Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob From: bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NextStep and NeWS... Message-ID: Date: 24 Apr 89 20:44:16 GMT References: <1041@nixctc.DE> <8530@polya.Stanford.EDU> <3901@ficc.uu.net> <4759@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <3918@ficc.uu.net> <4779@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <11532@cgl.ucsf.EDU> <4793@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science Lines: 26 In-reply-to: avie@wb1.cs.cmu.edu's message of 21 Apr 89 09:24:49 GMT In article <4793@pt.cs.cmu.edu> avie@wb1.cs.cmu.edu (Avadis Tevanian) writes: This means you can connect to our window server from any machine that supports TCP. When we make Mach a standard, this won't be necessary :-). Will I be able to get source to your toolkit sometime after Mach becomes the standard? Because I don't want to go to the trouble of porting Mach to all the various machines on our network just to find- that they still can't do anything useful to display on the NeXT box. It's not that I wouldn't love to have Mach everywhere, but NeXT compatibility isn't big on my list of reasons to go ahead with the effort - especially since I wouldn't have NeXT compatibility even then. Even if your server listens on a TCP socket, it doesn't do me any good unless I can write and compile NeXTStep applications on the Butterfly down the hall (which already does Mach ports anyway) and the Cray across campus (which likely will never run Mach). I think you can do more to advance NeXT's cause by releasing sources. (Does this sound like a broken record, anyone?) (BTW, I'm really glad to see more NeXT presence here, particularly of those "in the know"! Don't let the ferocity of some of the opinions change your mind about participation - only about policies :-)