Very Computer

by **Wen-Chun N** » Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:00:00

> XForms V0.81 for Linux/m68k and MkLinux is available from

> http://bragg.phys.uwm.edu/xforms
> ftp://laue.phys.uwm.edu/pub/xforms

> In addition, xforms is already available for Linux/i386,
> Linux/alpha and other unix platforms.

Many people are flaming QT for its copyright rules in the source.
I'd like to know what your folks think about binary release like
this. To me, it seems like a beta-testing before it goes to
commercial. If the original author(s) doesn't want to commercialize
the library, why can the source code be released? I know I know,
I am asking to much.

by **Phi** » Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:00:00

>Many people are flaming QT for its copyright rules in the source.
>I'd like to know what your folks think about binary release like
>this. To me, it seems like a beta-testing before it goes to
>commercial. If the original author(s) doesn't want to commercialize
>the library, why can the source code be released? I know I know,
>I am asking to much.

I'd rather the source code be released so that I can look
through it to make sure nothing crazy is going on such as
/etc/passwd and /etc/shadow being Emailed to various places!

-Phil

by **G Sumner Haye** » Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> > XForms V0.81 for Linux/m68k and MkLinux is available from

[SNIP]

> Many people are flaming QT for its copyright rules in the source.
> I'd like to know what your folks think about binary release like
> this. To me, it seems like a beta-testing before it goes to
> commercial.

There are other reasons not to release source code; the author may
want to prevent modified (and possibly buggy) versions from being
distributed, may not want to deal with helping (possibly clueless)
people figure out how to compile it, or may not want to deal with
incompatible libraries. They may think the code is simply too ugly to
be released, or may incorporate information only available under an
NDA.

That said, I would never use such a piece of software. I still use
xpdf rather than Acroread; I don't use Netscape; I don't use AFS.
Having source code is, to me, one of the primary reasons for using
Linux; I rarely touch it, but I like to know that it's there if I need
it and that if the author stops maintaining the code somebody else can
pick it up.

In the case of libraries (like Motif and XForms), I would certainly
_never_ develop software using libs I don't have source to. Bugs in
the libs are bugs in my apps, and I want to be able to debug the
applications I write. I can't comprehend how commercial software
houses (like Wordperfect, StarOffice, and others) can justify using
these libs; if their app exhibits broken behavior, customers will be
_pissed_ if the only response they give is, "Sorry, Motif is busted.
We can't do anything about it. Sucks to be you." At least the big
companies can get up the capital to buy a Motif source license if they
have to, but that seems unlikely for a lot of people who depend on it.
I can at least comprehend commercial houses using Qt, but it's still
too restrictive for my (admittedly radical) tastes. Grumble, grumble,
grumble.

TTFN,

Sumner

by **G Sumner Haye** » Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> I'd rather the source code be released so that I can look
> through it to make sure nothing crazy is going on such as
> /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow being Emailed to various places!

This shouldn't be _too_ big a problem if you don't run it as root, but
there are other reasons I'd avoid products I don't have the source
for. (What if I decide to run SparcLinux or Alpha Linux? Intel
binaries won't help me...)

TTFN,

Sumner

by **Chris Cann** » Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:00:00

:
: In the case of libraries (like Motif and XForms), I would certainly
: _never_ develop software using libs I don't have source to. Bugs in
: the libs are bugs in my apps, and I want to be able to debug the
: applications I write.

I don't know much about XForms; but I downloaded it once just so as to
be able to build LyX. I soon realised I had the wrong version -- the
program failed to build because the XForms API had changed. Instead
of going and getting the right release immediately, I hacked the
XForms calls in LyX to see if I could make it work. I got it to
build, but when I ran it the entire user interface appeared on screen
_upside-down_.

Granted this is a pretty cool effect to get, and it was soon dealt
with (by going and getting a different version of the library), but it
made me very wary.

I can understand the API changing in a small project like XForms; I
know if I'd written it I'd resent the idea that my original
(presumably) flawed interface design would have to stay that way just
because someone somewhere was using it. But I'd hate to be writing
something like LyX, labouring under the knowledge that all it takes is
for a couple of calls in a library somewhere else to change, and my
program will immediately stop working. At least if the XForms sources
were freely distributable, the LyX people could have made sure that
*some* working version, even if not the latest, was always available
along with their own software.

(btw, I don't think of Motif in quite the same light. At least with
Motif you're pretty safe on most of the commercial platforms, Sun
partly excluded. I would never release free software that required
it, because I wouldn't like to be responsible for guaranteeing working
binary distributions, but I'd be far less concerned if it was
commercial software I was writing anyway. Having said which, maybe I
should add that I hate Motif and would like it to die a horrible
gurgling death. Bring back OPEN LOOK, that's what I say. And another
thing, in my day we had... er. a-hem.)

