LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out! - Motif

This is a discussion on LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out! - Motif ; Michel Bardiaux wrote: > > I'm very happy the binary compatibility was dropped from their long-term > > goals. That would be a tremendous waste of time with next to misearable > > chances to achieve it. > > > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

  1. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    Michel Bardiaux wrote:

    > > I'm very happy the binary compatibility was dropped from their long-term
    > > goals. That would be a tremendous waste of time with next to misearable
    > > chances to achieve it.
    > >
    > >> OSF Motif is quirky enough. Having to master the idiosyncrasies of TWO
    > >> implementations was not an attractive idea.

    > >
    > >
    > > Why didn't you stick to the _documented_ Motif API in the first place?

    >
    > This shows you dont have a clue. (1) Sticking to the documented API
    > would not guarantee ABI compatibility


    Yes, but that's completely OK as I said above.

    > (2) The ability to subclass
    > widgets *is* part of the Xt spec. That means *everything* in the P.h
    > files is part of the API too.


    So what? Yes, widget libraries compiled with Motif mightn't work with
    Lesstif and vice versa - but it's a no-issue.

    > Even if the documented API were enough, which is often not the case;
    > ever tried to add a button to the OK/CANCEL of a Dialog? Button that, to
    > apply the principle of minimal user astonishment, *must* have the same
    > look as OK?


    So what's your statement?

    > > Your reasoning is the same as of those jerks writing HTML pages that
    > > welcome me with the friendly "Can only be viewed with Internet

    > Explorer".
    >
    > Jerk, eh? MSIE toady, eh? Forget the avove attempt at a constructive
    > conversation. Have a bad day. *** Plonk ***


    You either read badly or read too much between the lines. I didn't call
    you something. I merely stated your reasoning is as wrong as one of the
    named guys - and for the same reason; namely for not willing to stick to
    the standards. I hope the simple and well-documented fact that you,
    exactly like a worm, need oxygen for breathing isn't enough to think I
    compare you to the worm in all the rest of your physiological processes,
    including the brain activity?

    Regards,

    Evgeny


  2. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    neoholistic wrote:

    > I thought that maybe the idea was to make GTK and QT window-system
    > independent,


    It might be the idea behind Qt, but I'm pretty sure not behind Gtk. Not
    originally, at least.

    >> After all that, all of the world started shouting that Gtk or Qt
    >> applications looked better, while a good combination of resources
    >> can provide just about the same flashy looks with Motif.
    >>

    >
    > Really? The default GTK 'skin' looks very much like Motif, but it seems
    > to be 'flashier' in many ways, like for example allowing to use a pixmap
    > as the background for many widgets; also, other skins have a more modern
    > look like rounded buttons and such. To actually have a Motif app to have
    > that kind of looks you would have to customise a lot of widgets, besides
    > spendign a lot of time playing with resources. I'm not sure if that
    > would be worth the effort.


    An effort to make Motif skinnable like Gtk would be by many, many orders
    of magnitude smaller than to write a new toolkit from scratch.

    After all, all these visual eye-candies are mostly childish IMHO. When my
    daughter was 3, she enjoyed applying stickers to every element of the
    furniture in her room she could reach. It was impossible to explain her it
    wasn't as nice as she thought. Now she's 6 and the situation's improved a
    lot. At least, the chair and the table stay clean. When she gets her own
    children, I bet anything you want, her bedroom won't have stickers at all.
    Toolkits, like humans, grow up. The purpose of a GUI toolkit is not to
    allow one to bust to his friends "my desktop is fancier that yours". It's
    about functionality. Eye strain as a result of working with an interface
    each element of which has a weird pixmap background isn't among the
    virtues of a toolkit.

