Foundation controversy.

[Paul Winkeler]

Previously Armin Retzko <armin at schwarz.kd.fh-hannover.de> wrote

---------------- include -----------------
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".
------------------- end -------------------

I would suggest that in fact the very reason NeXT's environment is as good as  
it is is due to no small extent to the fact that they are much more willing  
to throw out the bad in favor of progress.

Aside from that, the reason the you need either an OS upgrade or EOF is that  
NeXT decided it too could not resist the benefits of Foundation and they used  
it when building EOF!  Hence they had to include Foundation run-time support  
as part of the EOF distribution, something their support staff has regretted  
ever since.
Had it not been for that choice, you would have had to wait for Foundation  
until 4.0 came out period.

--
Paul Winkeler <paulw at revco.com>                      "Give me enough bandwidth
Director Network Systems at Revco D.S., Inc.      and I can transmit the earth"
1925 Enterprise Parkway, Twinsburg, OH 44087                   (Annard Brouwer)
Voice: +216-487-1400 FAX: +216-487-1050