Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!snll-arpagw!paolucci
From: paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AmigaDos vs Unix wildcards/pathnames
Message-ID: <75@snll-arpagw.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 89 02:12:21 GMT
References: <352@sagpd1.UUCP> <6294@cbmvax.UUCP> <11242@ut-emx.UUCP> <45@xenlink.UUCP> <3645@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Reply-To: paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci)
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Livermore, CA
Lines: 26

In article <3645@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
->On the user side, the Amiga's icon-oriented environment is much more intuitive
->than X-Windows; most Unix people don't have an icon-oriented environment at
->all.  

I don't understand your comment that "the Amiga icon-oriented environment is
much more intuitive than X-Windows".  The window manager in X-Windows is
just a program just like any of the other client programs in X-Windows.
As such, there are many window managers in use with very different
user presentation.  If one wanted to, one could write a window manager
which would look exactly like Workbench, and you could customize
you menus to boot.  Currently, there are at least two companies that
are writing window managers that behave exactly like MS Windows.
Your statement must be based on an observation of a particular (simple)
window manager.

The second part of your statement is probably right, but the first part
is clearly wrong.



-- 
					-+= SAM =+-
"the best things in life are free"

				ARPA: paolucci@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov