Xref: utzoo comp.windows.news:1042 comp.lang.postscript:1355 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hoptoad!gnu From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news,comp.lang.postscript Subject: RE: NeWS and DPS Message-ID: <6139@hoptoad.uucp> Date: 1 Jan 89 01:55:46 GMT References: <66472@ti-csl.CSNET> Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco Lines: 28 After reading much of the DPS preliminary manual, my evaluation of the situation is that Adobe has largely reimplemented NeWS, but changed all the names of everything so that applications will not port between them. Clearly there are design differences in spots, and Adobe has made some performance hacks at the language level, where Sun didn't feel the need; but there is a strong fundamental similarity of design. Why Adobe chose to change all the names is less clear. Possibly a straight case of NIH (not invented here) combined with pretensions of control of the language. Possibly they, or their major customers DEC and NeXT, deliberately wanted to fragment the market to reduce its openness (ability of customers to move to competitors' equipment without breaking their software). I doubt DEC would shed a tear if PostScript on screens never quite took off, since that would leave their inferior X window system winner by default. What to do about it has me torn. In some ways I think Sun and other NeWS vendors (like me) should move to the DPS names, providing a compatability package for old NeWS applications. In other ways I think the NeWS community should thumb its nose at Adobe, let them remain incompatible, and beat them fair and square in the market instead. If they get away with making us play catch-up this time, they'll repeat it forever -- the standard IBM-style Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt game. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania