Why [not] X?

cwg@DeepEddy.Com cwg@DeepEddy.Com
Thu, 22 May 1997 16:18:35 -0500

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, 22 May 1997 15:33:17 CDT Jordan Henderson wrote:
> 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.

..yada...yada...LispMs....yada...yada...Stanley Steamer...yada...yada...

Let's just try to learn the lesson not to repeat the mistakes of these sup
erior but unsuccessful technologies.  Those mistakes are largely (but not 
entirely) political, but we should still not make them.

I believe it is important to be able to (a) bring up LispOS windows on an X 
display and (b) to bring up Unix windows on an LispOS display.  If we provide 
these abilities on top of a superior architecture, that's great, but let's not 
forget that we need to be able to interoperate.


Chris Garrigues                    O-              cwg@DeepEddy.Com
  Deep Eddy Internet Consulting                     +1 512 432 4046
  609 Deep Eddy Avenue
  Austin, TX  78703-4513              http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: 2.6.2