Chris
--
7B DE F9 8A 47 A0 4D 37 15 3B 87 0E 6B BE 08 24

by **Asger K. Alstrup Niels** » Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:00:00

>I don't know much about XForms; but I downloaded it once just so as to
>be able to build LyX. I soon realised I had the wrong version -- the
>program failed to build because the XForms API had changed. Instead
>of going and getting the right release immediately, I hacked the
>XForms calls in LyX to see if I could make it work. I got it to
>build, but when I ran it the entire user interface appeared on screen
>_upside-down_.

First of all, I'm part of the LyX effort, which is a free word
processor for Unix based on XForms. More info on:

http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/ettrich/

However, I speak only for myself in this reply.

Quote:>Granted this is a pretty cool effect to get, and it was soon dealt
>with (by going and getting a different version of the library), but it
>made me very wary.

It is correct that xforms changed so that all forms went upside down,
but a switch was also provided to keep the old behaviour, but the LyX
team switched to the new code. It was relatively easy because xforms
has a GUI-builder and one could use that one to produce the new forms
from the old GUI-files.

Quote:>I can understand the API changing in a small project like XForms; I
>know if I'd written it I'd resent the idea that my original
>(presumably) flawed interface design would have to stay that way just
>because someone somewhere was using it. But I'd hate to be writing
>something like LyX, labouring under the knowledge that all it takes is
>for a couple of calls in a library somewhere else to change, and my
>program will immediately stop working. At least if the XForms sources
>were freely distributable, the LyX people could have made sure that
>*some* working version, even if not the latest, was always available
>along with their own software.

Matthias Ettrich, the original author of LyX, chose XForms because
Motif wasn't free. Today, the LyX team would really like to have the
source for XForms, because we encounter different problems from time
to time, but as that is not available, we've evaluated different
toolkits, but none so far has been up to the standards of XForms
in respect to widget set and speed.

XForms is a good toolkit and I understand why the source isn't free,
but it would be better if it was, simply because a lot of bugs that
the XForms people don't have time to fix, would be fixed.

Greets,

Asger Alstrup

by **Chris Cann** » Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:00:00

:
: Today, the LyX team would really like to have the source for
: XForms, because we encounter different problems from time to time,
: but as that is not available, we've evaluated different toolkits,
: but none so far has been up to the standards of XForms in respect
: to widget set and speed.

I strongly sympathise with this. My spare-time project (that'll be
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~masjpf/rose.html since we're quoting URLs) has
a moderately ugly Xt/Athena interface. I've put quite a lot of effort
into making it as nice as possible despite using Athena, but there are
a lot of things (mostly involving menus) that just can't be done in a
reasonable way. And yet I still haven't found another comparable
library: Athena is fairly simple and slimline, it's free, you can get
the sources, almost everyone has the headers and libraries at least
and it does kind of work. It's still crap, but if I was starting the
project now I'd probably use it. Is there really nothing better? All
this wasted expertise...

Chris
--
Chris Cannam

by **Zeyd M. Ben-Hal** » Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:00:00

>In the case of libraries (like Motif and XForms), I would certainly
>_never_ develop software using libs I don't have source to. Bugs in
>the libs are bugs in my apps, and I want to be able to debug the
>applications I write.

Weel, we have the source code for XView, but nobody seems to want to develop
for it. So there must be something else that cause people to mkae such
decisions.

Zeyd
--
---

NCURSES is available from ftp.netcom.com:pub/zm/zmbenhal/ncurses
Current version is 1.9.9e

by **G Sumner Haye** » Wed, 02 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> >In the case of libraries (like Motif and XForms), I would certainly
> >_never_ develop software using libs I don't have source to. Bugs in
> >the libs are bugs in my apps, and I want to be able to debug the
> >applications I write.

> Weel, we have the source code for XView, but nobody seems to want to develop
> for it. So there must be something else that cause people to mkae such
> decisions.

XView isn't all that pretty and doesn't match most people's desktops.
I generally use Tk, which has full source, easy extensability, is
widely available, and has a Motif appearance.

