🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov2.185708.2641@bmw.mayo.edu> brunkhorst@mayo.edu writes:

>MIME is not overly impressive, at least compared to NeXTmail in presentation.
>Like a lot of standards, MIME will hamper "neat" UIs, as a lot of  
>works-in-progress seemed to think that MIME attachments cannot and should not  
>reflect any sort of integration (attachments 'fall' out of the document, in no 
>real order of interrelationships to the other attachments).

This just isn't true.  MIME is not a user interface, but a
specification for multipart mail.  The fact that existing MIME user
interfaces don't look as spiffy as NeXTmail doesn't mean that there's
a problem with MIME; it means an opportunity for NeXT to produce a
really wonderful MIME product.

Attachments can be included in any order, imbedded within other body
parts.  You are seeing an artifact of a primitive MIME user interface,
not a deficiency in the MIME protocol itself.  At least that's my
opinion, having closely watched and participated in the working group
defining the spec.

But NeXT will let this pass them by as they have other stuff since its
not part of the true NeXT religion.  Also, they are too small a
company, busy doing other essential things like rearranging C include
files.

The other neat stuff to see at InterOp is the audio (and coming,
video) conferencing over the network.  The past two IETF meetings had
audio teleconferencing across the Internet on a world-wide scope
(North Americal, Europe, Australia/NZ).

The NeXT would be an ideal plaform for this work, having a DSP to do
audio compression, etc.  Except for lack of IP multicasting support in
the kernel.  This would take all of 4 or 5 hours to install by someone
who knows what they're doing.  You can FTP the code from Stanford.
But right now, if you want to experiment with this stuff over the
Internet, you better have a Sun.  They are missing another golden
opportunity.  This apparently is not mission-critical enough.

louie

In article <1992Nov2.185708.2641@bmw.mayo.edu> brunkhorst@mayo.edu writes:
>
>Just got back from Interop in S.F.
>
>NeXT was not officially there, but was found in 3 booths, and NeXTworld
>had both Dan Ruby and Dan Lavin attending some of the show (I peeked
>in the email list, and also heard they attended the Pencom Hospitality suite.

I was pretty annoyed at NeXT not showing up for Interop.  They were
conspicuously absent at the Desktop conference track where software
development using distributed objects and integrating desktop machines
with enterprise networks were the hot topics.  

>
>Where NeXT was found:
>

Suite software was also there demoing on next's and sun's.  They do
some sort of distributed object manager.

-- 
Chris Maeda, Grad Student and RetroGrouch <cmaeda@cs.cmu.edu>
"A unix signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of
a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding
a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who."

In article <1992Nov2.185708.2641@bmw.mayo.edu> brunkhorst@mayo.edu (Geoff  
Brunkhorst) writes:
> 
> Just got back from Interop in S.F.
> 
> NeXT was not officially there, but was found in 3 booths, and NeXTworld
..

> Where NeXT was found:
> 

You missed two that I saw -- so that makes 5 -- my two:

Suite Software

OCGS (The Kerberos people)

Anymore seen out there?

And YES I think that NeXT should have been there...