Foundation controversy.

[Armin Retzko]

> Basically, if you are insistent on staying with pre-3.3, then your option  

> is to wait for 4.0 and use OmniWeb 2.0 and OmniPDF and any other Omni apps  

> then.  If you aren't even planning on moving to 4.0, then you won't be able  

> to run OpenStep apps, and you'll be left in the dirt by a lot more than just  

> the Omni apps.
> 

> For comparison, not a lot of people write software for Windows 3.0 any  

> more, either.

Don't get me wrong, i don't want to complain or put the blame on OmniGroup, but  
i believe one reason that Windows and MacOS based Software companies could grow  
big in the biz and stay there for such a long time is that they (well most of  
them) cared about backward compability.
I can imagine that this "backward compability" is a pain in the [censored by  
censor_daemon(TM) 0.4b] for a software developer, but i think the problem with  
this Foundation stuff has nothing to do with "backward compability".

William Shipley explained: 

> ...the benifits of foundation are just too great to resist.  

> I know 3.3 seems like a not-so-featureful upgrade to users, but for 

> programmers it's a complete godsend...

Then why is there no "runtime" for this Foundation stuff? Why do i have to
buy (as a user) a complete OS Upgrade or a software developer tool (EOF)?

>From a user's point-o-view this sounds like:
If you want to run our new app, which is written in Pascal, then you have to  
purchase a Pascal software development environment.
     

PS: The NeXT Third Party Software Catalog (Spring or Winter '93) says that 

    Diagram and other Lighthouse Apps use the Foundation Classes.
    But that was even before NS 3.2 was in the press.
    Why did those apps run on NS 3.0 or 3.1?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Armin Retzko
e-mail:  armin at kd.fh-hannover.de (NeXTmail & MIME OK!)
WWW URL: http://www.kd.fh-hannover.de/~armin/
--------------------------------------------------------------