Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Superior Motif?

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the differing-philosophies dept.

X 155

Janon writes: "There's a rather interesting interview with Antony Fountain, a Motif developer and reference manual author at O'Reilly. He makes some rather well-founded (or at least it seems so to me) claims that Motif has some rather important advantages over the likes of GTK+ and Qt, such as an open and superior component model." It's a great illustration of the split between open and closed development, too -- fans of the Bazaar may see only waste in Fountains assertion that "Millions of lines of Motif get written and not one word about it leaves the company doors."

cancel ×


Re:Taking lessons from Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#204344)

And why does it need to be commercial, like that inherently makes it better?

I agree that it does not make it inherently better but I can see where he is coming from. A lot of commercial vendors will not use/buy anything unless it is a commercial product because of the support issue. It seems from a management point of view that you always need somebody to blame.

As an example at the place where I work we are currently evaluating bug tracking systems. This has been going on for a couple of months and I am getting sick and tired of it. So I offered to grab bugzilla, install it and get it working for our team, but the idea was vetoed purely because it wasn't commercial and there was no official way to get support. This is dispite the fact that it whoops the ass of a lot of commercial products.

Dev experience (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#204345)

I write a lot of my programs using Motif. However, it (along with Xt and Xlib which you must also learn to be an effective X/Motif programmer) is so involved to learn that I wouldn't have bothered had GTK or Qt been out when I started developing under X. If young developers -- the ones who often have cool, exciting ideas -- aren't learning Motif, it is for all intents and purposes dead.

That said, EditRES is very saucy. If you're running Netscape 4 now, fire up "editres", do a "Get Tree" on Netscape, and start changing colors, labels, and even layout and behaviors. [Then start coding that functionality for Qt or GTK.]


Buggy user interface, (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#204346)

I've been a Motif developper for more than 6 years (from 89 to 95) and at that time Motif was full of dynamic-memory bugs.

At the time I used a memory debugger called "purify", that detected all sorts of memory errors (acesses out of bunds, buffer overruns, buffer underruns, acesses to dealocated blocks, memory leaks, etc.), and It reported thousands of errors inside the motif libraries.
There were all kinds of errors from memory blocks accessed after being freed to memory leaks.

The problem was so bad that even the documentation from "purify" had a paragraph explaining how to filter the error messages caused by the Motif code, because otherwise it was impossible to spot our own bugs.

I beleive that this problem still persists today and this is one of the reasons that explains why Netscape Navigator keeps crashing so many times.

Right now, I'm porting all my applications to GTK+ with the help of Glade.
So far, I'm using "njamd" as a memory debugger and it doesn't detect any problems ou memory leaks.

Re:Buggy user interface, (1)

Kirth (183) | more than 13 years ago | (#204347)

Netscape crashing: The problem most probably isn't
a Motif one. While Motif makes Netscape bloated,
the bugs stem most probably from the fact of a different memory-management on Solaris (where
Netscape is developed on), which is very forgiving
and uses different alignment. Other operating
systems aren't. So there..

Don't develop on Solaris if you want your code
to run on other systems. A lot of bugs won't
turn up on Solaris.

Re:Dev experience (2)

HeUnique (187) | more than 13 years ago | (#204348)

Yeah, but go ahead and look what an experienced developer would do with his machine once it got up and running..

When I got a Sun Ultra 60 at my previous work, I installed KDE after few minutes - and that was much better then the butt-ugly CDE.

Yes, companies like HP/Sun announce that the future for them will be GTK/Gnome - but that decision came from the bottom - when most of the engineers hates Motif and CDE, so they replace..

You might want to look at the machines of most engineers in Sun are using - half of them use KDE and almost half - GNOME. Maybe 10% of them still use CDE (that number came up when I talked to several engineers from Sun from various departments).

If Motif is so great... (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#204350)

...why is everyone, including Sun and other big-name commercial UNIX vendors, switching from it to GTK?

Granted, I *hate* GTK, from a programming perspective (let's take C and make it slow and ugly like C++!), but there's got to be some reason people are abandoning Motif.

- A.P.

Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

"Key killing point" (2)

Chris Johnson (580) | more than 13 years ago | (#204351)


Isn't that a marvellous statement of a failure to have a clue about open source development? The whole concept of a 'key killing point' is irrelevant to OSS- if something doesn't suit a task, it'll sit around until somebody needs it- especially w.r.t Free software, which has basically infinite shelf life- if you EVER need routines that were once GPLed, they will be there for you to use.

"Key killing point" is only applicable in an either/or, winner/loser code environment, namely proprietary software, where code competes for relevancy and that which loses is lost to the world. Which hardly leaves much 'successful proprietary software' to compete with the OSS ideabase...

Much of this is lame FUD (2)

Sanity (1431) | more than 13 years ago | (#204357)

I am amazed that such lame anti-Open Source FUD goes unquestioned. His argument against Open Source seems to be based on the idea that a company cannot privately use a piece of Open Source software. He talks as if the GPL mandates an announcement on Freshmeat and a submission to Slashdot. A company can, of course, use GTK or any other piece of Open Source code without telling anyone if they so-wish, within the constraints of the Open Source license (isn't GTK distributed under the Lesser GPL anyway?).

And he cites the fact that there is no commercial builder for GTK as a disadvantage - what is wrong with Glade? Why does a builder need to be commercial?

There is some other interesting info in there which I am not qualified to dispute, but his anti-Open Source comments sound like something you would expect from Redmond. It is unfortunate that O'Reilly didn't press him on these issues.


Re:Motif wouldn't survive without FUD (2)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 13 years ago | (#204359)

Exactly. The difference between Motif and the newer Free Software toolkits like QT or GTK+ is that someone is actively working on making QT and GTK+ better. It's been a while since this article was published, and it would appear that in this short time both GTK+ and QT have resolved the issues that Fountain raised. That leaves Fountain's only defendable reason to use Motif as "there is lots of legacy Motif code."

In other words Motif is dead. People don't hang onto legacy software systems when their only reason to stay is that switching would be expensive. After all, the cost of migrating will only get more expensive with time (you will have created more content in the outdated system). The time to switch is now, while everyone else is still learning the new environment. Be careful though, chances are good that either GTK+ or QT will eventually dominate.

Re:Save some cash... (2)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 13 years ago | (#204360)

GTK new standard ?
If so why do we even bother to try get rid of Motif.
It is the same old crap !

Ah, but it's not the same old crap. GTK+ is a lot less expensive crap, and it comes with source code so that it is possible to make it less crappy.

You are making the same mistake that Fountain made. You suppose that technical merit has something to do with who eventually wins. Technical merit is somewhat important, but more important is being "good enough" at a lower price. GTK+ is certainly "good enough" (especially if it is being compared with Motif) and the price is right. You can even use it without paying royalties in your proprietary closed source applications. That's an important benefit that has already pushed the commercial Unix vendors towards Gnome, and away from KDE.

