Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:2565 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3350 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!yosemite.berkeley.edu!truman From: truman@yosemite.berkeley.edu (Tom Truman) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: ap, Windows BASIC Message-ID: <14296@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 26 Jun 91 15:50:58 GMT References: <91169.084617F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> <4k4q47w164w@mantis.co.uk> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: truman@zion.berkeley.edu Organization: UC Berkeley Signal Processing VLSI Group Lines: 21 In article , mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: |> |> Which X-windows environment? The one that looks just like Windows? |> That's an interesting statement. Or maybe you mean the Open Look |> environment? Or the uwm environment? or the twm environment? Or one of |> the two vtwm environments? |> |> Of course, X-windows is pretty much worthless, anyway. It comes with a |> sufficient selection of environments that I can get work done without |> going cursing at the window manager at regular intervals (unlike |> Windows). But saying that a window system is "better than X-windows" |> like saying that an OS is "better than MS-DOS". BFD; anyone who can't |> do better than those two examples should find themselves another line |> of work. What ??? Your naive description of X and the concept of multiple window managers is boorish. If X is *worthless* and is a poor example of a window system, please, let the rest of us in on a *good* one!!