Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Posted Oct 25, 2012 15:53 UTC (Thu) by leandro (guest, #1460)
Posted Oct 25, 2012 16:42 UTC (Thu) by ledow (guest, #11753)
Why do that to your text?
Posted Oct 25, 2012 19:21 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
Posted Oct 26, 2012 21:34 UTC (Fri) by jond (subscriber, #37669)
Posted Oct 27, 2012 9:20 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Oct 25, 2012 18:23 UTC (Thu) by thyrsus (subscriber, #21004)
Posted Oct 26, 2012 5:09 UTC (Fri) by jensend (guest, #1385)
Even more radically, if Motif and CDE had been open-sourced in 1994, I think the world would be a drastically different place now.
Imagine copies of 4.4BSD-Lite (or Linux 1.1 + GNU userland) with Motif, CDE, and all the old unixy X11 stuff being available for free a year before Win95 and two years before NT4. (NT4 was the first version of Windows a lot of workstation people took seriously.) Lots of major commercial software vendors already had Motif versions that were more polished than their Windows versions all the way until c. 1998.
With free Unices running on commodity hardware with the leading workstation-class desktop and open source development momentum, the huge workstation marketshare shift from Unix to Windows might never have happened.
Posted Oct 30, 2012 14:28 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Posted Oct 30, 2012 14:52 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Oct 25, 2012 16:18 UTC (Thu) by josh (subscriber, #17465)
Posted Oct 25, 2012 16:46 UTC (Thu) by alexl (subscriber, #19068)
We are looking for help. Our copy/paste code in /lib/Xm-2.1/CutPaste.c needs some serious attention as it is likely the cause of a lot of trouble. Unfortunately the original authors of lesstif have moved on and the current maintainers are not up to the task. If you can help, please contact us via the mailing list: lesstif-discuss - at - lists.sourceforge.net.
Posted Oct 25, 2012 21:37 UTC (Thu) by barryascott (subscriber, #80640)
Posted Oct 25, 2012 22:12 UTC (Thu) by jonquark (subscriber, #45554)
Posted Nov 2, 2012 0:10 UTC (Fri) by lacos (subscriber, #70616)
Dead keys are fully unusable in NEdit (or xpdf, or...) if the app in question was built with lesstif. For some time now I used to build my NEdit against OpenMotif-2.1.32-2_IST, downloaded from <http://www.ist.co.uk/DOWNLOADS/motif_download.html> (source is also available there, under the Open Group license). It works great!
Before I found the page linked above, I had been struggling with OpenMotif 2.2. Unfortunately, it proved extremely unstable, to the point that NEdit was unusable with it, and IIRC NEdit developers explicitly recommended building NEdit with motif 2.1.x.
The IST page linked above speaks about 2.2's experimental nature too. Interestingly, even 2.3 is qualified as such! Hence I'm not holding my breath. This licensing change may allow distros to distribute openmotif-2.3.x, but what I care about is 2.1.x. Distros won't pick it up because of the Open Group license, but (a) 2.1.x works for me, (b) I can look at the source if I want to. Good enough for me in this case.
Posted Oct 26, 2012 0:33 UTC (Fri) by jwoithe (subscriber, #10521)
It's likely that the current version of the environment no longer has this dependency: most of the components had been migrated away from Motif (to Qt I think), but in 2010 there was still one holdout.
Certainly the relevance of Motif today is extremely limited, but there are some corner cases where it is (sadly) still required.
Posted Oct 25, 2012 17:03 UTC (Thu) by realnc (guest, #60393)
Posted Oct 26, 2012 11:16 UTC (Fri) by juliank (subscriber, #45896)
Posted Oct 25, 2012 18:01 UTC (Thu) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736)
Posted Oct 25, 2012 19:48 UTC (Thu) by jl2 (guest, #87456)
CDE and Motif
Posted Oct 25, 2012 21:55 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565)
mwm, for its time, was a nice window manager. Largely similar in capabilities to fvwm2 today, though mwm had the ability to separately specify window border color properties that, to the best of my knowledge, fvwm couldn't. Something I used at the time to subtly indicate active vs. inactive windows.
Really, none of which matters to me in the least.