Re:Save some cash... (3)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 13 years ago | (#204362)

Not to mention the fact that GTK+ (and almost the entire Gnome toolkit) is licensed under the LGPL. Which means that you can even create closed source commercial applications using those libs and never have to release a single solitary line of your own source. That's why GTK+ and Gnome are becoming the new supported desktops for the commercial Unixes and QT is not (it is licensed under the GPL).

Which is basically why Fountain is so cranky. GTK+ and Gnome are taking the place of Motif and CDE, and most new projects are already switching to these toolkits. And since he creates and sells a GUI designer for Motif... Well, you get the picture.

Even worse, newer versions of GTK+ fix most of the problems that he mentions (libglade for the component model, and I believe there is internationalization work as well). In the end technical issues like this aren't decided by whoever has the most elegant, stable, or easy to use solution. The solution that wins is the one that is "good enough" at the lowest price.

It's game over for Motif.

Re:Motif wouldn't survive without FUD (2)

sheldon (2322) | more than 13 years ago | (#204364)


Did you read the same article I did. The only real mention of commercial programming he made was simply to state that they don't bother to toot their own horns when they create something. As compared to Linux which someone makes a big announcement every time something is sold.

He then goes on later in the article to point out why the Motif library is better in his opinion. It's somewhat technical, but he basically attributes this to the component model.

You should go back and reread the article.

Re:Buggy user interface, (2)

Chris Siegler (3170) | more than 13 years ago | (#204366)

Then use Lesstif. The code is solid and doesn't have the memory leaks you mention. And I've also use the free Motifs available now and not faced the problems you talk about. I believe you; things have just changed.

And as for Netscape crashing, I don't think Motif is at fault. When I ran Mozilla pre-Gecko (the version based off of 4.7), it crashed plenty and Motif wasn't the cause.

Re:Is Motif Dead? No but it is gasping for air (2)

Jonathan (5011) | more than 13 years ago | (#204371)

Indeed. Reminds me of a book "Practical Xview Programming" that I once read. The authors couldn't see that then (1994) Xview was on its last legs (to be killed by CDE/Motif) All the same arguments were there: more code being written in Xview, Xview is the standard, Xview more mature, etc., etc.

Re:Mature like my grandma (1)

dwdyer (5238) | more than 13 years ago | (#204374)

I'm sure lots of lines of Cobol are still being written behind closed doors, in dirty little rooms filled with sterile programmers and clamorous machines, but I wouldn't offer that as an argument for its relevance (or its superiority over Java). Popularity is often a red herring in a debate of merits; if it were one we bought into, we'd all be running Windows.

Many thousands of lines of Visual Basic are being written behind closed doors, too. Doesn't make it a superior language/environment, just popular. Motif was the defacto standard for "legitimized" *nix/X programming for quite a while, and the model is still good.

However, more "modern" toolkits are going to catch on and take over, and I don't think Qt and GTK are going to be the end of it. Why? Because we live in a world informed by Visual Basic. Newcomer programmers are going to expect more and more of the busy work to be done with simple calls. It's a Good Thing, in that it allows the programmer to focus on the task at hand, but it is a Bad Thing, because in mastering the arcana, you master the basics whether you know it or not. (The Wipe-On/Wipe-Off effect.)

Motif, unless it's redesigned and rewritten -- and genuinely opened -- is going to wither on the vine for better or worse.

(Yeah. this is something of a "me too" post...)

Re:Motif Power Tools (2)

The Mayor (6048) | more than 13 years ago | (#204375)

Why was this moderated as funny? Insightful, maybe. But not funny.

Xmt was very nice. In the mid 90s, I built and delivered a series of Motif applications that used Xmt. It was very nice. Hell, I even contributed some bug fixes. But, alas, Motif is showing its age. And Xmt, while being very nice, can't make up for the rest of the problems brought by Motif.

Following David Flanagan's lead, I've been a Java programmer for 4+ years now. And, remembering the "good old days" when I could configure the entire GUI with Xmt using Xdefaults, I now encapsulate the GUI inside an external XML file. The GUI is completely separated from the business logic, allowing for automated testing. Internationalization involves simple changes to my GUI XML file. I can theme my applications by merely changing the GUI XML file. I tip my hat to David for leading me in this direction.

But, seriously, this message wasn't (imho) intended to be funny. It was right on the mark. Interesting and insightful.

Re:Motif wouldn't survive without FUD (1)

Y2K is bogus (7647) | more than 13 years ago | (#204376)

libGlade does a similar thing. You define the entire inteface of the application with an XML file. You can redesign the entire application with a change to XML files.

Motif wouldn't survive without FUD (5)

Y2K is bogus (7647) | more than 13 years ago | (#204377)

The interview takes a rather dark tone WRT GTK and QT. It's clear that Fountain likes Motif, but at the expense of his own vision.

He doesn't offer any interesting insight why motif is neccessarily better, other than: "We can write proprietary applications and people won't talk about them".

Well, duh! You can write proprietary apps with any widget manager you like! GTK isn't encumbered with any legal virii.

If Joe Schmoe Corporation wanted to make a GTK interface for an internal CVS repository application, then they can.

He acts as if using GTK automatically entitles the GTK group to announce your application on Slashdot and toot their own horns. I'll give you a clue: It's the app builders that toot horns, not the GTK peeps.

If Joe Schmoe Corporation doesn't want their horn tooted, then they'll just keep the shut up!

The reality of the situation is that Motif only exists because of corporations that believe they have to use a proprietary, expensively licensed, widget library in their applications, or they won't be taken seriously.

I seem to recall that Netscape first built on Linux, unencumbered, when LessTif was stable enough to permit linking. That was because LessTif was trying to mimick the Motif API in Open Source. Then GTK came along and it seems the drive behind Lesstif is lessened.

Don't let the FUD mongers that want to see Motif remain a cash cow distract companies from using GTK or QT as their widget of choice.

Re:CDE (1)

domc (11897) | more than 13 years ago | (#204379)

IIRC, you can switch between desktops by using Alt-left/right arrow keys.


Not that I like CDE though.

Re:Much of this is lame FUD (1)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#204380)

What Fountain was citing jackoff is that GTK didn't provide a means of object identification to programs. With Motif you can have a interface builder app say "What sort of widgets do you have?" and the Motif library or independent widget library spits out a list of widgets and whatnot. That sort of functionality is nice because you don't need shit hardcoded into your builder, you only need to code the ability to place some library's widgets and ask them what they are. He also is saying in the article that whenever some new Linux app comes out someone's usually patting themselves on the ass because they used GTK+ or Qt to make it. All the GPL mandates is that coders be commie pinkos.

Re:Much of this is lame FUD (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#204381)

When I'm admirered I get a rock solid erection.

if.. then .. (2)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 13 years ago | (#204382)

if linux on the desktop is dead (see previos article) where does that leave the toolkits that run on the desktop...

You know it has been my experience that motif has a small niche market that is probably smaller than the linux desktop. Qt and Gtk+ are both easier to program in even if they are not as complete. But then again motif is how old and has had how long to get where it is? Gtk+ is still imature (as I type this in Netscape 4 on UNIX which was done in motif).

Personally I'd like to know of what NEW applications are developed in Motif tool kit?

I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!

trolling through the forest all day long... (3)

IceFox (18179) | more than 13 years ago | (#204383)

Wow, um where to start. I can't believe this got on slashdot. On the question of Is Motif experiencing any kind of resurgence associated with the current Linux wave? he avoids it and talks about how linux people don't like licenses. From what I have been able to gather I don't know of where motif is being used now. gtk and qt have been put just about everywhere. With QT embedded running around why do you even need X any more let alone motiff!

Not to beat a dead horse and spit on it and drive over it with a druck, but motif is ugly. Always has been and always will be by default. Fountain talks about user interface, but he is such a hipocrit when the only thing gtk and qt people agree on is that the ui sucks for motif. If that isn't powerfull I don't know what is. While we are here, has he even done any research into the "No user design guides in linux" How about /k de/style/basics/index.html

or /i ndex.html

(Sorry don't know of any gtk ones off the top of my head) I think I should write an article that says that motif sucks and has no support and is dieing. It may not be true, but then again I didn't do any research so I can't say it is false! NEXT!

Componants, companants componants. Hmm would I rather have 650 componants or 30 well thought out componants. They may have 650, but that just would confuse the user don't you think? I would rather see less that are more standard. Whiel I am at it sense they have had time to make all those componants why don't they spend time on there damm ui and make it better. heck just the file dialog, anything! Even gtk's is better (qt is still better, but KDE's tops the cake) I could rant on this for a while but you all get the point.

there is no commercial GUI builder for Qt
What rock has he been under. Ok so you don't have to count glade as a commercial vendor, but what about QT's, Designer??? Last I checked that was made by qt, who is ... wait for it... a commercial organization. There was also kde studio from the kompany, and that ptyhon qt linux/windows app who's name slips my mind.

OK Internationalization. I know that as of 1.3 gtk had the internationaliation stuff in and working. And way back as of qt 2 all the char's were 32bit so that is that argument. Heck wait a sec he has none. There are powerfull translation tools for qt and gtk and from what I know they both do layout. It is only with netscape 4 that I remember having translation issues, wait wasn't that done in Motif...

Bla why am I even wasting my time. I just shake my head when I see stuff like this.

Problem with Motif (2)

Shadowlion (18254) | more than 13 years ago | (#204384)

The problem with Motif, though, everything else notwithstanding is that Motif is _butt_ugly._


Re:I like Motif better (1)

Tim Stadelmann (18423) | more than 13 years ago | (#204385)

Agreed, you can't. But while I concur that portability is a worthwhile goal, I don't think your GUI toolkit is the right place for it.

The GUI is, or should be, part of the platform. Think about it, the real justification for spending system and programming resources on a sophisticated toolkit is usability, and for most people this strongly implies consistency.

The other problem is that relying on a cross platform toolkit removes the incentive to cleanly separate the user interface from the backend, leading to less maintainable and portable code in the end (think Mozilla).

If you really think the additional effort isn't worth it, for example if you have to keep hundreds of dialog boxes in synchronisation, you could still use an effort such as wxWindows. For most smaller applications, however, the effort in porting just the user interface (assuming that is possible) is probably less than the effort in cross-platform testing, which had to be done anyway.

Re:If Motif is so great... (1)

Tim Stadelmann (18423) | more than 13 years ago | (#204386)

Licensing, possibly. Some people like the fact that GTK+ is available under the GPL. I'm currently trying to find some time looking into GTK+ partly because of that reason. (Not that I'm a zealot in any way, but I do see some advantages)

Also, while I completely agree that GTK+s design is pretty questionable and annoying for programmers who expect something else, the library itself is written fairly well and copies you get with recent Linux distributions tend to be more stable than the default Motif libraries found on many commercial Unixes.

Re:Motif's advantage... (1)

Tim Stadelmann (18423) | more than 13 years ago | (#204387)

Come on, this is a matter of taste. Personally I find a well configured Motif visually much more pleasing than almost any GTK+ theme. (Ignoring the horrible 2.0 Notebook widget for a moment---nobody uses that anyway).

However, I agree it's very easy to completely mess up Motif interfaces if the programmer starts to enforce their weird colour prefences and to dump widgets all over the place without regard for user interface design considerations. GTK+ prevents that to some extent.

I like Motif better (2)

schatt (31250) | more than 13 years ago | (#204388)

Based on programming for Motif and Qt (admittedly, this was two years ago), I liked the Motif widget sets and interfaces better.
Also, at least at that time, it seemed the Motif was a lot more polished, and had what I needed built in, in addition, it worked more seamlessly out of the box on my Solaris boxen, as compared to being quite as Linux oriented as Qt was (is?).
Is Qt a lot easier to use out of the box nowadays, on non-linux unix based platforms?

Try actually using Motif and Qt... (4)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#204389)

I spent a couple of years doing heavy duty Motif development, and can assure you it's the most bug ridden piece of crap you can imagine. It's also got a lame widget set.

I downloaded Qt, and from knowing nothing about it was up and writing my own widgets in a few hours - it's an excellent API and widget set, not to mention QtDesigner vs things like the Motif designer UIM/X which was expensive as hell and followed in Motif's tradition of bugginess.

Sorry - experience says it's no contest. Qt wins.

Re:If Motif is so great... (2)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 13 years ago | (#204390)

In this case, it would be good if the winner were picked by a long process of evaluation and development, followed by developers voting with their feet (well, fingers). Unfortunately that almost never happens. The fact that I run windowmaker, but can run qt/kde and gtk/gnome apps simultaneously means this will be a long, drawn out battle, with no clear criterion for picking the winner. Probably it will come down to dev tools or something not quite the true merits.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Fountain is spraying FUD about GTK / QT i18n (3)

divec (48748) | more than 13 years ago | (#204392)

Fountain claims that you can't write GTK apps which support multibyte character sets like Japanese needs. Obviously he's never used GNOME [] in Japanese or Chinese. When Pango [] is stable, his comments will no longer be merely wrong, they will be laughable.

motif was too little quality ..too late (1)

ncaustin (49860) | more than 13 years ago | (#204393)

No disrepect to the author of the reference manual which I seem to remember was a nice book along with the rest of the X set. But I would argue that motif is not "the native toolkit for the X Window System" It did later become the toolkit of the Common desktop environment. Thats another story

Motif came to zenith as a windows look and feel, early 1.x implementations were extremely poor quality and the SDK was expensive but did promise faster gui development. Just around the time it became more stable up comes the browser and the
rest was history. Well consigning motif to history at least. If openmotif was done earlier maybe things would be different but this product is from a bygone age of consortiums with the big cheeses like IBM, HWP, Sun. The closest I get to motif is Java and netscape, thats close enough for me

Various toolkits (1)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 13 years ago | (#204394)

