From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Aug 21 20:25:48 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id UAA28450
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:25:48 -0700
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [198.137.146.49])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA28440
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:25:39 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA08377; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 21:24:34 -0600
Message-Id: <199508220324.VAA08377@rover.village.org>
To: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Any reason we can't enable the bus mouse by default? 
Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 21 Aug 1995 07:38:15 CDT
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 21:24:33 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

: It's simpler than any other X-based
: API I've ever used, for example.

Not to start a flame war here, but Tk is horribly convoluted compared
to OI.  I'm completely biased, mind you, but OI seemed much simpler
and saner to me.  And it did get a lot of things right (and a few
wrong, alas).

Tk is much easier and simpler than Xm or Xt, which probably explains
its popularity.  My big beef with Tk is that it has never been
extremely Motif compliant (close, yes, but not compliant in a
multitude of details).

Tk never struck me as a good abstraction for taking things down to the
character level, but maybe I'm wrong.

Warner