Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!shelby!med!hanauma!rick
From: rick@hanauma.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: XView v. other toolkits, advice wanted
Message-ID: <495@med.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 23 Feb 90 18:28:38 GMT
References: <22697@mimsy.umd.edu> <7150@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Sender: news@med.stanford.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: rick@hanauma.UUCP (Richard Ottolini)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Geophysics
Lines: 19

Our group decided to use either Xview or InterViews for the main
reason is that they are entirely in public domain
and run well on most types of computers.
First, history shows that public domain packages, UNIX (early AT&T, GNU), C++ (GNU),
and X Windows win out over their possibility superior competitors
(VMS, Objective C, NeWS) because academic hackers evolve them and write
useful applications for them.
Second, academics have a low bureaucracy tolerance.  Event though Motif is
relatively cheap it still has to purchased and licensed through an archane
bucreauracy at our university.
Third, Stanford is a Sun shop.  At least 50% of the UNIX workstations here
are Suns.  We suffered because Sun was late in supporting Xwindows and don't
intend to continue to suffer because of Sun's indifference to Motif.
Fourth, poeple prefered the antecedents Sunview over DecWindows.
I concede this doesn't imply Xview and Motif share the same strengths and
weaknesses.

It is still early.  Our research group's funding is 90% industrial (Big Oil)
which has nearly unanimously embraced Motif.