There's nothing wrong with Motif. It has been designed from scratch to be extensible and it can still get improvements over years.
I've written Motif, QT, Gtk, Photon (QNX) and Fltk apps. They all work the same way. The basic widgets are the same, and when you've learn how to code one, you can easily move to another one. They all work on a hierarchical component model, with inheritable attributes, and an event-based system.
For some apps, especially those who are dynamically building widgets, QT and GTK are easier to program. And libglade is something worth to look at. It goes one step further than other toolkits, because an user can build his own interface for any compliant app, not only customize an existing one with themes or colors. For widgets with dynamic content (lists, panes), Photon (on QNX) beats them all. It's easy to code, smooth and damn fast.
The only problem with Motif IMHO is that it eats up a lot of memory. Especially when you are using nested scrolling panes. Properly using widgets and gadgets can reduce the memory footprint, but it's always huge. It's not the size of the Motif library itself, but the amount of dynamic memory it requires for itself and from the X server. I can't run more than 3 or 4 different Motif apps at the same time without running out of memory (128 Mb) . Other toolkits don't seem to need so much memory, even with complex themes.
The FLTK toolkit isn't very popular. But it's really a very good one. It's LGPL'ed, and it has X, OpenGL and Windows backends. It's fast and lightweight. And it has many similarities with QT. If you want to write an applications with basic widgets in C++, try FLTK before QT. It's not easier to code, but your apps will run faster (at least the GUI part) . FLTK also comes with FLUID, an efficient interface builder. []

Re:I like Motif better (1)

Navarre (60169) | more than 13 years ago | (#204395)

I personally think that abandoning some of the most basic X protocols was a huge mistake on the part of the Gtk+ and Qt hackers. I should be able to set resources in my .Xdefaults file, xrdb merge them in, and they should take effect. It's a beautifully simple, portable system. I can take my .Xdefaults file from my Linux box to my HP-UX workstation and it works perfectly for my xterm settings. Meanwhile Gnome and KDE both have their own methods for handling this because those camps decided to reinvent the wheel, and they've blown the beautiful simplicity I've come to expect from Unix out of the water. Thanks for nothing people.

You should have built on top of X, not around it.

Mr. Fountain is ignorant of the facts. (3)

Danborg (62420) | more than 13 years ago | (#204397)

Take this quote, for example:
Indeed, there is no commercial GUI builder for Qt or GTK+.
How did Mr. Fountain miss the press release announcing Kylix [] from Borland [] ? This is a commercial GUI builder and RAD development environment which relies on Qt.

Re:I like Motif better (2)

AndersW (64204) | more than 13 years ago | (#204398)

Qt is a cross-platform toolkit. It runs on *nix, X-less *nix, MS Windows and Apple Macintosh.

Now, explain to me how you would go about building a cross-platform toolkit "on top of X".

Re:repeat (3)

The Musician (65375) | more than 13 years ago | (#204399)

Yeah, the slashdot storyis about a year old! The interview was in April 200 (see here [] ).

You can read two pages [] of responses [] to the interview, too!

my experience (4)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 13 years ago | (#204402)

I did Motif devel for 6 years, I switched to GTK about 3 years ago. Here's why:

API -- GTK has a much, much nicer programmer interface; if you're coding stuff by hand, it's about 1/2 the number of lines (guess)

speed -- Motif pays a huge price for Xt. One of my apps makes a whole bunch of widgets when it loads a file ... a very simple rewrite for GTK brought load times down by a factor of 10 (ten ... TEN)

open source -- developing for a widget set which you have the source to is just lovely. With Motif, if something didn't work the way you expected, you had to spend hours trying different stuff at random. With GTK, you can see what's wrong, and how to fix it.

simplicity -- GTK is much simpler than Motif, and it's much easier to write your own widgets. The object model is much better. Signals rock. Within a few hours of starting GTK, I subclassed one of the standard GTK widgets and modified its behaviour; fantastic. Xt makes subclassing widgets difficult.

range of widgets -- GTK has a much better range of standard widgets. At the end of the interview, Fountain says he's updated his new edition to cover the latest widgets, such as the ComboBox and the Notebook. Good grief!

portability -- amazingly, not all Motifs are equal. If you want to write an app which can run on most versions of IRIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc. you can only rely on quite a small part of Motif. This is an incredible and enormous pain. With GTK, you can just say "needs 1.2.10 or better", and if the user doesn't have that, they can download and build. They don't need to go through their vendor to get the toolkit. This is less of a problem now that Motif has opened up a bit, to be fair.

portability -- because GTK wraps Xlib, I can recompile my app, and it'll run on Winders.

Fountain is right on i18n being a current lag point for GTK. GTK2.0 (due out fairly soon (less than six months? not sure)) will include stuff like pango. This will jump GTK quite a way ahead of Motif on i18n.

On introspection, GTK has had this for years, I'm not sure what Fountain is talking about here.

I've not used Qt, no doubt similar stuff can be said.

Are you serious: no resource editing for GTK or Qt (3)

Baki (72515) | more than 13 years ago | (#204404)

Ouch. I have never really looked into GTK or Qt yet (I develop mainly server based software), the only GUI toolkits I know are Motif and Athena (both Xt based).

Athena is small, clean but ugly. It was only an example widget set to show how to use Xt. Xt's structure, with its resources describing every aspect from the GUI is very powerful. There are even add-ons that let you create your widget hierarchy (i.e. GUI structure) using some small external text file (a much much more productive way than using a WYSIWYG GUI builder).

Motif, one of the real-world widget sets on top of Xt, is horrible, as others have said in this discussion. It also walks over some basic Xt do's and dont's. In that respect, Suns OLIT (the open look widget set built upon Xt) was much nicer in every respect. Alas SUN lost the UNIX interface wars due to political reasons (only).

I hoped Qt and GTK would become the new standard unix GUI toolkit (one of them, at least) but I must say that I am very dissapointed if even "old stuff" such as editres are not there.

why do you even need X any more let alone motiff! (4)

Baki (72515) | more than 13 years ago | (#204405)

Please, not again one of those anti-X rants. Some people only seem things to exist that they understand. X is too complex? It must die. The whole world should adapt to what your limited mind can grasp?

As long as there is nothing that replaces the network transparence of X, it is not going to be replaced! Even the Linux-PDA from agenda computing [] decided to put X in that tiny machine. Once you have made a TCP/IP connection via PPP from your Linux desktop, you can remotely display the agenda's X-window apps on your host computer, which is very cool and useful. Sending the whole screen bitmaps (a la laplink type of software for Windows) would be way too slow and would not take advantage of larger display size and resolution of your desktop. X-window does such things transparently.

I'm convinced that X-window will even be in embedded devices. There is no need for embedded Qt.

apparently... (2)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 13 years ago | (#204406)

Motif sucks a fat one. I wouldn't really know, as I've never ever been unfortunate to do any programming with Motif, and have only toyed around with GTK and QT.

