Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!fernwood!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: X11 bashing
Message-ID: <=J0B-.1@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 2 May 91 18:43:26 GMT
References: <16818@chaph.usc.edu> <558@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <226@bria.UUCP>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 27

In article <226@bria.UUCP> uunet!bria!mike writes:
> In an article, lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) writes:
> >Think carefully before you flame me - think hard about the Mac.  The reason 
> >that *users* like the Mac is due, in part, to the consistent look and feel
> >of the user interface.

> This is the old double-edged sword of user versus programmer usability.
> With the Mac, you had a machine that people loved to *use* but programmers
> *despised* programming.  Obviously this didn't (and will not ever) work.

Obviously. It worked so poorly that the Mac is the #1 selling computer in
the world.

> User friendless at the expense of programmability (or perceived said
> programmabilty) is not going to do it.

Of course, X is just as bad, if not worse. All the same restrictions
forcing applications programmers to do real-time work. It might be a
double-edged sword, but if so X badly needs sharpening: it doesn't even
manage one edge.

> If MS-DOS didn't exist, who would UNIX programmers have to make fun of?

X Windows.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"