Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why motif? (Newbie)

36 views
Skip to first unread message

Morgan Fletcher

unread,
Jun 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/27/95
to
I work in a company which uses sparcs and SunOS, with a Sun X server and
twm for window managers. I've become fairly comfortable with the UNIX
tools and environment as they're implemented here. I'm self-taught, and
so haven't experienced UNIX in an academic environment.

I`ve setup Linux at home, and I've got it fairly "dialed," which is to
say I've got X running the way I want it, olvwm running the way I want
it, a stable and fast system, and connectivity to the net and to work.

I've never used a system with Motif, nor seen one in action.

Why would someone want it? I know why it costs $$, but why would anyone
buy it? Is there anything superior about it to the existing GUI tools for
*NIX? Or is it desirable because so much source code requires it, and
therefore it's necessary to run many apps?

I'll pay for anything that's useful -- in fact I feel a bit guilty that
I've got such a great OS as Linux for the small price of a CD-ROM
distribution. But I've yet to see why I'd want motif.

Please tell me.

morgan

Miguel de Icaza

unread,
Jun 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/27/95
to

> I've never used a system with Motif, nor seen one in action.
>
> Why would someone want it? I know why it costs $$, but why would anyone
> buy it? Is there anything superior about it to the existing GUI tools for
> *NIX? Or is it desirable because so much source code requires it, and
> therefore it's necessary to run many apps?

Well, you may want it because many people have it and there are some
applications out there that require Motif to compile, but besides that
Motif is a software disaster: It's big and slow, it's hard to
program.

If you want to compile Motif applications I would wait for the LessTif
project, they will be providing a Free implementation of the Motif
API check: http://www.cs.uidaho.edu:8000/hungry/microshaft/xword.html,
they have a link there to the LessTif project.

In the other hand, if you want to code your own GUI capable
applications I would use Tcl/Tk, Guile/Tk or Sun's free XView toolkit.

> I'll pay for anything that's useful -- in fact I feel a bit guilty that
> I've got such a great OS as Linux for the small price of a CD-ROM
> distribution. But I've yet to see why I'd want motif.

Maybe you could make a donation to the Free Software Foundation or to
the LInux Grant Fund (check the Linux web pages, you will find them
quite fast, there should be a Linux link close to you).

Miguel.

--
mig...@roxanne.nuclecu.unam.mx
The Midnight Commander: http://stekt.oulu.fi/~jtklehto/mc/

Kent A Vander Velden

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to


>> I've never used a system with Motif, nor seen one in action.
>>
>> Why would someone want it? I know why it costs $$, but why would anyone
>> buy it? Is there anything superior about it to the existing GUI tools for
>> *NIX? Or is it desirable because so much source code requires it, and
>> therefore it's necessary to run many apps?

>Well, you may want it because many people have it and there are some
>applications out there that require Motif to compile, but besides that
>Motif is a software disaster: It's big and slow, it's hard to
>program.

Software disaster? That is rather harsh. I would have to
admit that the executables of applications that are Motif
based are generally larger than those that are not Motif
based but I would have to disagree with your blind
suggestion that it is hard to program. Would you want to
write an entire interface including file selection dialogs,
menus, and buttons all in XLib?

You mentioned Tcl/Tk... you surely do not find Motif to be
slower than those do you? They are nice to use to prototype
an interface but I do not think that I would release a
product that used them entirely over a product that was
based on Motif.

--
Kent Vander Velden
gra...@iastate.edu


???????

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
In article <graphix....@isua2.iastate.edu>, gra...@iastate.edu says...

>
> Software disaster? That is rather harsh. I would have to
>admit that the executables of applications that are Motif
>based are generally larger than those that are not Motif
>based but I would have to disagree with your blind
>suggestion that it is hard to program.
>
To quote the "UNIX-HATERS' Handbook", the Motif toolkit is better named the
Motif Self-Abuse Kit. :-) I have had the fortunate experience to have used Motif on
an HP 9000 Series 835 -- which had an extremely fast RISC microprocessor and over
100MB of RAM. Needless to say, I noticed absolutely no slowdown over other window
managers. However, I have read article after article of people complaining about
Motif; "It's slow", "It creates HUGE executables -- try fitting one onto a floppy!
Go ahead, use gzip, that's not cheating! You still won't fit it!" Etc. Yes, Motif
has a lot* of nice features, it's a very visually pleasing interface, but you need
Arnold Schwartzenegger hardware to run it.


Ross Alexander

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
lyn...@visi.com (???????) writes:

>[...] Yes, Motif has a lot* of nice features, it's a very visually


>pleasing interface, but you need Arnold Schwartzenegger hardware to
>run it.

I found it very busy and overdecorated. Naturally, that's just a
personal esthetic thing. The first move I made on my Alpha
workstation was to get rid of mwm and all those silly motif based
tools DEC pushes at the unwary. I got a lot of screen real estate and
a fair chunk of RAM back for my effort, plus of course things run a
bit faster due to reduced VM pressure. A nice secondary benefit is
that now my BSDi machine at home and my Alpha at work present an
identical interface; no more do I have to switch mental gears twice a
day.

regards,
Ross

--
Ross Alexander, ve6pdq -- (403) 675 6311 -- r...@cs.athabascau.ca

Linh Dang

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
??????? (lyn...@visi.com) wrote:
: In article <graphix....@isua2.iastate.edu>, gra...@iastate.edu says...

: >
: > Software disaster? That is rather harsh. I would have to
: >admit that the executables of applications that are Motif
: >based are generally larger than those that are not Motif
: >based but I would have to disagree with your blind
: >suggestion that it is hard to program.
: >
: To quote the "UNIX-HATERS' Handbook", the Motif toolkit is better named the
: Motif Self-Abuse Kit. :-) I have had the fortunate experience to have used Motif on
: an HP 9000 Series 835 -- which had an extremely fast RISC microprocessor and over
: 100MB of RAM. Needless to say, I noticed absolutely no slowdown over other window
: managers. However, I have read article after article of people complaining about

Sorry if other ppl have already said these:

What's Motif ???
Motif is..
1) a look&feel
- produced by various tookits such as Tk, XForms, FormsVBT
and (of course) the Motif tookit :-)
- used by Fvwm (an window manager) to decorate windows
- originaly developed at IBM (???)

2) an X Tookit
- combining the Intrinsics (Xt), a widgets set and lot of
convienient functions.
- which is IMHO a pain in the deriere to use (vs XForms,XView ...)
- which produce huge execs.
- commercialy a distributed by OSF but the API is in the
public domain (???)

3) a window manager (mwm)
- which, IMHO, sucks (vs Fvwm)


--------------------
L.D.

: Motif; "It's slow", "It creates HUGE executables -- try fitting one onto a floppy!
: Go ahead, use gzip, that's not cheating! You still won't fit it!" Etc. Yes, Motif

Ravi Krishna Swamy

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
In article <3ss260$j...@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca> r...@cs.athabascau.ca (Ross Alexander) writes:
>lyn...@visi.com (???????) writes:
>
>>[...] Yes, Motif has a lot* of nice features, it's a very visually

>>pleasing interface, but you need Arnold Schwartzenegger hardware to
>>run it.

People use different definitions of Motif. Some people think it's
just the window mangager (mwm) Others think it is a "look and feel"
specification. Things like tcl/tk claim to kind of follow the
Motif "look and feel." My definition of Motif is all the libs etc.
that you need to compile a Motif application.

>I found it very busy and overdecorated. Naturally, that's just a
>personal esthetic thing. The first move I made on my Alpha
>workstation was to get rid of mwm and all those silly motif based
>tools DEC pushes at the unwary. I got a lot of screen real estate and
>a fair chunk of RAM back for my effort, plus of course things run a
>bit faster due to reduced VM pressure. A nice secondary benefit is
>that now my BSDi machine at home and my Alpha at work present an
>identical interface; no more do I have to switch mental gears twice a
>day.

mwm is far and away the worst window manager I have ever used. I use
vtwm on my Linux box and the Ultrix, OSF/1, SunOS, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX,
(you get the point) boxes at school. Everything looks the same.
At work some people use Suns, so I put olvwm on my Linux box and almost
fooled some of them into thinking that I had a Sun in front of me...

Ravi
--
"Linux is stable, Windoze is the stuff you find on the floor of a stable."

Ravi K. Swamy http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/r/rkswamy/www/
rks...@eos.ncsu.edu ro...@sdf2.nowhere.to.be.seen.in.the.footage

Miguel de Icaza

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to

Kent said:

> Software disaster? That is rather harsh. I would have to

Ok, as someone just said: the Motif self abuse kit.

> admit that the executables of applications that are Motif
> based are generally larger than those that are not Motif
> based but I would have to disagree with your blind
> suggestion that it is hard to program.

Well, it's harder to program than other toolkits for X. I have
used a variety of toolkits (and even the Windows API) and they have
more or less the same, but Motif is the biggest I have came across and
also the most complex to deal with.

> Would you want to
> write an entire interface including file selection dialogs,
> menus, and buttons all in XLib?

As I told you, there are other alternatives much easier to use than
Motif: Tcl/Tk is just one of them, but for example XView is another
good X toolkit for doing GUI programming.

> You mentioned Tcl/Tk... you surely do not find Motif to be
> slower than those do you? They are nice to use to prototype
> an interface but I do not think that I would release a
> product that used them entirely over a product that was
> based on Motif.

Mhm, intersting, I have not done a benchmark on the speed, but I just
tried the new Emacs with Motif and it was awfully slow.

I'm writing a file manager for GNU, and we are using Tcl/Tk. If you
look at the code you will just find a 300 line Tcl file, the rest is
done in C. Tcl/Tk is only used to deal with the interface, we take
care of the rest, we don't use a single loop on the Tcl code (just a
couple of ifs), the rest is procedure grouping, widget creation and
dialog layout, while anything else is handled in C. I find it quite
fast.

Maybe the comparission you made about the speed is the impression you
have from using applications written entirely in Tcl.

BTW, if you want to take a look at our file manager, you can get more
information from this URL: http://stekt.oulu.fi/~jtklehto/mc/

It can be built with curses or slang for text mode and with Tcl/Tk or
XView for X.

Happy coding,

Warner Losh

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to
In article <3ss57q$5...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,

Ravi Krishna Swamy <rks...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>My definition of Motif is all the libs etc.
>that you need to compile a Motif application.

Not to nitpick, but you definition is:
All of the libraries needed to build applications using the Xm
libraries.

A Motif application need to follow the Xm API. There is at least one
commercial application that is a Motif app (Purify), yet uses the OI
toolkit.

Warner
--
Warner Losh "VMS Forever" home: i...@village.org
Cyberspace Development, Inc work: i...@marketplace.com
Makers of TIA, The Internet Adapter. http://marketplace.com/

Joel D Young

unread,
Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95
to

> managers. However, I have read article after article of people
complaining about

> Motif; "It's slow", "It creates HUGE executables -- try fitting one onto a floppy!

> Go ahead, use gzip, that's not cheating! You still won't fit it!" Etc. Yes, Motif

> has a lot* of nice features, it's a very visually pleasing interface, but you need
> Arnold Schwartzenegger hardware to run it.
>

I am running Motif 1.2.4 on a 486dx2-66 with 16Mb of memory. It works great
and it is fast. If you don't want to get huge executables then don't
compile them static! ps. Motif is an order of magnitude (atleast) easier
to program then Xlib + Xt. The user interface is also much more
attractive then openlook.

Kent A Vander Velden

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In <3srmcq$g...@mixer.visi.com> lyn...@visi.com (???????) writes:

>> Software disaster? That is rather harsh. I would have to

>>admit that the executables of applications that are Motif
>>based are generally larger than those that are not Motif
>>based but I would have to disagree with your blind
>>suggestion that it is hard to program.
>>

>To quote the "UNIX-HATERS' Handbook", the Motif toolkit is better named the
>Motif Self-Abuse Kit. :-) I have had the fortunate experience to have used Motif on
>an HP 9000 Series 835 -- which had an extremely fast RISC microprocessor and over
>100MB of RAM. Needless to say, I noticed absolutely no slowdown over other window

>managers. However, I have read article after article of people complaining about
>Motif; "It's slow", "It creates HUGE executables -- try fitting one onto a floppy!
>Go ahead, use gzip, that's not cheating! You still won't fit it!" Etc. Yes, Motif
>has a lot* of nice features, it's a very visually pleasing interface, but you need
>Arnold Schwartzenegger hardware to run it.

Is my little 486dx33 classified as "Arnold Schwartzenegger
hardware" then? :)

Kenneth Osterberg

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
i...@village.org (Warner Losh) writes:

>In article <3ss57q$5...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
>Ravi Krishna Swamy <rks...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>My definition of Motif is all the libs etc.
>>that you need to compile a Motif application.

>Not to nitpick, but you definition is:
> All of the libraries needed to build applications using the Xm
> libraries.

>A Motif application need to follow the Xm API. There is at least one
>commercial application that is a Motif app (Purify), yet uses the OI
>toolkit.

So that's it! I've been wonding about the Purify GUI as it seemed "not
quite Motif" to me, but I couldn't quite put the finger on what made me
think that. I actually believed it was a Tk app, but couldn't find
any Tcl/Tk symbols in the binaries. It's nice and all that, but not
quite the same look-and-feel as standard Motif, it seems.

Btw. this is under HP VUE, which is much nicer than bare bones mwm.
I wouldn't run it in less than 64M, though.

--
"I'm one of those luddites who use the WWW for finding and sharing
information, as opposed to [using it as] a badly animated television
set with a `buy' button..." -- Mike Meyer

Preston Brown

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
Miguel de Icaza (mig...@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx) wrote:

: I'm writing a file manager for GNU, and we are using Tcl/Tk. If you


: look at the code you will just find a 300 line Tcl file, the rest is
: done in C. Tcl/Tk is only used to deal with the interface, we take
: care of the rest, we don't use a single loop on the Tcl code (just a
: couple of ifs), the rest is procedure grouping, widget creation and
: dialog layout, while anything else is handled in C. I find it quite
: fast.

Why is it so hard to COMPLETELY divorce the Tk code from Tcl, so that the
Tk routines are directly callable from C? Is this impossible/very difficult?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preston Brown Yale Economics Dept. System Admin pbr...@econ.yale.edu
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice -- RUSH

Warner Losh

unread,
Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95
to
In article <3stq55$3...@erinews.ericsson.se>,

Kenneth Osterberg <lmf...@lmf.ericsson.se> wrote:
>I actually believed it was a Tk app, but couldn't find
>any Tcl/Tk symbols in the binaries. It's nice and all that, but not
>quite the same look-and-feel as standard Motif, it seems.

Come on, the GUI of Purify isn't anywhere near that *BAD* in quality.
The quality is quite high, and the differences between OI and
OSF/Motif are minor (but enough that you can tell in a blind taste
test, alas). The differences between OSF/Motif and Tk are rather
large and easy to spot. Tk just isn't the same quality level of
either OSF/Motif or OI. Tk is well worth the price, however, since it
is free :-)

I fixed a zillion niggling little differences between OI and
OSF/Motif while working for Solbourne/ParcPlace/Openware.

Warner "Shouldn't that pixel be one to the left" Losh

Adam Becker

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to pbr...@econ.yale.edu
>Miguel de Icaza (mig...@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx) wrote:
>
>: I'm writing a file manager for GNU, and we are using Tcl/Tk. If you
>: look at the code you will just find a 300 line Tcl file, the rest is
>: done in C. Tcl/Tk is only used to deal with the interface, we take
>: care of the rest, we don't use a single loop on the Tcl code (just a
>: couple of ifs), the rest is procedure grouping, widget creation and
>: dialog layout, while anything else is handled in C. I find it quite
>: fast.
>
>Why is it so hard to COMPLETELY divorce the Tk code from Tcl, so that the
>Tk routines are directly callable from C? Is this impossible/very difficult?
>
I believe that Tk is an extension of Tcl, that is why it would be difficult
to divorce from Tcl.

I use a the same approach as stated above in developing a Unisys Terminal
Emulator (UTS400) I developed. The Tk calls can be called directly from C but
you send the call to the Tk interpreter so the advantage is limited. I have
found that by opening a pipe from my C application to the Wish shell and
sending
it the Tk commands it is faster and easier to develop. This approach uses the
Wish shell as a shared library of Tk functionality and makes a very small exe.
Since the GUI is a separate process, the display can be refreshed while the C
logic is interfacing with the mainframe. The Wish shell is the most basic of
application that calls Tk directly. It reads stdin and processes the command
and waits for the next command. The callback function for the menus and
buttons use a Tcl print command to signal the C app across the pipe. This is a
method
that was suggested in a recent issue of Linux Journal and I have been very
pleased with the speed of the application and the ease of development.


Sean Kelly

unread,
Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95
to
[ Removed linux newsgroups since this is just X related ]

In article <3srmcq$g...@mixer.visi.com>, ??????? <lyn...@visi.com> wrote:
>Go ahead, use gzip, that's not cheating! You still won't fit it!"

.Etc. Yes, Motif has a lot* of nice features, it's a very visually


>pleasing interface, but you need Arnold Schwartzenegger hardware to run it.

Visually pleasing? ``Let's make *everything* Three-D except menu
buttons! That'll confuse users more!'' ... which is, obstensibly,
some of the goals of Motif. It wastes screen real-estate without
providing intuitive functionality. In user interface tests I've run,
the OpenLook interface reliably came out on top in terms ease of use
and usability, and Motif was a distant second. Athena was a close
third. Of course, OpenLook is dead, and only GNU hackers use Athena :-)

It seems Motif wasn't designed with users in mind, but instead to look
like a bad copy of another, preexisting user interface called
Micro$oft Windows. And, as one net.person said, ``Bill Gates is
still laughing all the way to the bank.''

--
Sean Kelly
NOAA Forecast Systems Lab, Boulder Colorado USA

Marta says the interesting thing about fly-fishing is that it's two
lives connected by a thin strand. Come on, Marta. Grow up.
-- Jack Handey

Lewis E. Wolfgang

unread,
Jul 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/9/95
to
In article <3t1dic$c...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>,

Sean Kelly <ke...@emu.fsl.noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>It seems Motif wasn't designed with users in mind, but instead to look
>like a bad copy of another, preexisting user interface called
>Micro$oft Windows. And, as one net.person said, ``Bill Gates is
>still laughing all the way to the bank.''

I tend to agree with this, maybe this is a good time to get some
"beefs" off my chest.

We have been using Openwindows on our Sun systems since it first
became available (1988?). We are still using it as our window
manager (olvwm), thus my only contact with Motif is with current
applications that have been compiled against the Motif libraries.
These applications include Frame, Island Office, Netscape and others.

My criticisms aren't concerned with Motif's look, but how it feels.
One feature I miss is the "stick-pin", where you may command a
pop-up to remain up. Another gripe is Motif's lack of consistency
about controlling windows in general. Button layout and labeling
isn't consistent. One time "Close" means go iconic, other times
it quits the application. The file selection facility is not very
intuitive, with filters and such.

But these gripes pale to insignificance when compared to my main
beefs. These main gripes cause me pain and aggravation every time
I use a Motif application. They are, in assending order of
agravation:

1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
flow.

2. Mouse Pointer Warping when reading text. In Openwindows when
one clicks above or below the "elevator" scrool bar, the text
display moves down one page. The elevator also moves down
one page increment. So far, Motif does this too. But in
OW the elevator "chases" the mouse pointer so that it remains
above or below the elevator. This means that once you have
positioned the pointer, successive pressings of the left mouse
button scrolls through the entire text without having to
reposition. In Motif, once the elevator occludes the pointer,
everything stalls and you have to reposition, taking time
and disturbing your work flow.

3. Repositioning the last page of text. This is the "feature" that
makes me want to rip the head off and bark down the neck of
the responsible designer. This one is on a par with the
knucke-head who moved the keyboard control key from it's
God-approved position next to the A key! Proof positive that
these "designers" are "hunt and pecker" typists and were
never required to use their designs in a work environment.
I diress; when you are paging through a document with OW, the
last line of one page is carried forward to the first line
of the next page. This allows you the comfort of knowing
exactly where you can pickup your reading thread on a new
page. If the last page of the document doesn't fill up
the entire window, the last line of the previous page is
still positioned on the top line of the last physical page.
This means that the actual last line of the document may
be somewhere in mid-page. The remainder of the window
is blank. Motif, on the other hand, assumes you don't
want to see blank space, and bottom justifies the document!
This means that you have to search through the last page
trying to find where you left off reading. This a MAJOR
PAIN IN THE BUTT!!!!

An appeal now to those Motif experts out there in Net Land:

Is There A Way To Change Motif's Behaviour To Address These
Concerns? If we were to purchase mwm, would we be able to
fix it?

Regards,
Lew Wolfgang

Stephen Benson

unread,
Jul 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/10/95
to

In article <DBGIL...@sunspot.nosc.mil>, Lewis E. Wolfgang (wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil) writes:
>In article <3t1dic$c...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>,
>Sean Kelly <ke...@emu.fsl.noaa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>It seems Motif wasn't designed with users in mind, but instead to look
>>like a bad copy of another, preexisting user interface called
>>Micro$oft Windows. And, as one net.person said, ``Bill Gates is
>>still laughing all the way to the bank.''
>
>I tend to agree with this, maybe this is a good time to get some
>"beefs" off my chest.

I agree to some extent with all your criticisms. And one more, I _really_ miss
the virtual window manager. wsm's OK, but I've yet to meet a decent panner in
Motif, and as for a combination of both... and I'm not up to writing my own
yet.

Hopefully someone will point out how lame we are, and in the process provide
solutions to all these little gripes.

--
: stephen benson : : : : : : : : step...@scribendum.win-uk.net


David Brooks

unread,
Jul 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/10/95
to
Sean Kelly <ke...@emu.fsl.noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>It seems Motif wasn't designed with users in mind, but instead to look
>like a bad copy of another, preexisting user interface called
>Micro$oft Windows. And, as one net.person said, ``Bill Gates is
>still laughing all the way to the bank.''

This turns out not to be the case.

The *look* of Motif was pretty much fixed in 1989, and was inherited from
HP's widget library. See Shiz Kobara's book for a nice summary of the
history that led up to the existing design. Windows's 3D look came later.

The *feel* of Motif was carefully, even assiduously, designed to be the
same as the Windows/Presentation Manager family. A great deal of effort
went into ensuring that every gesture you might make had the same (or
analogous) effect on the two families of systems. The rationale was that
people quickly acquire muscle memory, and the concept of "page down" or "go
to end" or "default button" should be converted to a physical movement at
the subconscious level, once learned.

This results on Windows and Motif users being able to switch from one
system to the other without going through the effort of training in a new
set of movements.

The Motif Style Guide retains a 1988 Microsoft copyright, and this is why.
--
David Brooks, Manager, Quality Engineering dbr...@x.org
X Consortium <URL:http://www.x.org/people/dbrooks/>
Commit planned giving and daily acts of compassion.

Jeff Garzik

unread,
Jul 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/10/95
to
In article <DBGIL...@sunspot.nosc.mil>,

Lewis E. Wolfgang <wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil> wrote:
>1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
> the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
> button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
> to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
> the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
> flow.

That's interesting. Could your window manager be somehow overriding
the default text selection method?

Either way, I have *always* used the <left hold>-<drag to end>-
<left release> to select text. It's easy -- talented "selecters" :)
can select needed portions simply by a quick drag-slash maneauver. No
interruption in workflow, and only one hand need leave the home row.

Ya know -- I used to wonder why a lot of old hackers actually prefer
laptops to desktops. Then I realized that all the mouse buttons were
most easily manipulated by touch typists.

Jeff


--
Ask not for whom the telephone bell tolls ... if thou art in the
bathtub, it tolls for thee.

cou...@metho.met.co.nz

unread,
Jul 10, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/10/95
to

Lew said...

|>I tend to agree with this, maybe this is a good time to get some
|>"beefs" off my chest.
|>

|>1. Text selection.

|>2. Mouse Pointer Warping when reading text.

|>3. Repositioning the last page of text.
|>

|>An appeal now to those Motif experts out there in Net Land:
|>
|>Is There A Way To Change Motif's Behaviour To Address These
|>Concerns? If we were to purchase mwm, would we be able to
|>fix it?

Yeah, I'm with you on all three of these gripes. I don't think this is sufficient
reason to write off Motif in general. MS-Windows and MacWindows all have at least
as many irritating feature. Typically

1. Mouse button two doesn't do anything useful most of the time - if you get
a second mouse button at all.

2. Most Mac windows aren't even usefully resizeable. If you're lucky the designer
has provided two sizes - small and very small.

3. Double clicking the top bar never seems to do what I want it to.

Before I get too carried away, I should say what I really meant to say in the first
place. MWM is the Motif Window Manager, and is just _A_ Motif-Compatible window
manager. All it controls is the window frames, and has nothing to do with the
actual widget (read MSWindows Control) behaviour.

You can get public domain alternative window managers. FVWM is quite fun assuming
you have the memory to handle a virtual window area equivalent to four screens.
What you want to do is hack the widget code. This is more difficult to get a hold
of, and really probably isn't worth it, as you have to re-hack every upgrade.

If you write your own applications, you can define new widgets which are extensions
of existing widgets, and use them instead. Of course, all the system widgets will
still be the same, and will irritate you even more.

Why don't you write a note to some of the Motif designers and suggest it. Widget
behaviour isn't static. You'd probably get a good response. First of course,
find one Motif designer...

--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Couper :: cou...@met.co.nz
Spider-Man Page :: http://www.met.co.nz/spiderman/

"Take some more tea", the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
"I've had nothing yet," Alice replied in an offended tone,
"so I ca'n't take more."
"You mean you ca'n't take _less_," said the Hatter"
"it's very easy to take _more_ than nothing."
"Nobody asked _your_ opinion," said Alice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lewis E. Wolfgang

unread,
Jul 11, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/11/95
to
In article <3tsmdi$8...@felix.cc.gatech.edu>,

Jeff Garzik <jga...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>In article <DBGIL...@sunspot.nosc.mil>,
>Lewis E. Wolfgang <wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil> wrote:
>>1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
>> the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
>> button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
>> to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
>> the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
>> flow.
>
>That's interesting. Could your window manager be somehow overriding
>the default text selection method?
>
>Either way, I have *always* used the <left hold>-<drag to end>-
><left release> to select text. It's easy -- talented "selecters" :)
>can select needed portions simply by a quick drag-slash maneauver. No
>interruption in workflow, and only one hand need leave the home row.

The left-and-swipe method still works, but there are times when that
method is rather cumbersome. I find myself using both methods, sometimes
in the same session/document.

True, a lot of the differences between Openlook and Motif can be overcome
by familiarity. But my main gripes about the scrolling text is something
that I can't abide. So far, no one has come up with a way to change
Motif's default behavior, which means that it must be hard-coded into
the libraries. Bummer.

Maybe if enough people bitch about it a future version will be more
user (human) friendly.