As far as ease of use, I didn't find GTK or QT to be too difficult, and I NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER __EVER__ do any GUI programming... ever... Well, except for like 4 or 5 years ago in Java 1.something. They both seemed pretty straight forward to me.

Anyway, what I *DO* know about Motif from experience is that it is the ugliest fucking GUI toolkit I have *EVER* seen. Windows, Mac, GTK/QT blow it away it terms of both look AND feel. Even if you're a hardcore "looks don't matter" geek, the feel is still important, and God Motif is just so awfully disgusting! Then there's the matter of stability...

I have only seen _ONE_ Motif app that is really stable, which would be Nedit BTW(the absolute greatest text editor in the world). Can anyone else think of another stable Motif app?

Why is anyone still using Motif, why is anyone defending it? For the sake of all that is good and pure, throw that wretched thing away! = )

Why oh why am I still awake?

Out of touch (2) (87560) | more than 13 years ago | (#204407)

Isn't it amazing how out of touch the author was. Even a year ago when the story was first posted you could tell that Motif was dying, and the past 12 months haven't made his assertions seem exactly full of insight.

But I suppose it is to be expected, considering the author's investment in Motif.

Having Done Both... (3)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 13 years ago | (#204408)

I've done development in both GTK and Motif. I was able to do hella more with GTK. Motif seemed pretty awkward by comparason. Maybe they've redesigned the thing to take advantage of advances made in the development process in the past two decades, but I'd rather stick with something that doesn't have all that baggage. Of course, you could always snarf lesstif and check it out for yourself.

Of course, to be fair, a lot of the problem with the "Crappy old motif apps" is that they are just that -- old! Most of those things were designed before the concept of threads came along and many of them were simply kluged together in a time when you didn't demand a lot from a GUI. Motif was popular in the days of Windows 3.0. If you want to know the level of expectation for your applications, break out the old XT and fire it up. That's pretty much what we had to work with.

With some modern design principles, you can write an effective Motif program. However, I never found GTK lacking for my user interface code, and the stuff I've done has been pretty esoteric. I also enjoyed having the GTK community on hand if I ever ran across a problem. Between them and the source code, if I ever ran across something bothersome, I could damn well fix it myself.

should this happen more often? (1)

Wiggin (97119) | more than 13 years ago | (#204409)

"Millions of lines of [Insert Your product here] Motif get written and not one word about it leaves the company doors"

doesn't everyone know products that they wish word never got out about?

Re:I like Motif better (1)

scotch (102596) | more than 13 years ago | (#204411)

"running against mostly unknown candidate ..."

George Bush, son and namesake of former president, governor of third (population) / second (area) state in the nation, brother of governor of Florida was mostly unknown? bwahhahhahahha - where can I get some of your crack?

"Makes you wonder what will happen if they have to fight without these advantages ... "

How would you rate the advantages enjoyed by Bush V. Gore against those enjoyed by Clinton V. Bush? Or does your memory not go back that far?

What a dumb memory debugger! (1)

root_42 (103434) | more than 13 years ago | (#204415)

So far, I'm using "njamd" as a memory debugger and it doesn't detect any problems ou memory leaks.

What use is the debugger if it does not detect memory leaks!? ;-)

Re:Buggy user interface, (2)

bockman (104837) | more than 13 years ago | (#204417)

I am aware of one leak which is real, though. Try putting up a window full of XmLabels and update them every second. You will see your memory sleep through your fingers for no apparent reason.

I discovered this bug severals years ago, and it is still there ...

Having done my fair share of Motif GUI programming, I am glad that now there are mature alternatives. Though Motif had some good ideas, in its time. One such idea (IMO) was the User Interface Language, which describes your GUI elements much like Glade files do. And, like libglade, it allows programmers to generate the GUI in a single stroke.
For me, this is much better than GUI code generators, which tend to generate rather messy and unmaintenable code, especially for non-OO languages.

Qt is much better (1)

tian (123727) | more than 13 years ago | (#204422)

I've been coding in Motif for about eight years and then switched to Qt a year ago. Qt is so much nicer to core in and I think my productivity has increased by at least 100% with Qt. When I look at my old Motif code today it really feels ancient compared to Qt code.

Re:repeat (1)

abiogenesis (124320) | more than 13 years ago | (#204423)

And even in the previous article it says:

Yeah, I know the article's a couple of weeks old -- but it's a good one.

millions of lines of code. (2)

small_dick (127697) | more than 13 years ago | (#204424)

I think I have written about 70k of that!

Maybe what I dislike most about X, Motif and OpenGL is the visual sucks to see menus/popups/drag ops crashing apps. The "Green Book" molview program explains how to get past this issue.

The gui builders are usually expensive and weak, or generate proprietary stubs, or use proprietary libs, locking you to the vendor. I still write a lot of Motif apps by hand. The runtime is nice and fast compared to alternatives like Tcl and Java.

The Xbae matrix (from is one of the fastest matrix displays I've ever seen.

Motif is really not that bad's all in the resources.

If you want to talk about some ugliness, I still cringe at the naming conventions and typing in GTK. I know why they did it, but it still makes me cringe.

Now that Motif is free, I can't see any reason to consider Qt with it's expensive least for closed source.

Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.

Is Motif Dead? No but it is gasping for air (2)

Gordy (141822) | more than 13 years ago | (#204430)

I want what Mr. Fountain is smoking. Seriously, if he can't see that Motif development will be dead in the not so near future well then that is his problem. Also, I guess he thinks all the rumors that Sun and HP are moving towards gnome in order to phase out CDE are just rumors. Oh no wait they aren't rumors []

One important thing ... (1)

MysticOne (142751) | more than 13 years ago | (#204431)

and all these developers seem to forget it. It doesn't matter how easy it is to develop with it, if the final interface looks ugly. I'm sorry, Motif is *ugly*. Even more so than Qt. :P~ While I agree that the widgets and what not need to be easy and practical to use, appearance is important.

Re:Louis Armstrong, Jazz Musician, dead at 71 (1)

Ziest (143204) | more than 13 years ago | (#204432)

Louis Armstrong, trumpet player and Jazz pioneer, died yesterday morning in his Los Angelos home. He was 71. Armstrong's last performance was at James Madison University's Convocation Center on March 24, 2001, where he played to a standing room only 5,000. Armstrong was helped off the stage by his wife of 20 years, and he later told a report for the campus newspaper "I don't know how much longer I can do this. This may be one of my last shows." His final song was his biggest hit, Hello Dolly! He is survived by his wife and 3 children and 6 grandchildren.

BZZZZZ! Wrong answer. The Great Louis Armstrong died on July 6th, 1971 at his home in Queens, NY.

Re:Problem with Motif (2)

green pizza (159161) | more than 13 years ago | (#204434)

Are you thinking Motif or Athena? Motif's defaults are very simple, clean, and nicely shaded. Athena (Xaw) is the beast behind the really nasty X apps (xedit, xfig, other such old, horrid beasts). It looks nice to me and *very* similar to default GTK+.

MotifZone (2)

green pizza (159161) | more than 13 years ago | (#204435)

I dunno, MotifZone looks alive and well:

BTW, grab the latest version of OpenMotif (or order a CD).

uh huh... (1)

Capt. Beyond (179592) | more than 13 years ago | (#204436)

There are things Qt in particular does better than Motif: it is nicer to program with, for example. As a language, Motif does show its age. However, that doesn't make a hoot of difference when you have an end product to produce.

So, he's saying that QT is better to program with, but hey, it really doesn't matter if Motif sucks to try to write a program with, and it's really not going to take longer, or be worse off because of that fact. Not to mention, its going to make your application look butt ugly while you're at it.

Couldn't resist (1)

motek (179836) | more than 13 years ago | (#204437)

The essential nature of commercial software is anonymity.
From now on Anonymity is your name, Silence - yoyr mother tongue. You are not part of the system, you are above it, you are beyond it. You are MIB.

Re:Motif wouldn't survive without FUD (1)

Danious (202113) | more than 13 years ago | (#204444)

QT3.0 does this, beta 1's just been released.

Taking lessons from Microsoft (2)

Danious (202113) | more than 13 years ago | (#204445)

Now, don't get me wrong, this Xt stuff sounds like a Good Thing(TM), it's just a shame he feels he has to talk it up at the expense of Qt/GTK. He makes a lot of good technical points, but wraps them up in a whole bundle of M$-style FUD. Anyone would think he was trying to sell you something. Oh, wait, he is...

A few choice quotes...

There are things Qt in particular does better than Motif: it is nicer to program with, for example. As a language, Motif does show its age. However, that doesn't make a hoot of difference when you have an end product to produce.

When you have an end product to produce, it does make a hoot of difference. If a tool-kit is nicer to program with, you code faster and with fewer bugs.

It does not matter how elegant a toolkit is in terms of programmer taste if at the end of the day the product derived from the toolkit is shorn of customizability, internationalization, attribute configuration, or a standardized way of working.

Compare this to his later statement:

Xt/Motif provides built-in standard methods for user customizability of components, which includes built-in internationalization capability. The internationalization issue may prove to be a key killing point for Qt/GTK+.

So, does he think internationalisation is important or not?

The commercial world writes product for customers and users; the Linux community writes software for programmers.

Funny, when it comes to programming toolkits, I thought the programmer WAS the customer/user? I've yet to meet the CEO or end-user who gave a toss what toolkit I used, so long as it did what they wanted.

The nature of the software being produced with Qt and GTK+ is yet more software for programmers. KDE, GNOME, and the like aren't about products and customers at all.

OK, so all those desk-top apps I'm using are only for programmers? KDE and Gnome are about building a better environment for developers and users to work in. Now that these environments are maturing nicely, the products will come. It's the same factors that led to CDE and Motif being developed in the first place.

Indeed, there is no commercial GUI builder for Qt or GTK+.

Kylix anyone? And why does it need to be commercial, like that inherently makes it better?

There are a number of private programs available, but as far as companies go, this is a no-no because it fails to guarantee any kind of continuance, stability, or development. Compare this with the Open Group's license for maintaining Motif, guaranteed by contract. Continued development is absolutely guaranteed. The same cannot be said about Qt or GTK+. The commercial infrastructure just isn't in place.

Not sure what license they use, but it's commercial right? So if Open Group goes under, what's the use of a support contract? Continued developement is not guarenteed, unless they just invented some new economic model that means they can't fail. At least GPL means there's a whole community behind QT/GTK who can pick the baton up and run with it.

Now, it is true that Motif has features that QT/GTK can't compete with. Yet. Motif's been around for how long now? 15/20 years? Give QT/GTK that long and they too will have all those features. But by then they too will have been superceded by the Next Big Thing, that's the nature of the industry.

There IS a commercial GUI builder : Kylix (1)

marcovje (205102) | more than 13 years ago | (#204446)

Kylix is QT based, and Borland is looking into ways to add GTK support (though I don't think that'll happen this year).

With a price of > $2000 for the cheapest version, you might want to call it commercial.

Re:CDE (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 13 years ago | (#204447)

Yeah, CDE is a real piece of crap. I have to use it at work on an HP-UX machine and it really sucks. No hotkeys to change between desktops, minimized windows' icons hide behind the big ugly bar at the bottom, etc. And that big ugly bar is really useless too; the only thing it's good for is changing between desktops.

What's really funny is how Xi Graphics purchased CDE, and is now trying to convince everyone that they should give up KDE and GNOME and buy a copy of their CDE for Linux since it's so much better. Yeah right.

Re:Buggy user interface, (1)

xynopsis (224788) | more than 13 years ago | (#204449)

I think you've been exposed to too much Linux radiation. Have you tried the Solaris version of Netscape Navigator? I've used it since the beginning of time and it never crashed.

Qt/GTK looks like Windows (1)

xynopsis (224788) | more than 13 years ago | (#204450)

It is undeniable, as we can see from most of the posts here that the trend is towards bashing Motif. I've recently entered into the world of user-interface programming in X and contrary to what most budding *nix GUI programmers would take, I would prefer to code in Motif instead of QT or GTK. IMO, Motif represents UNIX itself. I like Motif because it is UNIX. QT/Gtk looks like Winblows. I never really used KDE/GNOME because it reminds me of my Windows desktop. That's the reason why most of us is here because we want to leave the Windows desktop.

Now, you whiners would argue that "even the most faithful of all Unix supporters had to recognize that the Unix community had technologically fallen far behind the windows as well as Macintosh worlds with regard to GUI and desktop technologies." Of course, that would be true in some sense, but isn't Motif created for creating technical, high-end *NIX apps like Maya? Why do we need COM? Component-based approach on the desktop are for Word Processors. Maya doesn't need to e-mail flowers to your grandmother.

I dont care how hard to program Motif is or how old it is or about the claims that how buggy it is, its going to be completely free software in the near-future anyway. What I care about is tradition. Look at the OpenGL standard, its nearly as old as Motif itself. Why don't you whiners howl about how crappy and buggy it is when something about it gets posted? Face the truth! Your mother won't be able to use Linux/Unix for a very long time [] !

Best quote ever (1)

Alatar (227876) | more than 13 years ago | (#204452)

My favorite part of the article:

"In many of these companies, there's not a single line of Qt or a Linux box in sight."

So, where do I go to get hired?

Re:If Motif is so great... (1)

Courageous (228506) | more than 13 years ago | (#204453)

"The user interface is one. Lets just hope it is
one that is for the good of the community, and
not one that just wants to dominate the world."
IIRC, OSF made Motif open source.


Re:Buggy user interface, (2)

Courageous (228506) | more than 13 years ago | (#204454)

Many of these were actually Purify brainfarts
having something to do with the unusual mgmt
of memory under the hood in Motif, IIRC.


