Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!crltrx!max!jg
From: jg@max.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Open Look versus Motif, and it's effect on NeWS vs. X.
Message-ID: <4547@crltrx.crl.dec.com>
Date: 13 Feb 90 15:12:43 GMT
References: <IXP1PQ5xds13@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@crltrx.crl.dec.com
Reply-To: jg@max.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Organization: DEC Cambridge Research Lab
Lines: 10

Huh?  I don't see your line of reasoning here....

One might just as well provide two different shared libraries, with
the same programming interface.  Putting things in the server
does not follow as the only way to solve the problem of different
"look and feels".

The real problem here is that OpenLook and Motif provide different
programming interfaces, not where they are implemented....