Regards,
Lew Wolfgang

Brad Brahms

unread,
Jul 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/12/95
to
In article <DBGIL...@sunspot.nosc.mil>,
Lewis E. Wolfgang <wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil> wrote:
>In article <3t1dic$c...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>,

>Sean Kelly <ke...@emu.fsl.noaa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>It seems Motif wasn't designed with users in mind, but instead to look
>>like a bad copy of another, preexisting user interface called
>>Micro$oft Windows. And, as one net.person said, ``Bill Gates is
>>still laughing all the way to the bank.''
>
>I tend to agree with this, maybe this is a good time to get some
>"beefs" off my chest.
>
>We have been using Openwindows on our Sun systems since it first
>became available (1988?). We are still using it as our window
>manager (olvwm), thus my only contact with Motif is with current
>applications that have been compiled against the Motif libraries.
>These applications include Frame, Island Office, Netscape and others.

With 20-20 hindsight, wouldn't it have been nice, if Sun would have
release OpenWindows to the world all so long ago like it did NFS. It
still has a nicer look and feel, IMHO, than Motif, yet it is now dead
or soon will be. Another mistake, in my opinion, was not releasing
NEWS to the world. I wonder if X would have gotten off the ground, or
been as big as it is now?

>
>My criticisms aren't concerned with Motif's look, but how it feels.
>One feature I miss is the "stick-pin", where you may command a
>pop-up to remain up.

Motif's tear off menus do the same thing. Suspect the Motif apps you
are using are based on an older version of Motif that did not have
tear offs.


>Another gripe is Motif's lack of consistency
>about controlling windows in general. Button layout and labeling
>isn't consistent. One time "Close" means go iconic, other times
>it quits the application

Called style. I believe OpenWindows style was much more narrowly
defined than Motif. We found on a previous project that the Motif
style guide was no were near detailed enough for us so we had to
augment it with out own styles that was enforced during design.

>The file selection facility is not very intuitive, with filters and
>such.

Oh well. Can't have everything.

>
>But these gripes pale to insignificance when compared to my main
>beefs. These main gripes cause me pain and aggravation every time
>I use a Motif application. They are, in assending order of
>agravation:
>

>1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
> the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
> button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
> to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
> the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
> flow.

Hummm, I wonder if this is a side effect of using olwm and Suns X vice
standard X and mwm? I have no problems and can do everything I need
with mouse. In fact, I find cut and paste better with x/motif than
openwindows.

>
>2. Mouse Pointer Warping when reading text. In Openwindows when
> one clicks above or below the "elevator" scrool bar, the text
> display moves down one page. The elevator also moves down
> one page increment. So far, Motif does this too. But in
> OW the elevator "chases" the mouse pointer so that it remains
> above or below the elevator. This means that once you have
> positioned the pointer, successive pressings of the left mouse
> button scrolls through the entire text without having to
> reposition. In Motif, once the elevator occludes the pointer,
> everything stalls and you have to reposition, taking time
> and disturbing your work flow.

Not sure about this one. Using the middle mouse button, I can move
the mouse up and down and the text follows. The one pain that I do
have with Motif scroll bars, however, is that when doing page scrolls,
it is possible to that paging will stop prior going all the way the
top or bottom. This is because the number of items associated with a
given pixel of movement is greater than a screen width. In these
case, to ensure that you are at the top or bottom you have to finsh
but using the arrows or before the last page, do a control-left click
(think thats the right sequence, maybe c-s-left click) to get to the
top or bottom. Don't know if OW has this problem.

>
>3. Repositioning the last page of text. This is the "feature" that
> makes me want to rip the head off and bark down the neck of
> the responsible designer. This one is on a par with the
> knucke-head who moved the keyboard control key from it's
> God-approved position next to the A key! Proof positive that
> these "designers" are "hunt and pecker" typists and were
> never required to use their designs in a work environment.
> I diress; when you are paging through a document with OW, the
> last line of one page is carried forward to the first line
> of the next page. This allows you the comfort of knowing
> exactly where you can pickup your reading thread on a new
> page. If the last page of the document doesn't fill up
> the entire window, the last line of the previous page is
> still positioned on the top line of the last physical page.
> This means that the actual last line of the document may
> be somewhere in mid-page. The remainder of the window
> is blank. Motif, on the other hand, assumes you don't
> want to see blank space, and bottom justifies the document!
> This means that you have to search through the last page
> trying to find where you left off reading. This a MAJOR
> PAIN IN THE BUTT!!!!

Never noticed this one.

[snip]
--

"Life is like a box of chocolates..." -- Bradley Brahms
TRW Inc.
Bradley...@trw.com

Paul Tomblin

unread,
Jul 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/12/95
to
Brad Brahms (br...@truffula.fp.trw.com) wrote:
> Lewis E. Wolfgang <wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil> wrote:
> >1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
> > the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
> > button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
> > to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
> > the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
> > flow.

> Hummm, I wonder if this is a side effect of using olwm and Suns X vice
> standard X and mwm? I have no problems and can do everything I need
> with mouse. In fact, I find cut and paste better with x/motif than
> openwindows.

Yes, but Lewis is talking about using a click at the start and a click at the
end to select - you probably just use a mouse drag to select. He's right that
you need the shift key to click select the end of the selection under Motif.

> >
> >2. Mouse Pointer Warping when reading text. In Openwindows when
> > one clicks above or below the "elevator" scrool bar, the text
> > display moves down one page. The elevator also moves down
> > one page increment. So far, Motif does this too. But in
> > OW the elevator "chases" the mouse pointer so that it remains
> > above or below the elevator. This means that once you have
> > positioned the pointer, successive pressings of the left mouse
> > button scrolls through the entire text without having to
> > reposition. In Motif, once the elevator occludes the pointer,
> > everything stalls and you have to reposition, taking time
> > and disturbing your work flow.

> Not sure about this one. Using the middle mouse button, I can move
> the mouse up and down and the text follows. The one pain that I do
> have with Motif scroll bars, however, is that when doing page scrolls,
> it is possible to that paging will stop prior going all the way the
> top or bottom. This is because the number of items associated with a
> given pixel of movement is greater than a screen width. In these
> case, to ensure that you are at the top or bottom you have to finsh
> but using the arrows or before the last page, do a control-left click
> (think thats the right sequence, maybe c-s-left click) to get to the
> top or bottom. Don't know if OW has this problem.

Once again, you are thinking 'dragging' while Lewis is thinking 'clicking'.
Try this little example: in a scrolled list (or a xterm with scrollbars), put
your mouse about half way up and hit the left button a few times. In Motif,
the list will move up a page at a time UNTIL THE THUMB CATCHES UP WITH THE
MOUSE POINTER! At that point, you are clicking on the thumb, so nothing
happens. With the OpenLook "elevator", the mouse pointer warps upwards so
that it always above the thumb, and continuing to click without moving the
mouse causes the elevator to continue to rise until it reaches the top.

