🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.next.misc
Article #3726

Re: Dropping bundled applications (was: Re: 3.0 and WriteNow)

#3726
From: felix.lugo
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 15:38
57 lines
3099 bytes
In article <dillon.0osr@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct3.010449.12785@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> coco@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (felix.lugo) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.091430.11860@ITcorp.com> geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>>>
>>>How come the release keeps getting bigger, yet the functionality
>>>continues to shrink?
>>>--
>>>	Geoff Kuenning	 geoff@ITcorp.com   uunet!desint!geoff
>>
>>
>>	SHRINK??????  What do you call PostScript Level II, Interactive/Photo-
>>realistic RenderMan/3DKit, AppleTalk, NetWare, PANTONE Color, Macintosh FS,
>>Application Links, CD-ROM, DBKit, Distributed Objects, ISDN/PhoneKit, the
>>Workspace now reuses emptied icon slots on the screen and setuid/gid files
>>are displayed in the File Viewer's "listing" mode 8^), etc.
>>
>>	What got unbundled?  WriteNow!	MusicKit!  /usr/include?  8^)
>>
>>--Felix
>
>    'Look at the pretty pictures ma'!!  All this stuff is great for
>    programmers like us but all the user community sees are the
>    applications that use them, and if the applications aren't there then
>    you are kinda in trouble.
>
>--
>
>    Matthew Dillon		dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
>    1005 Apollo Way		uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
>    Incline Village, NV. 89451	ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
>    USA 			Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000
>

	In functional terms, 3.0 got bigger due to all of the above
"features".  Functionality in 3.0, if anything, did not shrink!  I thought
my point was clear; WriteNow got unbundled, but look "ma!" at all the other
goodies that got BUNDLED!

	And yes, all these are great for programmers (I personally prefer
the term "software developer" though), but the end-result is that users
benefit from having them in their base system.  And this is exaclty what NeXT
is providing; a set of common tools/features that developers can mold and
exploit to create powerful end-user applications.  Either way, why should
NeXT be responsible for supplying end-user applications?  That's the reason
third-party companies were invented!

	Personally, I'm glad NeXT decided to drop WriteNow and move their
efforts to providing things like PSII and application links.  Now, if they
would only push their development staff to FIX all the problems that still
exist (and have existed for quite some time, like the Librarian)!?

	Anyway, this all is just my opinion, and you're certainly entitled to
yours ...


G'day,
--Felix
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.153839.16226@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!math.fu-berlin.de!Sirius.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsc!cbfsb!att-out!cbnewsl!coco
References: <1992Oct2.091430.11860@ITcorp.com> <1992Oct3.010449.12785@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <dillon.0osr@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!math.fu-berlin.de!Sirius.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsc!cbfsb!att-out!cbnewsl!coco
From: coco@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (felix.lugo)
Subject: Re:  Dropping bundled applications (was: Re: 3.0 and WriteNow)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:38:39 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct4.153839.16226@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
References: <1992Oct2.091430.11860@ITcorp.com> <1992Oct3.010449.12785@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <dillon.0osr@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
Lines: 58