Why [not] X?
Thu, 22 May 1997 15:33:17 -0500 (CDT)
Mike McDonald <email@example.com> writes:
> >Date: Thu, 22 May 97 10:27 PDT
> >From: Patrick Logan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: BRIAN SPILSBURY <email@example.com>
> >Subject: Why [not] X?
> < A bunch of comments about why NeWS suck deleted. :-) >
> >X should be avoided. The entire industry is attempting to move away
> >from it. Java is simply NeWS in C++ clothing. Ask Gosling.
> Which the industry rejected years ago. (NeWS that is.) It hasn't
> gone unnoticed that Java is just NeWS warmed over.
> Mike McDonald
Yes, but WHY was NeWS rejected? Could it have possibly have been because
Sun (and a few others) had NeWS and the rest of the world had X, so then the
rest of the world through up OSF (Oppose Sun Forever) to make sure that
Sun would not dominate the workstation market with their offering?
NeWS was superior in every respect technically. Maybe NeWS could have
even have won had it not had that $1,000 licensing fee. Then, there
would have been NO reason to use X instead of NeWS.
Anybody notice the fanfare that Broadway has received? Yeah, me neither.