TTFN,

Sumner

by **Haavard No** » Wed, 02 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> I strongly sympathise with this. My spare-time project (that'll be
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~masjpf/rose.html since we're quoting URLs) has
> a moderately ugly Xt/Athena interface. I've put quite a lot of effort
> into making it as nice as possible despite using Athena, but there are
> a lot of things (mostly involving menus) that just can't be done in a
> reasonable way. And yet I still haven't found another comparable
> library: Athena is fairly simple and slimline, it's free, you can get
> the sources, almost everyone has the headers and libraries at least
> and it does kind of work. It's still crap, but if I was starting the
> project now I'd probably use it. Is there really nothing better? All
> this wasted expertise...

Have a look at Qt, http://www.troll.no/
* Qt is a commercial product, but it's free for free software development
* You get the full source code
* Its fully object oriented (C++)
* Qt is _fast_

-haavard (on of the Qt developers)
--

PO Box 6133 Etterstad, 0602 Oslo, Norway | Fax : +47 22646949

by **Mikko Rauha** » Thu, 03 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:>XView isn't all that pretty and doesn't match most people's desktops.
>I generally use Tk, which has full source, easy extensability, is
>widely available, and has a Motif appearance.

I just had a look at EZWGL, which is a widget and graphics (subset of
OpenGL, I think) library with a Motif appearance. It looked rather nice,
and the can't complain about the speed either. Also, it's LGPL'ed and thus
comes with full source, which is more than what you can say about Xforms
(otherwise a rather nice library).

- Mjr, sivari

I speak for me, myself and I only

by **Sascha Zieman** » Fri, 04 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> Weel, we have the source code for XView, but nobody seems to want to develop
> for it. So there must be something else that cause people to mkae such
> decisions.

Yes. No one looks at XView. And I am wondering why a project like XForms
was started. I think XForms is nearly the same like XView with a
different look and feel. There are many strange reasons for peoples
decisions.

-- bis sp?ter...
- Sascha ---<~>=( http://www.ping.de/sites/aibon/ )=<~>---

() Free speech online
/\ http://www.eff.org/BlueRibbon/bluehtml.html

by **Sascha Zieman** » Fri, 04 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> XView isn't all that pretty and doesn't match most people's desktops.
> I generally use Tk, which has full source, easy extensability, is
> widely available, and has a Motif appearance.

That's the biggest problem! A GUI-lib is allways assessed by the look
and feel, although the look and feel is absolutely unimportant for the
question, weather a GUI is good, easy to program, not buggy etc. So
everybody writes his own gui-lib only because the others don't look
"good enough".

I think, that the Look and Feel of a GUI has to be defined by the user.
A good GUI has NO Look and Feel! It must be possible to select the Look
and Feel like a set of colors.

-- bis sp?ter...
- Sascha ---<~>=( http://www.ping.de/sites/aibon/ )=<~>---

() Free speech online
/\ http://www.eff.org/BlueRibbon/bluehtml.html

by **E. Kevin Hal** » Sat, 05 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> I think, that the Look and Feel of a GUI has to be defined by the user.
> A good GUI has NO Look and Feel!

Thus Xlib... ;)

--
---------------------------------
E. Kevin Hall

http://www.ultranet.com/~bjhall

by **Nathan Denn** » Sat, 05 Oct 1996 04:00:00

> > XView isn't all that pretty and doesn't match most people's desktops.
> > I generally use Tk, which has full source, easy extensability, is
> > widely available, and has a Motif appearance.

> That's the biggest problem! A GUI-lib is allways assessed by the look
> and feel, although the look and feel is absolutely unimportant for the
> question, weather a GUI is good, easy to program, not buggy etc. So
> everybody writes his own gui-lib only because the others don't look
> "good enough".

> I think, that the Look and Feel of a GUI has to be defined by the user.
> A good GUI has NO Look and Feel! It must be possible to select the Look
> and Feel like a set of colors.

> -- bis sp?ter...
> - Sascha ---<~>=( http://www.ping.de/sites/aibon/ )=<~>---

> () Free speech online
> /\ http://www.eff.org/BlueRibbon/bluehtml.html

In a more ideal world, user defined GUI's sounds great. But in the case where
your supplying your application to other, less literate users, then a STANDARD
GUI, that looks good to the user is really more important than ease of
programming. (However, I don't believe it's worth buggy code.)

I haven't seen every X-development package, but I think the X community of
applications and extensions could really learn a lot from more mature (from
a user perspective) GUI's such as MacOs and Windows. M$ Windows is really
taking the nose dive into 4GLs that aid in GUI. X really needs to do the same.
XForms is nice, but it doesn't seem to be in the same league as say, Borland's
Delphi.

I'm starting to climb the soap box so I'll stop now. Just my $1.23 worth.

Nate:SCHCATS!

Very Computer

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder

XForms V0.81 - X11 GUI toolkit & Builder