Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!lts!amanda
From: amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: NeWS and Display PostScript
Message-ID: <887@lts.UUCP>
Date: 15 Feb 89 16:50:03 GMT
References: <890213-155306-7860@Xerox> <335@unicads.UUCP>
Reply-To: amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Reston, VA
Lines: 32

stefan@unicads.UUCP (Stefan) writes:
    [ ... ]

     That's the threat that Adobe perceives - the loss of the chance to
     guide the future direction of PostScript. I think it has little to
     do with OSF or their relationship to other companies (re Powers'
     comments). 

I think that given the relatively small size of Adobe, that they are
not entirely unjustified in this, but there also seems to be another
issue at work as well, and it's one that many other companies in this
industry, large and small, seem to have problems with.  It can be best
summed up in the phrase, "but that's not how we planned to use it!"
You can see it in the Display PostScript vs. NeWS debate.  Adobe's
position seems to be that PostScript *should not* be used to implement
a window system, even if it can be.  Apple has held a similar view
with regards to AppleTalk--for several years they hotly claimed that
AppleTalk *should not* be used for big networks, or for cheap TCP/IP
transport, or whatever, even though it works quite well for these
things.  They are finally reacting to market demand, but it's still
painfully slow going...

In a sense, the cleanliness of PostScript's design works against
Adobe.  Its very extensibility and flexibility means that it can be
used for things besides imaging, whether or not Adobe designed it that
way...

-- 
Amanda Walker			...!uunet!lts!amanda / lts!amanda@uunet.uu.net
			  InterCon, 11732 Bowman Green Drive, Reston, VA 22090
--
Calm down; it's only ones and zeros...