Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!bellcore!texbell!bigtex!milano!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!quintus!arisia!lll-winken!spl1!ll1a!csdev!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!sargas.usc.edu!tli
From: tli@sargas.usc.edu (Tony Li)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT not revolutionary enough?
Message-ID: <8581@spl1.UUCP>
Date: 29 Oct 88 20:02:52 GMT
References: <471@wucs1.wustl.edu>
Sender: news@spl1.UUCP
Reply-To: tli@sargas.usc.edu (Tony Li)
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 19

In article <471@wucs1.wustl.edu> conrad@wucs1.wustl.edu (H. Conrad Cunningham) writes:
    
    	He maintained that the NeXT computer will be a failure because
    it not revolutionary enough.  Its only advantage is a short-term
    hardware capability/pricing advantage over the other available
    UNIX-based workstations.  He sees the NeXT as trying to impose a
    visual, object-oriented overlay ("a Smalltalk-like environment") onto a
    text-oriented UNIX base.  These he contended are incompatible
    notions--they mix like "oil and water."  The UNIX base insures that
    the visual and sound-oriented capabilities can't be used in any truly
    revolutionary way.

I recall that Sun Microsystems failed for exactly these same reasons. 

;-)

Tony Li - USC University Computing Services - Dain Bramaged.
Uucp: oberon!tli						
Bitnet: tli@kylara, tli@ramoth
Internet: tli@sargas.usc.edu