> > trying to find where you left off reading. This a MAJOR
> > PAIN IN THE BUTT!!!!

> Never noticed this one.

I have, and it is.

My major gripe against Motif isn't these little things, or the needless
complexity and inconsistency of the programmatic interface though. My major
gripe is how old-fashioned it looks compared to OpenLook. I mean, all those
square corners and bevelled edges looks so '80s compared to the nice rounded
buttons and shadows of the OpenLook. And OpenLook has better colours too - I
think they must have gotten some input from real experts instead of turning a
bunch of computer nerds loose with a colour pallete.

--
Paul Tomblin, Contractor. I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
"It's a Unix system. I know this!"

Susan Price

unread,
Jul 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/12/95
to
Lewis E. Wolfgang (wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil) wrote:
: 1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
: the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
: button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
: to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
: the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
: flow.

Actually I have a Sparc10 running Solaris 2.3 and for me left mouse button
selects the left starting point and the right mouse button select the right
point. The middle mouse button does a paste of whatever is highlighted.

Regards,
=====================================================
| Susan Price | sus...@dadd.ti.com |
| Design Automation Division | |
| Texas Instruments, Inc. | TI msg id: PRIC |
| Dallas, TX | Phone: (214)917-3675 |
=====================================================
Never get so busy making a living that you forget to make a life.

Warner Losh

unread,
Jul 13, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/13/95
to
In article <3u0icf$s...@truffula.fp.trw.com>,

Brad Brahms <br...@truffula.fp.trw.com> wrote:
>Motif's tear off menus do the same thing. Suspect the Motif apps you
>are using are based on an older version of Motif that did not have
>tear offs.

Not true! There were also pushpins on dialog boxes, and there is
nothing in standard Motif that offers this functionality. Instead we
are left with buttons that sometimes pull down the dialog box, and
others that don't. This from a consistant user interface? And don't
even get me started on all the minor inconsistancies in the menu
selection model of both Motif and Windows.

>>1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
>> the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
>> button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
>> to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
>> the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
>> flow.
>
>Hummm, I wonder if this is a side effect of using olwm and Suns X vice
>standard X and mwm? I have no problems and can do everything I need
>with mouse. In fact, I find cut and paste better with x/motif than
>openwindows.

OSF/Motif doesn't require the shift key. I know, because I tested
OI's compliance to the Motif spec (such as it was) and to the actual
implementation. A quick sanity check with Netscape shows this to be
the case (that is, you don't have to bother with the shift key at
all).

Warner

Matt Elkins

unread,
Jul 13, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/13/95
to
In article <DBGIL...@sunspot.nosc.mil>,

Lewis E. Wolfgang <wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil> wrote:
~>In article <3t1dic$c...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>,
~>Sean Kelly <ke...@emu.fsl.noaa.gov> wrote:
[...]
~>My criticisms aren't concerned with Motif's look, but how it feels.
~>One feature I miss is the "stick-pin", where you may command a
~>pop-up to remain up. Another gripe is Motif's lack of consistency

Don't tear-off menus pretty much do the same thing?


~>But these gripes pale to insignificance when compared to my main
~>beefs. These main gripes cause me pain and aggravation every time
~>I use a Motif application. They are, in assending order of
~>agravation:
~>
~>1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
~> the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
~> button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
~> to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
~> the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
~> flow.
~>

I feel just the opposite, OW drives me NUTS because it uses the same
mouse button for text selection as it does for Drag N Drop. If I have
text selected and I want to change the selection to a smaller portion
of the selected text I have to first click *outside* the selection to
deselect it, then move the mouse and click again to change the
selection, otherwise OW thinks I want to drag the text, so it picks it
up, and I have to wait for the drag to timeout before I can do anything
else. VERY annoying. Also, I love Motif's ability to scroll the
text and increase the selection just by dragging off the bottom of
the window.

~>2. Mouse Pointer Warping when reading text. In Openwindows when
~> one clicks above or below the "elevator" scrool bar, the text
~> display moves down one page. The elevator also moves down
~> one page increment. So far, Motif does this too. But in
~> OW the elevator "chases" the mouse pointer so that it remains
~> above or below the elevator. This means that once you have
~> positioned the pointer, successive pressings of the left mouse
~> button scrolls through the entire text without having to
~> reposition. In Motif, once the elevator occludes the pointer,
~> everything stalls and you have to reposition, taking time
~> and disturbing your work flow.
~>

I agree with you on this one, OW's 'elevator' scroll bars are far
superior to Motif's. It's a real shame the CDE designers didn't
do something along those lines.

~>3. Repositioning the last page of text. This is the "feature" that
~> makes me want to rip the head off and bark down the neck of
~> the responsible designer. This one is on a par with the
~> knucke-head who moved the keyboard control key from it's
~> God-approved position next to the A key! Proof positive that
~> these "designers" are "hunt and pecker" typists and were
~> never required to use their designs in a work environment.
~> I diress; when you are paging through a document with OW, the
~> last line of one page is carried forward to the first line
~> of the next page. This allows you the comfort of knowing
~> exactly where you can pickup your reading thread on a new
~> page. If the last page of the document doesn't fill up
~> the entire window, the last line of the previous page is
~> still positioned on the top line of the last physical page.
~> This means that the actual last line of the document may
~> be somewhere in mid-page. The remainder of the window
~> is blank. Motif, on the other hand, assumes you don't
~> want to see blank space, and bottom justifies the document!
~> This means that you have to search through the last page
~> trying to find where you left off reading. This a MAJOR
~> PAIN IN THE BUTT!!!!
~>

AMEN!!!!


Overall, I do like Motif better, but OW does have a few good features
I'd like to have seen incorporated into the new generation Motif's.
--
-- Matt C. Elkins | I'm not giving in to security under pressure
| I'm not missing out on the promise of adventure
matte@ | I'm not giving up on implausible dreams
darkover.gvg.tek.com | Experience to extremes, EXPERIENCE TO EXTREMES -rush

Paul D. Smith

unread,
Jul 13, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/13/95
to Matt Elkins
%% Regarding Re: Why motif? (Newbie) (Gripes added);
%% ma...@darkover.gvg.tek.com (Matt Elkins) writes:

me> ~>2. Mouse Pointer Warping when reading text. In Openwindows when
me> ~> one clicks above or below the "elevator" scrool bar, the text
me> ~> display moves down one page. The elevator also moves down
me> ~> one page increment. So far, Motif does this too. But in
me> ~> OW the elevator "chases" the mouse pointer so that it remains
me> ~> above or below the elevator.

me> I agree with you on this one, OW's 'elevator' scroll bars are
me> far superior to Motif's. It's a real shame the CDE designers
me> didn't do something along those lines.