Motif Power Tools (3)

Courageous (228506) | more than 13 years ago | (#204455)

In the Motif Era (tm), David Flanagan produced a
library called "Motif Power Tools" (Xmt) which
included the most genuinely powerful, capable,
and just plain _right_ window layout manager I've
ever come across. Xmt's other capabilities
included the ability to make massive changes in
appearance and functionality to a Motif user
interface without so much as recompiling a single
line of code. This was a truly and genuinely
useful construct, and I still rue the day that I
eventually moved to another environment where Xmt
wasn't handy.

There's also an irony here. David Flanagan is
"somewhat famous" for his authoring of _Java in
a Nutshell_, which he'd admit he threw together
fairly haphazardly (and in any case, was pretty
cruddy). Meanwhile, his Xmt effort was an effort
of love, both at the source level, as well as the
documentation level... a genuine feat.

The irony is that _Java in a Nutshell_ made Mr.
Flanagan truly big bucks. _Motif Power Tools_
was a financial flop.

Ah well; them's the breaks.


Mature like my grandma (4)

srichman (231122) | more than 13 years ago | (#204456)

I'm sure lots of lines of Cobol are still being written behind closed doors, in dirty little rooms filled with sterile programmers and clamorous machines, but I wouldn't offer that as an argument for its relevance (or its superiority over Java). Popularity is often a red herring in a debate of merits; if it were one we bought into, we'd all be running Windows.

Whether Xt is still important/relevant is debatable. Heck, people argue that X is antiquated and not relevant to modern networks and desktop systems.

Ultimately, though, Qt and GTK/GNOME are in their infancy compared to Motif, as Fountain points out. The moral of the interview, component models and all aside, is that, yes, Motif is not dead, but, yes, it's stake is being usurped by the next generation. My grandma writes Motif.

Personally, my favorite quote in the interview is, "There are things Qt in particular does better than Motif: it is nicer to program with, for example."

Oh yeah, my grandma's dead, by the way.

it's all a matter of perception... (2)

xtermz (234073) | more than 13 years ago | (#204457)

Fountain is probably right. I know from experience that the military, which requires mission critical applications, is still depending on Motif and even in some cases (yuck) OpenLook. There probably are some companies out there that are capable of looking ahead of the curve, but as far as being tried and true, Motif is the best route.

of course, probably going to start a holy war with that statement

"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."

Re:Save some cash... (2)

Your Login Here (238436) | more than 13 years ago | (#204458)

Acctually gtk is covered by the LGPL. That means you can use it for closed source apps as long as you share changes to the library, and you dynamically link it.

This is very important, because it's the entire basis for the gnome/kde flamewar.

Ugly? So what? (2)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | more than 13 years ago | (#204459)

So it's ugly. So what? Have you sat in front of Windows lately? It don't matter that it's not the prettiest packaging. What matters is that it works, and works well. It's functional.

Functionality Rocks. Don't lose sight of that. If you want pretty, buy a Mac.

(Shit. I'll get modded down for the Mac comment...)

relevant once (1)

Proud Geek (260376) | more than 13 years ago | (#204460)

This was somewhat relevant the first time this article was posted on /. several months (or was it even a year or two?) ago. Anyway, since then, we've got new releases of gtk and Qt, and they support internationalization much better. New releases of GNOME and KDE, and they have component models of some sort. All in addition to being much nicer to code for.

That's a big advantage of open source--over time it matures and improves if there is developer interest. Obviously in this case, there was. There will probably also be developer interest in motif, as long as there are legacy apps to support. But I wouldn't hold the former lack of features of Qt and gtk against them any more than I would hold it against motif that at one time there was no computer powerful enough to run a motif application.

Save some cash... (2)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 13 years ago | (#204463)

The biggest single group of large scale developers with Motif is not the operating system vendors producing various workbench products, but very large commercial companies who make and distribute very large Motif applications in-house for their own purposes.
Umm, can't anyone who is developing in-house applications use, say, gtk and achieve the same results without having the cost of Motif? The GPL only covers distribution, not use within an organization.

Where's the Grammar Nazi? (2)

DysonSphere (307033) | more than 13 years ago | (#204465)

I'd rather not hear the word "rather" used, well, rather overzealously.

MegaLOCS of Motif (2)

r_j_prahad (309298) | more than 13 years ago | (#204466)

I work for one of those shops that has millions of lines of Motif code. That doesn't necessarily mean Motif is that great, just that if you lined up our years of Motif experience end-to-end, it would probably predate Noah and the biblical flood. It's hard to overcome that much momentum.

Re:Problem with Motif (1)

robert-porter (309405) | more than 13 years ago | (#204467)

Motif now supports Gtk themes.

Re:I like Motif better (1)

Ayende Rahien (309542) | more than 13 years ago | (#204468)

> PS. Original Motif widget set is pathetic as compared to current Qt.

PS. Original Linux offering is pathetic compared to current... anything!

Don't make comparision between what was and what is, it really serves no purpose.

Re:trolling through the forest all day long... (2)

mech9t8 (310197) | more than 13 years ago | (#204469)

"No user design guides in linux" How about /k de/style/basics/index.html
or /i ndex.html

What those don't cover (or, at least, I didn't see it) is a basic guide to size/positioning - how far apart buttons should be, how high they should be, spacing between labels/checkboxes/radio boxes/tabs/etc, icon sizes, etc. Consistency in those little anal details actually makes a bit difference in giving an application a professional crispness.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

Re:trolling through the forest all day long... (2)

mech9t8 (310197) | more than 13 years ago | (#204470)

I dunno... KDE widgets seems to be sufficiently different from traditional Motif widgets to warrant a new set of design guidelines. For example, KDE buttons are usually highlighted on the inside, Windows-style, instead of around the outside like Motif. Things like that make a significant difference in spacing.

Given all the different themes that are available, design guidelines for for app spacing/sizing and theme design would probably be a good idea. Or maybe there's really just no way to make apps look professional with someone's Wooden-button Matrix-like Pamela Anderson theme...

Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

er..can Motif run without X? ie.framebuffersupport (1)

Benjiman McFree (321140) | more than 13 years ago | (#204471)

Running Motif would be like getting behind the wheel of fifties car; it would work, but don't try anything fun with it.

--slasdot should go 100% blue, i'm sick of green.

he has some points... (3)

janpod66 (323734) | more than 13 years ago | (#204474)

Fountain has some points. First, Motif uses X11 more efficiently than Gtk+ or Qt. I think much of the reputation X11 has among new programmers for inefficiency is because Gtk+, Qt, Mozilla, and other recent toolkits take such a brute force approach to using the X11 APIs. Gtk+ and Qt's redraw logic also don't work as well with the X11 protocol. Of course with 1GHz machines and 1Mbit Internet hookups, that matters less and less. Also, neither Gtk+ nor Qt have anything that is a nice and flexible as the toolkit intrinsics when it comes to GUI configuration, options, and GUI building.