    The real problem with Motif (and the real pushing force behind Gtk) is the
    licensing. OpenMotif didn't change it significantly. Further, there is a
    lack of modern widgets in the core toolkit. This, too, is a result of the
    licensing issue. OpenGroup evidently wasn't interested in adding new
    widgets to the toolkit. Instead, it allowed others to proliferate in the
    field. Hardly any commercial application using Motif used the core widgets
    alone. Quite a few commercial widget libraries were (and are) available
    providing all that extra niceties that Gtk and Qt have (and probably some
    more). So, half-"opening" the Motif itself effectively "opened" only a
    restricted functionality - and yet that openness was far from required to
    make the community support it.

    Those responsible for altering the licensing terms of [Open]Motif are
    either blind or have a concrete plot of moving Motif to a niche of legacy
    application support. After all, COBOL generates more revenues than e.g.
    Python does ;-)

    Regards,

    Evgeny


  3. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    Hi,

    Bob Marcan wrote:
    > Will Wagner wrote:
    >
    >> In article <3f71f379$0$837$ba620e4c@reader2.news.skynet.be>,
    >> Danny Backx wrote:
    >>

    ....
    >> I once read an interview with Peter Mattis and Spencer Kimball,
    >> original creators of GTK (I'm pretty sure it was at [1], but the link
    >> is dead), and the goal they had set is to learn all about *everything*
    >> it takes to write widget toolkits. One of the guys said something to
    >> the effect of "we didn't use Xt and Xrm on purpose, and that was
    >> possibly a mistake, but it's too late to change it now."
    >>
    >> Will
    >>
    >> [1] http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld...w-01-gimp.html

    >
    >
    > GTK sucks. I like Linux, but this is the reason why Linux != Unix.
    > I can't set -geometry on the command line. On GTK mailing list, they
    > said this should be solved at the application level.
    > OpenOffice starts full screen and i don't know how to prevent this.
    > The answer could be, dont use it, but i need it.


    I have no problem with OO, it start nevet in full screen mode.
    May be that you have to set preferences.

    An other problem is that a lot of libraries are used and some
    thinks cna't be done without rewriting a lot of Gtk functions.

    > Themes are evil the same as windoze.
    > Who is the owner of the my bloody screen?
    > I'm not single (fullscreen & task & application & M$) user !


    > Angry Bob



  4. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:
    > Michel Bardiaux wrote:
    >
    >> > I'm very happy the binary compatibility was dropped from their

    >> long-term
    >> > goals. That would be a tremendous waste of time with next to

    >> misearable
    >> > chances to achieve it.
    >> >
    >> >> OSF Motif is quirky enough. Having to master the idiosyncrasies of

    >> TWO
    >> >> implementations was not an attractive idea.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Why didn't you stick to the _documented_ Motif API in the first place?

    >>
    >> This shows you dont have a clue. (1) Sticking to the documented API
    >> would not guarantee ABI compatibility

    >
    >
    > Yes, but that's completely OK as I said above.
    >
    >> (2) The ability to subclass widgets *is* part of the Xt spec. That
    >> means *everything* in the P.h files is part of the API too.

    >
    >
    > So what? Yes, widget libraries compiled with Motif mightn't work with
    > Lesstif and vice versa - but it's a no-issue.


    And applications writen for motif may not work as expected if compiled
    and bind to lesstif.

    >> Even if the documented API were enough, which is often not the case;
    >> ever tried to add a button to the OK/CANCEL of a Dialog? Button that, to
    >> apply the principle of minimal user astonishment, *must* have the same
    >> look as OK?

    >
    >
    > So what's your statement?
    >
    >> > Your reasoning is the same as of those jerks writing HTML pages that
    >> > welcome me with the friendly "Can only be viewed with Internet

    >> Explorer".
    >>
    >> Jerk, eh? MSIE toady, eh? Forget the avove attempt at a constructive
    >> conversation. Have a bad day. *** Plonk ***

    >
    >
    > You either read badly or read too much between the lines. I didn't call
    > you something. I merely stated your reasoning is as wrong as one of the
    > named guys - and for the same reason; namely for not willing to stick to
    > the standards. I hope the simple and well-documented fact that you,
    > exactly like a worm, need oxygen for breathing isn't enough to think I
    > compare you to the worm in all the rest of your physiological processes,
    > including the brain activity?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Evgeny
    >



  5. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    Jean-Jacques Sarton wrote:

    >> So what? Yes, widget libraries compiled with Motif mightn't work with
    >> Lesstif and vice versa - but it's a no-issue.

