Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!bellcore!texbell!killer!ames!nrl-cmf!mailrus!cornell!rochester!udel!princeton!phoenix!caromero
From: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: My ramblings on the NeXT machine
Message-ID: <4501@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 19 Nov 88 02:15:41 GMT
References: <26812@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <27965@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero)
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 26

In article <27965@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
>In article <26812@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> munson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU (Ethan V. Munson) writes:
>>	They have no particular plan to adopt a "standard" UNIX.

>Why bother, when Mach has technical advantages?  Besides, as your ""s
>imply, there's no such thing (yet) as a standard UNIX, much as some
>parties might like to define theirs as one.

Well, everything I've heard has suggested that they're not really
married to Mach, believe it or not... at a demo I saw the
marketing type gave the impression that if there were enough pressure
for a SysV.4 Unix, or something like that, it might be offered.
Although, to be honest, I'd be surprised and disappointed
if they abandoned Mach...

>I think superiority, not compliancy, should be a design goal in
>systems that intend to push us forward.

Agreed.

Also, there were originally some comments in the above message about
getting Stepstone to release windowing source.  To the best of my
knowledge, they're not in a position to do it-- it's not their window
system.  NeXT seems to have done their windowing code in-house.

-Antonio Romero     romero@confidence.princeton.edu