Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsc!mayer
From: mayer@hplabsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: naming of x programs
Message-ID: <1624@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Apr-87 15:07:27 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1624
Posted: Sat Apr 18 15:07:27 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Apr-87 05:44:59 EST
References: <8704171915.AA28481@MENELAUS.MIT.EDU> <1623@hplabsc.UUCP> <1126@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> <27115@rochester.ARPA>
Reply-To: mayer@hplabsc.UUCP (Niels Mayer)
Distribution: world
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 21

>But not everybody runs BSD.
Very true.

I'll add to that, not everyone is root on all the machines they use,
so you may just end up working on some machine where all the x
programs have been lumped togher under /usr/bin.

It doesn't bother me to type one extra character 'x' before the
command, especially since I use a menu under uwm to select my
frequently used programs (xterm-e, gnuemacs, etc.)

And what happens when I decide that I don't like X and I want to try
out it's incompatible successor, Y? I would rather be able to 
decide to run xemacs, or yemacs, rather than having to muck with
the order that /usr/bin/X and /usr/bin/Y occur in $PATH, or
yaweh-forbid, type out the full path name.

I think we should get back to writing x-based programs rather than
arguing about what we're gonna call them.

-- Niels.