    >
    >
    > And applications writen for motif may not work as expected if compiled
    > and bind to lesstif.


    That certainly happens. But in this case, this is a Lesstif bug and should
    be reported (and fixed). My experience shows, that Lesstif bugs and
    missing features that show off in widely used apps are being fixed/added
    reasonably fast. I never said Lesstif is bug-free or like. My point was
    that using an undocumented feature/API of Motif will most probably bring a
    problem when compiling/running the app with Lesstif. However, it's the
    programmer's fault in the first place to use the unsupported interface.

    Regards,

    Evgeny


  6. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    wwagner@limbo.ymb.net (Will Wagner) wrote in message news:...

    > I once read an interview with Peter Mattis and Spencer Kimball,
    > original creators of GTK (I'm pretty sure it was at [1], but the link
    > is dead), and the goal they had set is to learn all about *everything*
    > it takes to write widget toolkits. One of the guys said something to
    > the effect of "we didn't use Xt and Xrm on purpose, and that was
    > possibly a mistake, but it's too late to change it now."


    http://www.linux.cu/documentos/entre...199901_lw.html

    --- Casantos

  7. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!


    > >
    > >
    > > So what? Yes, widget libraries compiled with Motif mightn't work with
    > > Lesstif and vice versa - but it's a no-issue.

    >
    > And applications writen for motif may not work as expected if compiled
    > and bind to lesstif.
    >



    I think the lesstif folks have achieved greater binary compatibility than
    they give themselves credit for. For example, when we first released our GUI
    builder and the ViewKit library (ViewKit is a C++ library to provide a
    better C++/o-o friendly access to Motif, incidently, it does has its own
    Motif widgets) to Linux, we built it using Metrolink's Motif. Until the
    release of OpenMotif, every so often we would be surprised to see that
    lesstif was being used both by our builder and by ViewKit as "the" Motif. We
    had lots of problem reports as the gcc folks kept fooling with name
    demangling, but until we built with OM 2.x, we never had a binary
    compatibility problem with lesstif.

    My hat's off to the lesstif team on this one for all the hard work. As
    several posters have indicated, binary compatibility is hard.

    Mark



  8. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    da
    "Danny Backx" wrote in message
    news:3f71f379$0$837$ba620e4c@reader2.news.skynet.b e...
    > Mr. Berserker wrote:
    > > Danny Backx wrote in message
    > > news:<3f6a10fa$0$24194$ba620e4c@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
    > >> Ridge wrote:
    > >> > Erik de Castro Lopo wrote in
    > >> > news:3F676D36.A78CBA9B@mega-nerd.com:
    > >> >> Lesstif under the LGPL is not open enough?
    > >> >
    > >> > Lesstif has been in development for almost 10 years and is still in
    > >> > beta. Something is wrong with that picture.
    > >>
    > >> Yes there is. Many intelligent but misguided people started
    > >> developing and using junk such as gtk, qt, etc.

    > >
    > > Why are they junk??
    > >
    > >>
    > >> That was the original waste of time.

    > >
    > > Eh??

