here.

The whole point of OSF is that the resulting system they develop is vendor
neutral. We cannot force them to adopt the DECwindows interface completely
as we specify, or at all. If they choose to change it to suit their 
purposes, we will offer the OSF compliant interface along with the 
other OSF supporters.

When we offer the code to OSF, we are providing them engineering leverage
so that they can provide the industry a standard, vendor neutral system
in a timely fashion.

Alternatively, OSF could start from scratch. I just don't see how that
is to your advantage.

I guess the bottom line is that in this particular case, Digital may get
a head start if its interface is selected. One might view the advantage
a particular vendor gets by having an interface it developed accepted
by OSF a deficiency in the OSF RFT process. On the other hand, since that
vendor will have also made significant investment in developing the selected
item, one might cosider this a reasonable motivator for submitting technology.

One could argue that the long term benefits to the industry at large far
outweigh the short term advantage which might be had by a particular
RFT provider.

IBM will have a lead in AIX. We still think we can beat 'em. Sun had
a lead in NFS. So now we have almost caught up with them.  Everyone
gets point advantages periodically. We could establish a rule that no one
ships till every other vendor is ready. Who would benefit from that?
Not you. Not us. Nobody.

The very fact that OSF offered an RFT to which *anyone* could respond
(including AT&T/Sun with Open Look - they aren't part of OSF at all)
in my mind is *much* better than the "mine mine all mine" approach
of the AT&T/Sun alliance.  Did you get any say in the design of Open Look?

By offering XUI to OSF, we are giving the industry input into the system
in a vendor neutral, realistic manner.

-chuck

ps: This is an X conference. I believe we are rapidly diverging from the
conference purposes, although as you know I am always willing to discuss
this "off-conference".