On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Kai Henningsen wrote: > I've been thinking for years that there's need for a replacement for X > that keeps the networking features, adds local processing in the display > server (network performance, especially on slow links, is a real problem > with X), and adds a much larger set of what X people call widgets or > stuff, that is, a library for all the commonly needed user interface > elements (so it's easier to get some sort of common look to programs, > which is something X is very bad on).
There is no technical problem with creating a library with all the commonly needed user interface elements in it. The problem is a political one: persuading everybody to use it. Micro$oft managed it by introducing a system that wasn't compatible with anything that already existed, and constrained people to use the user interface elements that they had created. Over the next few years, people gradually worked out ways of putting their own user interface back into Windows (snazzy buttons, extra types of list box, shadow/relief boxes, 'embossed' windows, etc.) Looks like people inventing their own user interfaces is a fact of life. I don't like it, but I don't think there's much we can do about it other than completely closing the development process, which won't work. > During the last months, I've finally seen a way to get there without > ending in a very small niche. > > Do it with Java. Ugh, no! Steve Early [EMAIL PROTECTED]
