Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!ames!ncar!unmvax!ariel!xochitl!jupiter!cheeks
From: cheeks@edsr.eds.com (Mark Costlow)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: HP's Object Only
Message-ID: <368@xochitl.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 90 21:36:41 GMT
References: <3079@plains.UUCP>
Sender: news@xochitl.UUCP
Reply-To: cheeks@edsr.eds.com
Followup-To: comp.windows.x
Distribution: na
Organization: EDS Research
Lines: 36

In article <3079@plains.UUCP>, tinguely@plains.UUCP (Mark Tinguely) writes:

> I am a little surprised to see that MIT distributed the R4 HP server
> section in object format only format. I understand that the HP server
> does not contain MIT code (so I read this as the server was created by
> HP). I also understand that HP has the right to distribute their software
> in this manner if they so chose.
 
I was a bit suprised too.  I was also a bit perturbed since the binaries
they distributed contain HP-UX 6.5 dependancies.  I got the server
running under 6.2, but I had to do some naughty things that I wouldn't
recommend to anybody else in order to get it to work.

> My point is that X is popular because it works on many different machines
> and operating systems and that open-ness was encouraged. What I am wondering
> is this a future trend for the other vendors?

I certainly hope not.  I can't decide which is worse:

   HP, who contributed support for all devices, but in binary form.  or

   SUN, who won't tell anyone how the GX works, so we have to put up with
   poor performance.

Oh well, either way, you get what you pay for I suppose.  :-)

> 
> -- 
> Mark Tinguely           North Dakota State University,  Fargo, ND  58105
>   UUCP:       		...!uunet!plains!tinguely
>   BITNET:      		tinguely@plains.bitnet
>   INTERNET:   		tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu

Mark

cheeks@edsr.eds.com    or     ...uunet!edsr!cheeks