IMO Athena widget scroll bars (see both xterm and Emacs 19) are *far*
superior to either of these. You can actually *use* them for fast and
accurate positioning of text on the screen: both OW and Motif scroll
bars are OK for page-by-page viewing, but slow when trying to accurately
position text on the screen.

Sure, Athena scroll bars can a little tricky to get used to (esp. if
you've only used Windows, OW, or Motif scroll bars before), but a few
minutes of exploration made me a believer!

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@baynetworks.com> Network Management Development
Senior Software Engineer Bay Networks, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------==<http://www.baynetworks.com/>-
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions--Bay Networks takes no responsibility for them.

Warner Losh

unread,
Jul 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/14/95
to
In article <p5ivp6n...@lemming.wellfleet.com>,

Paul D. Smith <psm...@wellfleet.com> wrote:
>both OW and Motif scroll
>bars are OK for page-by-page viewing, but slow when trying to accurately
>position text on the screen.

You might be unaware of the middle button hack on Motif scroll bars
that warps you to position in the file where you press the middle
button. It is much better than the variable scrolling behavior of the
Athena widgets, imho, since it is deterministic for all but the
largest scolled areas. Also, in OPEN LOOK, you can position a scroll
bar to an exact location with the middle of the elevator.

Then again, xterm has been bugging me for years that it doesn't scroll
by the page....

Paul D. Smith

unread,
Jul 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/14/95
to Warner Losh
%% Regarding Re: Why motif? (Newbie) (Gripes added);
%% i...@village.org (Warner Losh) writes:

wl> In article <p5ivp6n...@lemming.wellfleet.com>,


wl> Paul D. Smith <psm...@wellfleet.com> wrote:

>> both OW and Motif scroll bars are OK for page-by-page viewing,
>> but slow when trying to accurately position text on the screen.

wl> You might be unaware of the middle button hack on Motif scroll
wl> bars that warps you to position in the file where you press the
wl> middle button.

That's not what I mean; I find that OK for "broad brush" movement
through the file, but exact positioning with this is impossible.

The part of Athena I like is the fact that using mouse-1 scrolls up so
that the line next to where the mouse is appears as the first line on
the screen (reverse for mouse-3 of course).

I use this *all* the time to get exactly the text I want on the screen
with a quick click-o-the-button, every time. Just find the first line
I'm interested in, then click mouse-1 in the scroll bar right next to
it. Voila, it's now at the top of the screen. Fast, easy, and
accurate. No holding down the bottom arrow as the screen slowly scrolls
by, no trying to maneuver the window up and down while holding down
mouse-2, etc. Bleah.

If you want to move down a page at a time, just put the mouse at the
bottom of the scroll bar (next to the bottom line of the window), and
there you go. One line at a time? Put the mouse at the top of the
window. Love it, love it, love it.

Maybe it's a hacker's scroll bar :)

Sean Kelly

unread,
Jul 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/14/95
to
In article <p5wxdli...@lemming.wellfleet.com>,

Paul D. Smith <psm...@wellfleet.com> wrote:
> [ xterm (Athena) scroll bar]

>
>Maybe it's a hacker's scroll bar :)

Absolutely. It's a rectangle with a gray bar inside---so innocuous
that most of the computer illiterate don't even realize it's a scroll
bar. No cutesy arrows at either end of the elevator box (and in
Motif's version, at either end of the bar itself so they're that much
harder to land on). No adornment at all: almost pure functionality.
An indicator which works.

And I like it. There's too much noise on my screen already.

--
Sean Kelly
NOAA Forecast Systems Lab, Boulder Colorado USA

I wonder if Dracula ever has ticks. -- Jack Handey

Sriram Srinivasan

unread,
Jul 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/14/95
to
In article <3u68i9$9...@rover.village.org>, i...@village.org (Warner Losh) writes:
: Then again, xterm has been bugging me for years that it doesn't scroll
: by the page....
:

On xterm, as in any Athena widget, the scroll increment is decided by
where you click on the scroll bar. That is, if you click button3 at
the bottom of the scroll bar, it would scroll back a page. If you did
so at the top of the scroll bar it would scroll back a line. Button 1
scrolls forward.

Sriram

Holger Pfaff

unread,
Jul 14, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/14/95
to
I think there are some more drawbacks to motif:

1) It's a lot slower than OpenLook in starting up and updateing
(ever tried motif thru a slow line ... ?)

2) The layout usually consumes more space (default borders are very large)
Some Linux machines with a low resolution might have trouble with motif
apps.

3) The standard programing interface is more complicated (plain motif vs.
xview)
which leads to more lines of code.

There are some drawbacks to OL also but the topic was 'Why Motif ?" ;-)

-- Holger

Holger...@mch.scn.de


Lawson T

unread,
Jul 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/17/95
to
1) Can anybody tell me why when I create a popup shell with a title
I only get a frame without any title bar? I use this
popup shell as a drawing area. Is is the cause ? my code looks like:

Rpop = XtVaCreatePopupShell(NULL,
xmDialogShellWidgetClass, XtParent(w),

======> XmNtitle, "Resources", <=======

XmNx, 500,
XmNy, 600,
XmNwidth, RWIDTH,
XmNheight, RHEIGHT,
NULL);

Rdraw = XtVaCreateWidget("Rdraw",
xmDrawingAreaWidgetClass, Rpop,
XmNwidth, RWIDTH,
XmNheight, RHEIGHT,
NULL);

XtAddCallback(Rdraw, XmNexposeCallback, do_connections , NB);

XtManageChild(Rdraw);
XtManageChild(Rpop);
}


2) Having placed some icons (pixmaps) on the drawing are first and connected
them with some lines usind XDrawLine, when an expose is needed the icons
disappear. how can I go about that. Do I have to place the pixmaps again
after redrawing the lines, if so how can I do that?


Your help is greatly needed and appreciated
Please answer directly to ra...@essex.ac.uk


MICHAEL BRODEUR

unread,
Jul 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/17/95
to
Brad Brahms (br...@truffula.fp.trw.com) wrote:
: In article <DBGIL...@sunspot.nosc.mil>,

: Lewis E. Wolfgang <wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil> wrote:

: >We have been using Openwindows on our Sun systems since it first


: >became available (1988?). We are still using it as our window
: >manager (olvwm), thus my only contact with Motif is with current
: >applications that have been compiled against the Motif libraries.
: >These applications include Frame, Island Office, Netscape and others.

: With 20-20 hindsight, wouldn't it have been nice, if Sun would have
: release OpenWindows to the world all so long ago like it did NFS. It
: still has a nicer look and feel, IMHO, than Motif, yet it is now dead
: or soon will be.

Check out the X11 R5/R6 contrib tapes and you'll find that Sun _has_
released the significant parts of OpenWindows to the freeware world.
The toolkits (Xview, Olit), the window manager, and several of Sun's
own clients are available there. (As a matter of fact, I believe that
Linux uses Xview/OpenLook as one if its X personalities.)

: >
: >My criticisms aren't concerned with Motif's look, but how it feels.


