> There is no "CDE era" Motif. Version 2.1 of Motif is > not "ancient and > obsolete", as you claim. Motif has been very stable > with no major > changes. Your "perception" about the messages being > meant as references > to only Sun's version of Motif are just as invalid as > those of Alan Coopersmiths.
_On [Open]Solaris_, all people are going to care about is what comes with it. If the folks that maintain the OS distro say that the (possibly crippled or divergent - for example, the XmPrint* functions are missing) version they supply doesn't do something, it probably doesn't. Please prove otherwise or _drop it_. You're not helping. FWIW, some of us _like_ Motif, and will continue to do so regardless of whether the vendor wants it to go away or you want to be obnoxious. (For an example of a program that uses Motif very nicely indeed, take a look at xephem some time. _That_ IMO is how X resources _ought_ to be handled, with the _program_ providing the means of maintaining a separate defaults file for it, so nobody has to go around adding magic utterances to .Xdefaults.) While I would usually follow the advice of avoiding new development for something being given only legacy support by the _distro_ maintainer (regardless of what the level of upstream support may be), in this case, I think there are alternatives, so I for one am no more influenced by the comments of Sun employees than I am by your counterproductive attitude (insofar as making noises about lawyers _doesn't improve the support on this platform_). And I wouldn't be surprised if others that for whatever reason wish to continue using (and even developing with) Motif are equally unimpressed by either stance. The only job I see for lawyers is for someone to decide if OpenMotif's not-quite-open license allows it to be used on OpenSolaris, in which case, it might be amusing if someone would determine if, _on OpenSolaris_ (never mind what's _supposed_ to be true generically), current OpenMotif is _binary_ compatible with whatever 2.x version Sun has historically provided as part of their distribution of CDE (which is a bit odd in its own right, in terms of being a 1.x CDE enhanced nearly or in some ways beyond 2.x CDE). If so, it could arguably be used as a replacement (on OpenSolaris only); if not, what with crle and LD_LIBRARY_PATH and such, it could probably be packaged to install somewhere other than /usr/dt/lib as an _alternative_. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