Today's news is an interesting footnote, and may assist a few projects, but other than proving the point of the value and obviousness of Free Software licensing over propriety alternatives, won't have much impact. My prediction.
Posted Oct 28, 2012 17:24 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Nov 1, 2012 16:33 UTC (Thu) by jtc (subscriber, #6246)
Well... - that's because they are really clunky; not opinion, just objective reality.
Posted Oct 27, 2012 14:41 UTC (Sat) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
Since when? I thought the entire point of Lesstif was to be as compatible as humanly possible. The shared library names it provides are identical. The ABI it provides is either identical or really close.
I used to run commercial Motif dependent software with reasonable success with Lesstif substituted instead. That is a pretty high bar for compatibility.
Posted Nov 2, 2012 0:16 UTC (Fri) by lacos (subscriber, #70616)
<dead_tilde> <O> : "\325" Odoubleacute
in your ~/.XCompose, and then expect '~' followed by an 'O' to produce 'Ő'.)
This works with OpenMotif-2.1.32 (in NEdit for example), but no lesstif I've seen can do it.
Posted Oct 26, 2012 0:11 UTC (Fri) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
Motif was one of the first proprietary libraries that I tried to chase a bug into (and failed, due to lack of source). It was part of the onslaught of proprietary software I had to deal with that turned me into a Free Software zealot. Sadly, I don't even recall what the bug was; since we didn't have support contract on our DecStations when I was an undergrad, I could never report it.
Of course, liberating code is the last bastion to rekindle relevancy, but in this case, 20 years late may indeed be too late.
Still good news
Posted Oct 26, 2012 14:31 UTC (Fri) by david.a.wheeler (guest, #72896)
As a widely-useful library, it's way too late. But it's still good news:
Posted Oct 26, 2012 21:49 UTC (Fri) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545)
Was a hair's breath away from ordering Novel Unixware with a Motif development license, when low and behold, I saw an add in the back of Dr. Dobb's Journal for this thing called Linux that came with a Motif development license for a mere $90. Ordered it, got a box of 40 something floppy disks.
Dual booted my Windows NT beta program computer. Four months later, realized I hadn't rebooted into windows in that whole time. Haven't run windows at home since.
All thanks to Motif.
Posted Oct 29, 2012 13:29 UTC (Mon) by kskatrh (subscriber, #73410)
Most of the world is unlikely to care much? I think you're missing the point.
Getting it released as FOSS — even twenty years later — sets a precedent for putting valuable works into open source.
And if, by doing this, it helps get something else into open source, then that's a huge victory for open source.
The other victory of course, is that now the source is out there, rather than being locked up for the rest of time. (Well, it was never locked up if you were willing to pay for a license, but that's besides the point.)
Posted Oct 29, 2012 14:37 UTC (Mon) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Posted Oct 29, 2012 14:57 UTC (Mon) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855)
I cannot honestly understand why LGPL v2.1 was chosen as the license.
for something like Motif, which ought to be used only for code archaeology or teaching, BSD/MIT/X11 (or even public domain, at this point) would be a far better choice.
Posted Nov 1, 2012 16:54 UTC (Thu) by zmower (subscriber, #3005)
Posted Nov 5, 2012 13:55 UTC (Mon) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
Not just for archeology, although having historic stuff available is great (e.g. in case of the 4.xBSD documentation and papers which the modern BSDs can ship since a while) or even useful (some oldish code to replace less free modern code also helped the BSDs), but also for competition.
Sure, CDE looks “different”, but, to be honest, what doesn’t, these days? When I first saw KDE 4 and Windows® 7, I couldn’t decide on which looked worse (but decided they looked alike). GNOME 3 is a disaster that needs no explanation (although I never liked GNOME), and Unity, well… is very polarising. LXDE and Xfce are niche systems and, just like GNUstep, look and feel totally different. So, why not CDE?
I might give it a try. Or not. But still, it’s nice to have the choice.
Posted Nov 5, 2012 16:39 UTC (Mon) by ortalo (subscriber, #4654)
Anyway, there may be something still important in a such a news: the confidence it gives. We were right. (Whatever you notion of we is, I guess it's similar to mine).
Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds