Motif is great, I love how it looks and feels, and I want it to be actively maintained. I want a healthy ecosystem of Motif applications and even window managers and desktop environments, so I can run a real Motif environment. Sadly, while Motif has been open source for a while, the project itself stalled years ago, with little to no activity from anyone involved. That may be changing, as a number of developers decided to take matters into their own hands last year.

This fork of Motif was born of a desire to keep Motif (and other X11 technologies) alive and well. The original upstream Sourceforge project hasn’t had any activity in over two years, none of the project admins have been active for at least that amount of time, the official bug tracker has disappeared into the void; and the user forum was closed way back in 2017. Sadly, it appears that the original upstream has abandoned the project.

I’ve incorporated some fixes from upstream that have laid dormant for years, a few others from Gentoo, and made a few improvements of my own. I intend to maintain this fork, and in doing so advocate for the continued use of the user interface toolkit that defined an era, and influenced many of the user interfaces that came after it.

↫ Tim Hentenaar at the Motif fork’s GitHub page

Some of the people involved are people I know online, so I have a bit of faith in this fork being able to stand the test of time, but of course, managing a complex project like this is hard, so who knows how long the enthusiasm remains. Still, this fork has seen five releases since its inception a little over a year ago, which seems promising. It may seem weird for some to have a love for Motif, but I’m the kind of person who installs weird, outdated corporate and industrial software I don’t understand on my HP c8000 dual PA-RISC workstation running HP-UX just to enjoy the Motif interfaces they sometimes ship. We all have our quirks.

From my experiences talking to people online, I know there’s actually a rather solid number of people like me, and I hope that at some point the developers in this group can gain enough critical mass to build something like a basic Linux distribution or desktop environment using the disparate, actively-maintained Motif projects out there that yes, still exist. It’s a long shot, but in today’s computing landscape, where more and more people feel uncomfortable with “modern” software, I really feel like there’s a niche for something like this to exist.

A really small niche, surely, but a niche all the same.

AROS, the open source Amiga OS-compatible operating system, now has images available for the Raspberry Pi 3 (although some people state it also works on the Pi 4), in both 32bit and 64bit versions. According to the AROS team, they are quite stable, but not yet complete, so do know what you’re getting into. Dan Wood posted a YouTube video about these new images, providing much more insight into how well they work if you want more insight into how well they work.

The images are, of course, the basic AROS operating system, so expect a rather barebones experience. If you’re used to some of the AROS distributions for x86, which come loaded with software and customisations, these images will feel quite bare to you. It’s going to take some time to port over all of these applications and customisations to the ARM version of AROS, but if and once that happens, I expect more complete images to appear as well.

Great news for AROS and the Amiga community in general.

Ah, Japan’s TRON project – every few years someone discovers it anew and it bubbles back up the surface, and deservedly so, as it’s an incredibly interesting operating system project that, like so many others, deserved a better fate.

There’s a version of computing history where the desktop OS that won wasn’t Windows. Not because the alternative was Unix-based or because Apple pulled off something different, but because an operating system designed at the University of Tokyo in 1984 was ambitious enough to try to replace the file system with a hypermedia document model, run on a custom Japanese CPU architecture, and encode 1.5 million characters, only to have a US trade report single it out as an unfair trade barrier in 1989.

That project was TRON (The Real-time Operating system Nucleus), a real, government-backed Japanese computing initiative whose desktop variant, BTRON, was named in a US trade barrier report and effectively killed before it could reach schools nationwide. Meanwhile, its embedded counterpart, ITRON, quietly became one of the most deployed operating systems in history.

TRON’s history has since attracted some genuinely wild conspiracy theories, including one claiming that Japan Airlines Flight 123 was deliberately crashed in order to target the TRON developers on board, despite there being no evidence that any TRON developers were even on the flight. But the strangest part of the story isn’t even a conspiracy theory: BTRON’s hypermedia desktop was decades ahead of what the market could support, and SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son may have helped sink it from the inside.

↫ Adam Conway at XDA

The most interesting part of TRON for me was the different ways it treated files and documents compared to other operating systems. Instead of focusing on applications and files as the core interaction points for users, it focused on the document. While most operating systems associate specific files with specific applications, TRON associated individual components of documents with individual handlers. If you want to edit a Word document today, you open Word and do all your editing work inside Word, whether you’re editing blocks of text or an image, or you open entirely different applications when Word’s capabilities for a certain component in a document are too limited. In TRON, you’d open a document, and only once you wanted to edit specific components did it “open” an “application” to perform the editing, without actually leaving the document in question.

Want to edit an image inside your document? In most operating systems, you’d have to open a separate image editor, load the relevant image file into it, make your edits, save the image file, and then paste said edited image file back into your document. There’s a considerable amount of overhead here that shouldn’t really exist; a computer is more than smart enough to open up just the editing controls from a different application if need be. In our current paradigm, applications often “solve” this by adding ever more features and controls and tools to cover every possible object or component you might have to deal with, but that just makes applications more complex, more bloated, and more difficult to use.

TRON’s approach has been tried in a variety of times and places, but it never caught on. My personal pet theory is that the application-first model is far better at wealth extraction and concentration than TRON’s model, and as such, that’s what we ended up with. If a user’s document and all of its constituent parts are tied to and wrapped up into a single application from a single vendor, it’s much easier to control said user and extract wealth from them than when that user can just pick and choose whatever handler they want to use for whatever object they happen to run into in a document, without having to open tons of different applications and move, copy, and paste stuff all the time.

In fact, this is also why consistency in user interface design is now all but dead; application developers and vendors use their own weird, non-standard, custom user interfaces for branding purposes. Sticking to a platform’s standards and conventions makes it harder to stand out and put your “brand” in people’s faces. But I digress.

Regardless, I’m not sure if all the stories about the US trying to bury TRON have any real value to them, as even the article itself notes (undoing its own clickbaity headline) that the project already seemed to be in dire straights even before it got a buried mention in some trade document. On top of that, ITRON, the embedded TRON variant, survived and thrives to this very day, powering untold numbers of devices. It seems to have done quite well for itself, supposed US government intervention or no.

This article by Steven J. Searle also takes a look at the workstation-focused variant of TRON.

So that is the whole pipeline exercised end-to-end. GrandSlam authenticates the Apple Account and obtains the IDS delegate. authenticateDS and id-register turn the Linux process into a registered Apple messaging identity. The Friends sequence attaches that identity to the existing accepted relationship. A missing-key SubscribeAndFetch makes the sharing device deliver its current P-224 key over APNs/IDS, inside a sender-verified P-256 NGM envelope. A second SearchParty fetch returns the encrypted report, and the P-224 key opens it locally.

So yeah, in one sentence: authenticate to Apple’s private services, register the Linux machine as an IDS client, receive the existing Find My share key, and use it to fetch and decrypt a consented friend’s latest location.

↫ Zerotistic

I wonder if it would be possible to build a proper third-party client for Apple’s Find My network like this, or if it would be trivial for the company to block it. I’m fairly sure quite a few people would love to be able to keep using Find My when moving away from Apple’s operating systems.