Xref: utzoo comp.windows.news:1039 comp.lang.postscript:1348
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!pollux!ti-csl!Stenger@tilde
From: Stenger@tilde (Dan Stenger)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news,comp.lang.postscript
Subject: RE: NeWS and DPS,  who wins?
Message-ID: <66472@ti-csl.CSNET>
Date: 28 Dec 88 19:15:42 GMT
Sender: stenger@ti-csl.CSNET
Reply-To: stenger@tilde.UUCP (Dan Stenger)
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Lines: 50
In-reply-to: <13061@ico.ISC.COM>

In article <13061@ico.ISC.COM> you write:
 > In article <926@cmx.npac.syr.edu>, krempel@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Henry BJ Krempel) writes:

 > >...Sun has put time and effort into the
 > > product that first made screen PostScript possible: NeWS.  After Sun
 > > was through with the "feasibility study," Adobe decided that screen
 > > PostScript was interesting and solved these problems again, in a new
 > > and incompatible manner...
 > 
 > Is there any reason to think that Adobe wasn't working on PostScript for
 > displays?  Remember that SunDEW (the precursor to NeWS) first really popped
 > to the surface in early '86, and it was nowhere near to being a product at
 > that point (at least by its author's claims).  NeWS really happened in '87,
 > and Display PostScript in '88.

At the "Screen PostScript" panel at SIGGRAPH '88 this issue was discussed by
Charles Geschke from Adobe.  To quote him:

"The technology of Display PostScript is something that we have actively been
working on as a graphics technology ever since the inception of our company
back in December of 1982.  ...  It is a misconception that we did not want to
do Display PostScript, even though I'm certain that's the impression James had
[referring to an earlier comment about Adobe attempting to hire James Gosling
before he went to Sun].  Actually, from the very beginning, and our very first
licensees, many of them actively pursued the feasibility of PostScript for
displays."

For more details check out the SIGGRAPH '88 Panel Proceedings.

 > An even better question is why Sun and Adobe didn't try to get together
 > and work things out...

I have never heard a definitive answer about this from anyone from Sun or
Adobe but I have my own personal opinion.  Adobe's main source of revenue is
(or at lease used to be) from per copy royalties for PostScript.  Because of
this they don't license all of their source.  Also Adobe is generally a
conservative, slow moving company.  Sun had some thoughts on how a window
system should be wrapped around PostScript, some of which were in conflict
with Adobe's own ideas in this area.  They are also a quick acting company.  I
believe the lack of influence over the implementation, the lack of source
availability, the Adobe royalty fees, and the slowness of Adobe in getting to
the market caused Sun to decide to go do their own version.


	Dan Stenger
	Texas Instruments
	Computer Science Center
	stenger@csc.ti.com

The opinions expressed are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.