However, to me, all that is water under the bridge. In practice, Motif was a messy and buggy toolkit that it took forever to get anything done in. Most corporate and defense projects I have seen dumped Motif as soon as they had an alternative, mostly for Tcl/Tk and web interfaces (but if you prefer to believe that the lack of press Motif is getting is some corporate conspiracy to keep the good stuff from you, I have some Internet stocks for you to invest in).

OTOH, I don't think Gtk+ or Qt will have the life span of Motif, for a variety of reasons. The only existing toolkit that seems to me like it's going to survive another two decades is probably Swing, which is pretty powerful, easy to extend, and still simple enough to develop for.

Re:he has some points... (3)

janpod66 (323734) | more than 13 years ago | (#204475)

I know what you mean: the text components in Swing are complex. But what's the alternative? At least, with Swing you could get there without starting from scratch. And while we both may be cursing the complex and general APIs that do so much more than we want, and all the thinking we have to do to figure them out, it's still a lot better than starting from scratch.

The text widgets in Tcl/Tk, Gtk+, wxWindows, and Win32 are easier to use, but I think they are too limited to implement a full HTML editor (or do a lot of the other oddball things I have managed to do with Swing). OTOH, if you start with the Mozilla editor or Frontpage as a component, someone has already done all the hard work, but you probably can't customize them in the way you want without hacking their sources, and in the end, they will probably still retain functionality that's inappropriate and confusing to users (not to mention their size and potential licensing problems).

I found what helps a lot with complex APIs like Swing's text widget is to get a "cookbook" type manual. That way, I can get whole code snippets and assemble them into what I want.

Re:repeat (1)

fantastic (398233) | more than 13 years ago | (#204476)

If we do not learn from history, we are forced to repeat it.

I think OSDN/slashdot are hoping the economic
climate was like last year too, well apart
from Larry who sold a couple of million this
year already

Re:I like Motif better (1)

mgarraha (409436) | more than 13 years ago | (#204477)

XEphem [] author Elwood Downey says, "I am frequently asked (often with stunning rudeness) why I use Motif and not some other GUI toolkit such as tcl/tk or gtk. Here are my reasons... [] "

Re:Ugly? So what? (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 13 years ago | (#204478)

What's so unfunctional about Macs? Sure, Mac OS 9.1 may be less stable, but almost all of my PC friends who have used a Mac for long enough don't use PCs anymore. Anyway, Mac OS X's Cocoa is better than qt, Motif, or GTK! (If you like Objective-C or Java, that is).


Re:er..can Motif run without X? ie.framebuffersupp (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 13 years ago | (#204479)

And I thought the reason it was changing colors on me was because I had too much acid...


Re:Save some cash... (1)

abelikoff (412709) | more than 13 years ago | (#204480)

As if anyone cared. Some 1K-100K for a commercially supported GUI toolkit is not that much for something like GE and such. Trust me noone has meetings with an agenda like "we have to save on Motif license otherwise we won't make it till the end of the year..."

Re:CDE (1)

abelikoff (412709) | more than 13 years ago | (#204481)

The "obvious fact of ..closed source... risking getting sued" is total BS. Motif look-n-feel was never enforced and/or trademarked and there were tons of applications &/| toolkits closely emulating it. Tk, Fvwm, LessTif to name a few

As for "complete lack of customizability" - the fact that you don't know about it doesn't mean there isn't one. Try, for example, editres - make it grab Netscape widget tree and play with it. It is *extremely* customizeable. It may not be as flashy as KDE control center and it (thanks God) lacks "themes" but these are hardly required by Motif's target audience...

Re:I like Motif better (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204484)

Qt is NOT Linux oriented at all. Look at their config directory which contains dozens of different configuration files for various Unix flavors.
It is a commercial product and therefore when it claims support for a given Unix platform it really does support it ( no "I don't have IRIX so try and see if it works yourself " style so prevalent among free software.)

PS. Original Motif widget set is pathetic as compared to current Qt.

Re:One important thing ... (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204485)

"I'm sorry, Motif is *ugly*. Even more so than Qt."
While Motif ugliness cannot be proved or disproved, the second part of your comment shows that you have no idea what are you talking about.
Qt is GUI emulation toolkit and as such does not have its own look.
On Unix box it defaults to Motif look ( just like Java) and on Windows to Win32 style look.

GUI designers (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204486)

He is wrong as to lack of commercial GUI designers for Qt.
There is at least one ... []

Re:I like Motif better (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204487)

It does because Motif 2.x ( which I refered to as original as opposed to many 3rd party addons ) is the latest and greatest available.

Re:One important thing ... (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204488)

This guy claimed that Motif is even uglier than Qt which is hardly possibly given the fact that it looks just like Motif ( on Unix box.)

"If you don't like Qt's look, its pretty easy to change. "

The point here is that Qt DOES NOT propose or endorse any look. It is an emulation toolkit, it tries to provide (emulate) what's available on different platforms.

Re:I like Motif better (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204489)

Heh, seems like DNC does excel at loosing elections having standing vice-president running against mostly unknown candidate during economic boom.
Way to go ... Makes you wonder what will happen if they have to fight without these advantages ...

Re:Problem with Motif (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204490)

Motif may be clean ( in fact even too clean) but it is not intuitive.
I still remember anguish one woman I know went thru when she was forced to use Netscape running on Linux.
Her biggest complain was that check and radio buttons positions (on and off) were very hard to tell apart and she was never sure if it these were on or off ...

Re:trolling through the forest all day long... (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204491)

It might apply to GTK but Qt is an emulation toolkit.
On Windows it looks just like Win apps and on Unix like Motif. Accordingly, there is NO need for detailed design guides, both of which are provided by "original" creators ( and now with availability of Qt on Mac same principle applies here as well.)

Re:trolling through the forest all day long... (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#204492)

I don't know what KDE does with their widgets but pure Qt does look very much like Motif ( I did specifically compile and compare two example apps.)

"with someone's Wooden-button Matrix-like Pamela Anderson theme... "

LOL. Very true. On the other hand most of the desktop environments come with default, quite professional looking widgets sets. It is users who like to butcher these defaults and come up with nightmare combinations ..

Re:If Motif is so great... (1)

iansmith (444117) | more than 13 years ago | (#204497)

I don't see it being abandonded. Those that used it in teh past still do, and the same types of big projects still go with it. It's just that Linux and GTK/GNOME/ect are growing at a much faster pace. He was quite right that Linux is geared to programmers and open software. Linux will never become a true force on the desktop until a GUI reference is standardized. In some cases, it's GOOD to have a Monopoly. The user interface is one. Lets just hope it is one that is for the good of the community, and not one that just wants to dominate the world.

Re:Ugly? So what? (1)

archen (447353) | more than 13 years ago | (#204498)

Um... windows XP? Don't know about functionality, but it looks like a candy store by default... seems microsoft is willing to bet on "prettier" is better. Maybe give you more insentive to restart crashed programs to see the pretty again, I donno.

Would I rather use but uggly Motif that worked over Windows that crashed? Yeah. Would I rather use a command line program over either? yeah. But most people aren't such stick-in-the-muds like programmers and old school computer users.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account