Article View: comp.sys.next.misc
Article #3726Re: Dropping bundled applications (was: Re: 3.0 and WriteNow)
From: felix.lugo
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 15:38
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 15:38
57 lines
3099 bytes
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!cocoReferences:
<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