Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!mit-eddie!apollo!nazgul
From: nazgul@apollo.COM (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: OPEN LOOK
Message-ID: <434dd6e1.1b147@apollo.COM>
Date: 19 May 89 00:00:00 GMT
References: <8905172112.AA13166@decwrl.dec.com>
Reply-To: nazgul@apollo.COM (Kee Hinckley)
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 15

In article <8905172112.AA13166@decwrl.dec.com> jdm@gssc.UUCP (John D. Miller) writes:
>that MS et al didn't make compatability an issue - the point is that people
>shouldn't believe that if they write their apps to PM, MS-Win, or MOTIF that
>they will not have to do any work to get it to the another platform.

I was not aware of anyone making this claim.  In fact it has been repeatedly
asserted that MW/PM -> Motif was a non-goal.  The point of Motif was to make
the systems *user* portable.

							-kee
-- 
### User Environment, Apollo Computer Inc. ###  Public Access ProLine BBS   ###
###     {mit-eddie,yale}!apollo!nazgul     ###  nazgul@pro-angmar.cts.com   ###
###           nazgul@apollo.com            ### (617) 641-3722 300/1200/2400 ###
I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept      responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate   everyone else's.