    >
    > I apologize for being overly cryptic but I wanted to bring a point
    > across without starting a war. I still don't want to start a war,
    > it's just that I'm bored with people saying only bad things about
    > Motif and/or LessTif, and only good things about Gtk+, Qt, ...
    >
    > As someone wrote, such opinions are essentially subjective to
    > some extent (who can say for sure whether one set of wheels
    > is better than another), and also quite boring.
    >
    > That said, the original writers of Gtk worked with Motif
    > for a while. They then decided that Motif was buggy, and wrote
    > their own equivalent. I doubt whether that's a good decision
    > in any case. That's why I say this is the original waste of
    > time.
    >
    > When writing Gtk, they decided not to use a number of standard
    > components of the X Window system, such as Xt, the mechanism
    > for specifying resources (Xrm), etc.
    >
    > In doing that, I believe they suffered from "Not Invented Here".
    >
    > I believe Qt makes the same mistakes but I'm not too knowledgeable
    > about it.
    >
    > After all that, all of the world started shouting that Gtk or Qt
    > applications looked better, while a good combination of resources
    > can provide just about the same flashy looks with Motif.
    >
    > All this is not to say that Motif is the best widget set around.
    > Nor do I mean to say that Gtk or Qt are all bad.
    >
    > But the opposite certainly isn't true either.
    >
    > Danny
    > --
    > Danny Backx (danny@gnu.org danny.backx@skynet.be)
    > Home page : http://users.skynet.be/danny.backx
    > Projects: LessTif (http://lesstif.sourceforge.net)
    > Xbae (http://xbae.sourceforge.net)




  9. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    I agree with what Danny ha
    "Danny Backx" wrote in message
    news:3f71f379$0$837$ba620e4c@reader2.news.skynet.b e...
    > Mr. Berserker wrote:
    > > Danny Backx wrote in message
    > > news:<3f6a10fa$0$24194$ba620e4c@reader0.news.skynet.be>...
    > >> Ridge wrote:
    > >> > Erik de Castro Lopo wrote in
    > >> > news:3F676D36.A78CBA9B@mega-nerd.com:
    > >> >> Lesstif under the LGPL is not open enough?
    > >> >
    > >> > Lesstif has been in development for almost 10 years and is still in
    > >> > beta. Something is wrong with that picture.
    > >>
    > >> Yes there is. Many intelligent but misguided people started
    > >> developing and using junk such as gtk, qt, etc.

    > >
    > > Why are they junk??
    > >
    > >>
    > >> That was the original waste of time.

    > >
    > > Eh??

    >
    > I apologize for being overly cryptic but I wanted to bring a point
    > across without starting a war. I still don't want to start a war,
    > it's just that I'm bored with people saying only bad things about
    > Motif and/or LessTif, and only good things about Gtk+, Qt, ...
    >
    > As someone wrote, such opinions are essentially subjective to
    > some extent (who can say for sure whether one set of wheels
    > is better than another), and also quite boring.
    >
    > That said, the original writers of Gtk worked with Motif
    > for a while. They then decided that Motif was buggy, and wrote
    > their own equivalent. I doubt whether that's a good decision
    > in any case. That's why I say this is the original waste of
    > time.
    >
    > When writing Gtk, they decided not to use a number of standard
    > components of the X Window system, such as Xt, the mechanism
    > for specifying resources (Xrm), etc.
    >
    > In doing that, I believe they suffered from "Not Invented Here".
    >
    > I believe Qt makes the same mistakes but I'm not too knowledgeable
    > about it.
    >
    > After all that, all of the world started shouting that Gtk or Qt
    > applications looked better, while a good combination of resources
    > can provide just about the same flashy looks with Motif.
    >
    > All this is not to say that Motif is the best widget set around.
    > Nor do I mean to say that Gtk or Qt are all bad.
    >
    > But the opposite certainly isn't true either.
    >
    > Danny
    > --
    > Danny Backx (danny@gnu.org danny.backx@skynet.be)
    > Home page : http://users.skynet.be/danny.backx
    > Projects: LessTif (http://lesstif.sourceforge.net)
    > Xbae (http://xbae.sourceforge.net)




  10. Re: LessTif Release 0.93.91 is out!

    In <3f664840@news.zianet.com> ray wrote:
    > Why do they bother? Download Open Motif from OSF.


    http://lesstif.sourceforge.net/future.html

    -r

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2