: >One feature I miss is the "stick-pin", where you may command a
: >pop-up to remain up.

: Motif's tear off menus do the same thing. Suspect the Motif apps you
: are using are based on an older version of Motif that did not have
: tear offs.

Motif tear-off's do much the same thing, but (IMHO) in a much uglier
way. When you tack up an OL item (could be a dialog or a menu, by
the way) you get a different type of frame. The effect is that the
"thing" looks like a piece of paper tacked to the screen. Much better,
I think, than the menu list with a standard frame around it à la Motif.


: >But these gripes pale to insignificance when compared to my main


: >beefs. These main gripes cause me pain and aggravation every time
: >I use a Motif application. They are, in assending order of
: >agravation:
: >
: >1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects
: > the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
: > button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
: > to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
: > the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
: > flow.

: Hummm, I wonder if this is a side effect of using olwm and Suns X vice
: standard X and mwm? I have no problems and can do everything I need
: with mouse. In fact, I find cut and paste better with x/motif than
: openwindows.

OpenLook strictly defines that MB1 is "select" and MB2 is "extend selection".
In Motif (or at least many of the Motif apps that I have used), MB1 is
also "select" but MB2 is "paste" and Shift-MB1 is "select". CDE changes
this somewhat and allows the user to choose which behavior they prefer,
but I'm not sure if any apps pay attention to that right now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brodeur | "I will fight no more, forever."
mbro...@zko.dec.com | Chief Joseph, Nez Perce Tribe
Digital Equipment Corporation |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Elkins

unread,
Jul 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/17/95
to
In article <p5ivp6n...@lemming.wellfleet.com->,
[...]
->IMO Athena widget scroll bars (see both xterm and Emacs 19) are *far*
->superior to either of these. You can actually *use* them for fast and
->accurate positioning of text on the screen: both OW and Motif scroll
->bars are OK for page-by-page viewing, but slow when trying to accurately
->position text on the screen.
->
->Sure, Athena scroll bars can a little tricky to get used to (esp. if
->you've only used Windows, OW, or Motif scroll bars before), but a few
->minutes of exploration made me a believer!


Ugh! You actually *like* Athena scroll bars? Amazing. You'd probably
get along well with one of my co-workers who uses vi by choice :-)

Paul D. Smith

unread,
Jul 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/17/95
to Matt Elkins
%% Regarding Re: Why motif? (Newbie) (Gripes added);
%% ma...@darkover.gvg.tek.com (Matt Elkins) writes:

-> IMO Athena widget scroll bars (see both xterm and Emacs 19) are

-> *far* superior to either of these.

me> Ugh! You actually *like* Athena scroll bars? Amazing. You'd
me> probably get along well with one of my co-workers who uses vi by
me> choice :-)

Untrue! A filthy lie :)! Low blow! I'm an Emacs bigot since 'way
back. I use Emacs for everything, including mail, news, compiling,
debugging, etc. etc. Emacs and a few xterms, that's all I need. And
don't give me none of that XEmacs poo-poo either! The official FSF
release is the only game in town (AFA I'm Concerned).

Elisp hackers have defun! Etc.

I've explained in-depth why I think Athena scroll bars are superior,
perhaps you could explain why you think Motif and/or OW are better (or
don't like Athena)?

Inquiring minds and all that :)

Ferdinand Goldmann

unread,
Jul 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/20/95
to
Matt Elkins (ma...@darkover.gvg.tek.com) wrote:

: Ugh! You actually *like* Athena scroll bars? Amazing. You'd probably
: get along well with one of my co-workers who uses vi by choice :-)

vi is GOD. Hard to learn, but much more flexible than most editors.

/Ferdl
--
###########################################################################
# In Real Life: Goldmann Ferdinand --= LinuX rules =-- #
# Address : Bluetenstr. 23/36 --= the world =-- #
# 4040 Linz/Austria #
# IRC : DrAkHaI 8^) #
# eMail : fe...@wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at #
# fe...@osiris.oeh.uni-linz.ac.at #
###########################################################################

Allan Wallace

unread,
Jul 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/20/95
to
>: >1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects

>: > the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
>: > button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
>: > to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
>: > the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
>: > flow.

>: Hummm, I wonder if this is a side effect of using olwm and Suns X vice
>: standard X and mwm? I have no problems and can do everything I need
>: with mouse. In fact, I find cut and paste better with x/motif than
>: openwindows.

>OpenLook strictly defines that MB1 is "select" and MB2 is "extend selection".


>In Motif (or at least many of the Motif apps that I have used), MB1 is
>also "select" but MB2 is "paste" and Shift-MB1 is "select". CDE changes
>this somewhat and allows the user to choose which behavior they prefer,
>but I'm not sure if any apps pay attention to that right now.

Have you tried using the right mouse button to extend the selection.

Satin Sanghi

unread,
Jul 22, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/22/95
to
Hi,

I recently read an article in X Advisor about editres(by
ken...@rahul.net). In the article he mentioned that this tool is part
of the X11 R5/R6 distribution. I would prefer not too have to download
the entire distribution for this tool( it is kind of big :)), so could
anyone tell me where I can obtain the source or better still a binary
version of editres( for HP 700 series HP/UX 9.x)????

Thanks in advance

Aseem Bakshi
as...@btsslcc.com

Michael Brodeur

unread,
Jul 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/25/95
to
Allan Wallace (a...@itd.dsto.gov.au) wrote:
: >: >1. Text selection. In Openwindows, the left mouse button selects

: >: > the left starting point for selection. Pressing the middle
: >: > button selects the right point. Motif requires "shift" left
: >: > to select the right point. Finding the shift key while pushing
: >: > the mouse button requires two hands and disturbs the work
: >: > flow.

: >: Hummm, I wonder if this is a side effect of using olwm and Suns X vice
: >: standard X and mwm? I have no problems and can do everything I need
: >: with mouse. In fact, I find cut and paste better with x/motif than
: >: openwindows.

: >OpenLook strictly defines that MB1 is "select" and MB2 is "extend selection".


: >In Motif (or at least many of the Motif apps that I have used), MB1 is
: >also "select" but MB2 is "paste" and Shift-MB1 is "select". CDE changes
: >this somewhat and allows the user to choose which behavior they prefer,
: >but I'm not sure if any apps pay attention to that right now.

: Have you tried using the right mouse button to extend the selection.

Yes. On the Motif applications that I have, this brings up a context
sensitive popup menu (in a text widget) and does nothing in an entry
field. (The apps that I have are the CDE desktop apps and Netscape.)
The MB3-is-extend is the Athena behavior. I'm not aware if/to what extent
Motif uses it.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brodeur Digital Equipment Corporation Email: mbro...@zko.dec.com
110 Spit Brook Road ZKO-2/3Q08 Phone: +1 603-881-0267
Nashua, NH 03062 DTN: 381-0267
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 new messages