[ale] Object Model on Linux...and GUI

[Omar Loggiodice]

R I Feigenblatt Writes :

:
:While Apple is now on its back, seeming to have caught engineering
:palookavillitis from its intimate congresses with IBM, (Taligent
:and Kaleida, RIP; PowerPC next?) Microsoft is addressing the question
:of client-server computing with its Distributed Common Object Model.
:Within the Web world per se, Microsoft is reaching BEYOND the
:Windows platform by delivering an SDK for creating ActiveX widgets
:as native Mac binaries, with Unix to follow, one wishes soon.

Unfortunately, IMHO, this is a very smart *marketing* move made by
Microsoft. They do have one of the most precious assets a company can have
these days: The undisturbed attention of the media. This is extremely
important for two reasons:

   1. The media has a tremendous impact in the software industry, often
having the effect of creating --potentially long-- waves of market activity,
that are not necesarily based on any technical reasoning.

   2. When technology is presented in the media as "new, good, great and
important" masses of developers join the wave in the hopes of staying
"current" and "marketable".

  Now, consider Microsoft's announcement in light of the above (Jun 96):
They promised to make ActiveX an open standard, with initial deployment on
Windows, with future platforms --including Unix-- to follow. The net effect
on the public is the belief that the issues raised by Netscape about
closely-held technology (as opposed to open standards) are being addressed.
The second effect is that because of all the power, associations, and joint
ventures that Microsoft has, ActiveX is embraced by the industry. *THIS* was
Microsoft goal. Now that it has achieved it, it does the following (taken
from an InformationWeek newsflash in netscape's site):

----- START
[...]
"We've had a couple of last-minute changes," said a Microsoft spokesperson,
saying that the company "wants to better define for the public what the
standards process is going to entail, and how these more than 100 companies
supporting the initiative are going to be involved." 

Sources say it will be "a few weeks" before Microsoft releases complete
details about the standards process, including when and where the working
group will initially convene. 

The devil is in the complete details. Information about how the group will
function, how members will be appointed, and what the voting process will be
is critical to determining whether the body governing ActiveX will be truly
independent or a Microsoft puppet.
[...]
-------END-- full article is in
http://home.netscape.com/comprod/products/navigator
/version_3.0/review.html#gen6

Microsoft obtained what they wanted. Having an open standard is not
beneficial for them. So they will stall the effort to have an open standard
available for strong competing platforms, such as Unix. If --at all-- they
transfer the ownership of the technology to an independent organization; it
will be to late.

This, BTW, does not imply that the free software community is helpless. It
does, however, pose an obstacle. Projects, like wine, will arise and try to
address the balance issues in an unbalanced ground: running the race behind
Microsoft.

Personally, I don't believe Microsoft "is evil". They have taken many steps
that I consider unethical and unfair. And in general, I am rather disgusted
by some of their activities. But they have also contributed enourmously to
the software industry and the improvement of human-machine interfaces.

What I believe is the fairest, best solution is the creation of
open-standards that support other (maybe platform-specific)
standards/technology through a generic mechanism. The example I have in
mind: The javaBeans project undertaken by Sun. Take a look at
http://www.javasoft.com:81/products/apiOverview.html#beans for more
information.

Unfortunately, JavaBeans is a language specific technology.

:With the merging of Internet Explorer (Web browser) and Explorer
:(the Windows file manager) in the Nashville release, it is clear
:Web standards will be a driving force of the Microsoft Windows GUI.
:And with Netscape embracing ActiveX in a stunning turn-around, it is
:clear that Windows components will play a big role in the Web's future.

As far as I know Netscape, hasn't embraced activeX as a core technology. If
you can point me to a press release, or other information I'll appreciate
it. They do, however, openly support OLE/ActiveX through a thrid-party
plugin. The do not support it as part of their core development
models/products (such as Netscape One).

I agree though, Windows components are playing a big role _now_, and will
probably do so in the future. This is not a problem, if the industry can come
up with an open standard that supports all the other platform-specific models.

You can argue that CORBA is such a standard. I completely agree. The main
problem is the problem of X: it is completely open, and support for specific
platforms is not required by the standard. This is were, IMHO, JavaBeans is
doing it right: They support, as part of the requirements of the API,
platform specific technology and the libraries and utilities to support it
will be part of the development tools. Making it orders of magnitude easier
for the developers to use the API as well as *requiring* that functionality
from third-party vendors.

:One disturbing issue to those of us interested in free Unix flavors
:like Linux and BSD, is that the new plans for Broadway do NOT extend
:to the XFree86 server on which these users depend, according to an
:article in the January 1997 edition of "Unix Review". This is especially
:troubling as the non-profit X Consortium will fold up shop and give

Hmm....Broadway will still be freely available. X.Fast is just the new name
for LBX, and some of the development of it has been done in Xfree86. I
really doubt that support for the "new LBX" (aka X.Fast) is not available
as either a patch or part of a core release of Xfree86 (given the fact that
LBX *is* available *now* for Xfree86). Check the linux LBX mini-howto for more
info.

BTW, I haven't read the Unix Review article, but this won't be the first
time information is misprinted :)

I wanted to write a little bit more, by my wife is calling me :))


-- 
____________________________________________________________________
            /   __  __  __  - __  __ / - _  __  ologgio at vrainn.com
  Omar R.  /__ /_/ /_/ /_/ / /_/ /_/ / /_  /-_  CIS: 74040,1543
                  __/ __/                         
___C++/6_yrs____Virtual Reality/4_yrs____Vorl_____Linux(free)_______
Apple ]['s, remember Applesoft?