I miss Motif. This is a portal to a time when men were men and UNIX(R)—or in this case, VMS—desktops were utilitarian and did exactly what you needed and nothing more.
Now we live in a time where we allocate GBs of RAM to eye candy that functionally accomplishes nothing. Then we make the case to rewrite the eye candy in increasingly "safe" languages, requiring even more RAM.
Safe languages have nothing to do with it, case in point, the choice of programming languages available on VMS.
Which contrary to UNIX did not had the C mistake.
Rather Structured BASIC, Extended Pascal, COBOL, Modula-2, Fortran and Bliss.
It is really sloppy programming nowadays, regardless of the languages.
Hm? VMS also had K&R C, and a simulator I worked with at the time was written (not by me) using that compiler.
Indeed, although C kind of felt second-class on VMS since the language has a lot of Unixisms embedded in the standard library and, to a lesser extent, the language itself.
Being able to define command line interfaces using cld files on VMS was really wonderful and you got things like abbreviations of options (and commands) to their shortest unique initial string was quite nice (so, for example, the directory command could be named as such but everybody just typed dir).
"did exactly what you needed and nothing more" You can still do that. Build a config for openbox or dwm. While the wm still compiles you can ignore the fads.
> Now we live in a time where we allocate GBs of RAM to eye candy that functionally accomplishes nothing.
Well, of course it takes more ram when we run 4x the pixels for the same size screen. And we double the refresh rate, but then hold everything back a frame to composite it. :P
(in some alternate universe, motif was under the x11 license and you would have motif v13 instead of GTK.)
That's a cruel alternate universe, I would've hoped that Motif being in use by more people than just the devs of one homebrew Unix desktop would mean that we wouldn't have suffered through that much versionitis.
There are at least, for those wanting a Linux or BSD based Motif fix:
So, I guess the history of 'windows NT' is lost on many. 'NT' started with version 3.1 as the MS/IBM breakup from the joint OS/2 venture happened. It was their first real push into 32 bit protected mode operating systems and supported really crazy cool things like 'multiple processors' and totally different architectures than x86, like DEC. Give the link a look.
You’ve linked to NT, not Win 3.x
They were entirely different OSs.
Edit: the previous poster has since completely rewritten this comment to talk about windows NT. they originally talked about Windows (without the NT) then linked to an NT wiki. Hence my reply.
@OP Poor show on your ninja edit.
I put '[edit]' and new comments below that and didn't edit anything above, including the link. The post above the edit is all original. I'm sorry you have been confused through this.
With the greatest of respect, if you’d put “Windows NT 3.1” originally then I wouldn’t have commented. But you didn’t.
Anyway, I think we’re both plenty experienced on both platforms so I don’t see any need for us to argue over NT or not to NT.
I think NT is correct; NT was designed by Dave Cutler, who famously worked on VMS stuff before working for Microsoft. I think the poster was correct in posting NT.
No they’re not. The GUI design came from Windows 3.0. What NT do was take the design of that and the branding of Windows to help sell NT.
But NT 3.1 is a completely different OS to Windows 3.1.
They might look the same, but one has OS/2 heritage while the other has DOS heritage (to overly simplify their origins, but I’m in a rush this morning so can share more accurate details later if you wish).
Edit: the GP changed their comment. The original copy didn’t reference NT, it just said “Windows 3.1”. Hence my reply.
Even if the GUI design elements originated with Windows, I don’t think it’s incompetent to mention Windows NT when VMS comes up. Due to Cutler’s origins, a lot of people consider NT as the spiritual successor to VAX.
Fair point.
No, I linked to Windows NT 3.1. The history here is important. It supported DEC alpha, hence the post.
Except NT 3.1 is still NT and NT didn’t “invent” the 3.1 design. They modelled it after Windows 3.1 (though technically Windows 3.0) and named NT as NT 3.1 for brand familiarity.
So NT 3.1 != Windows 3.1
As you said “history here is important”.
I'm not sure what you think I was implying with my post? The history I was pointing out was Windows NT 3.1 supported the DEC alpha processor (3.1 was marketing and implied the UI was similar to windows 3.x, which it was). This was a connection between DEC and windows that I thought was interesting and not the subject of the post, but in some interesting ways ties the two together. DEC did many things for a very long time like make machines, operating systems and processors [1] and is likely good fodder for a top level HN post in its own right. I remember dreaming about running a DEC NT3.1 machine when I heard about it. I had a friend in the AF who showed me the install disks for NT 3.1, a double stack of 1.44mb 3.5" disks. It must have taken hours to install. Anyways, that is the linkage. Take a look. It is fun history.
I used to work for a convention planning company, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I somehow am surprised that there are enough VMS users to justify a conference. I have genuinely not heard of anyone using VMS in any context in more than twenty years.
I miss Motif. This is a portal to a time when men were men and UNIX(R)—or in this case, VMS—desktops were utilitarian and did exactly what you needed and nothing more.
Now we live in a time where we allocate GBs of RAM to eye candy that functionally accomplishes nothing. Then we make the case to rewrite the eye candy in increasingly "safe" languages, requiring even more RAM.
Safe languages have nothing to do with it, case in point, the choice of programming languages available on VMS.
Which contrary to UNIX did not had the C mistake.
Rather Structured BASIC, Extended Pascal, COBOL, Modula-2, Fortran and Bliss.
It is really sloppy programming nowadays, regardless of the languages.
Hm? VMS also had K&R C, and a simulator I worked with at the time was written (not by me) using that compiler.
Indeed, although C kind of felt second-class on VMS since the language has a lot of Unixisms embedded in the standard library and, to a lesser extent, the language itself.
Being able to define command line interfaces using cld files on VMS was really wonderful and you got things like abbreviations of options (and commands) to their shortest unique initial string was quite nice (so, for example, the directory command could be named as such but everybody just typed dir).
"did exactly what you needed and nothing more" You can still do that. Build a config for openbox or dwm. While the wm still compiles you can ignore the fads.
> Now we live in a time where we allocate GBs of RAM to eye candy that functionally accomplishes nothing.
Well, of course it takes more ram when we run 4x the pixels for the same size screen. And we double the refresh rate, but then hold everything back a frame to composite it. :P
You can use a CDE lookalike https://github.com/NsCDE/NsCDE
The real thing is open source since 2012 https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Time to port this to Wayland using Claude code, right?
I dunno what's interesting about this link, but Motif has been LGPL a while and the last release was in 2017.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/motif/files/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motif_%28software%29
(in some alternate universe, motif was under the x11 license and you would have motif v13 instead of GTK.)
That's a cruel alternate universe, I would've hoped that Motif being in use by more people than just the devs of one homebrew Unix desktop would mean that we wouldn't have suffered through that much versionitis.
There are at least, for those wanting a Linux or BSD based Motif fix:
Enhanced Motif Window Manager https://fastestcode.org/emwm.html
and the full-fledged CDE desktop that uses Motif also:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/ (note that you want to firewall this somehow as the default settings on the background process ttdb can be a security hole)
UTF-8 support very welcome.
I saw DEC windows and immediately thought of Windows NT 3.1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1
[edit]
So, I guess the history of 'windows NT' is lost on many. 'NT' started with version 3.1 as the MS/IBM breakup from the joint OS/2 venture happened. It was their first real push into 32 bit protected mode operating systems and supported really crazy cool things like 'multiple processors' and totally different architectures than x86, like DEC. Give the link a look.
You’ve linked to NT, not Win 3.x
They were entirely different OSs.
Edit: the previous poster has since completely rewritten this comment to talk about windows NT. they originally talked about Windows (without the NT) then linked to an NT wiki. Hence my reply.
@OP Poor show on your ninja edit.
I put '[edit]' and new comments below that and didn't edit anything above, including the link. The post above the edit is all original. I'm sorry you have been confused through this.
With the greatest of respect, if you’d put “Windows NT 3.1” originally then I wouldn’t have commented. But you didn’t.
Anyway, I think we’re both plenty experienced on both platforms so I don’t see any need for us to argue over NT or not to NT.
I think NT is correct; NT was designed by Dave Cutler, who famously worked on VMS stuff before working for Microsoft. I think the poster was correct in posting NT.
No they’re not. The GUI design came from Windows 3.0. What NT do was take the design of that and the branding of Windows to help sell NT.
But NT 3.1 is a completely different OS to Windows 3.1.
They might look the same, but one has OS/2 heritage while the other has DOS heritage (to overly simplify their origins, but I’m in a rush this morning so can share more accurate details later if you wish).
Edit: the GP changed their comment. The original copy didn’t reference NT, it just said “Windows 3.1”. Hence my reply.
Even if the GUI design elements originated with Windows, I don’t think it’s incompetent to mention Windows NT when VMS comes up. Due to Cutler’s origins, a lot of people consider NT as the spiritual successor to VAX.
Fair point.
No, I linked to Windows NT 3.1. The history here is important. It supported DEC alpha, hence the post.
Except NT 3.1 is still NT and NT didn’t “invent” the 3.1 design. They modelled it after Windows 3.1 (though technically Windows 3.0) and named NT as NT 3.1 for brand familiarity.
So NT 3.1 != Windows 3.1
As you said “history here is important”.
I'm not sure what you think I was implying with my post? The history I was pointing out was Windows NT 3.1 supported the DEC alpha processor (3.1 was marketing and implied the UI was similar to windows 3.x, which it was). This was a connection between DEC and windows that I thought was interesting and not the subject of the post, but in some interesting ways ties the two together. DEC did many things for a very long time like make machines, operating systems and processors [1] and is likely good fodder for a top level HN post in its own right. I remember dreaming about running a DEC NT3.1 machine when I heard about it. I had a friend in the AF who showed me the install disks for NT 3.1, a double stack of 1.44mb 3.5" disks. It must have taken hours to install. Anyways, that is the linkage. Take a look. It is fun history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
Red Hat recently removed Motif from their distribution. I wonder if it's still in AIX.
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/6113101
"I wonder if it's still in AIX."
Anyone here going to the VMS bootcamp? [1]
[1] https://events.vmssoftware.com/bootcamp-malmo-2026
I used to work for a convention planning company, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I somehow am surprised that there are enough VMS users to justify a conference. I have genuinely not heard of anyone using VMS in any context in more than twenty years.
I still have my Vax 780 pen.