Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce!trlluna!shiva!soh
From: soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: X (was Re: NeXT & Interface Builders)
Message-ID: <2356@trlluna.trl.oz>
Date: 17 Oct 90 02:51:30 GMT
References: <33198@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <6803@sugar.hackercorp.com> <123395@linus.mitre.org>
Sender: news@trlluna.trl.oz
Organization: Telecom Research Labs,Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 29

In article <123395@linus.mitre.org> duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) writes:
> ....
  [ Steve Jobs' talk at a conference in Tokyo that the author attended ]
> ....
>Could someone explain what it is about X-windows that makes it "brain damaged"
>or "fatally flawed"?

There's a long thread in comp.windows.x about what is good and bad
about X.  Personally, X is not bad as far as windowing systems are
concerned.  Sure, it can be a memory hog, require some swap space on
disk, and dead slow at times.  It's big selling point (for a free
system, that ain't bad) is that it is supported on many different
platforms, and the programs written in X tend to be portable.

Many people don't like X because it doesn't specify a user interface
standard.  They forget that all X does is provide a standard
programming interface for windowing environments.  It is up to vendors
and committees to specify the "look and feel" of applications.

I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or
Intuition or Windows.  Most graphic user interfaces look the same, and
if I can customise the mouse actions, they feel the same as well.
Unfortunately, people in marketing seem to think that a particular
windowing system is important to novices, so they make a big fuss
about it in advertisements.

------
Soh, Kam Hung      email: h.soh@trl.oz.au     tel: +61 03 541 6403 
Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia