Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!smsc.sony.com!dce
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: System 7 question
Message-ID: <1989Dec28.163302.12820@smsc.sony.com>
Date: 28 Dec 89 16:33:02 GMT
References: <10734@claris.com> <780093@hpvcfs1.HP.COM>
Reply-To: dce@Sony.COM (David Elliott)
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp.
Lines: 35

In article <780093@hpvcfs1.HP.COM> mikek@hpvcfs1.HP.COM (Mike Kirkpatrick) writes:
>>>Speaking of future Apple system software, will Apple ever develop an
>>>interface akin to that of the NeXT's or even just X-windows?
>
>How about pipes and i/o redirection for starters. There are some activities
>that are just better done with a text/command line interface. The power to

This has little, if anything, to do with the question.  Nothing in
NeXTStep or X allows you to do pipes.  The fact that both of these
run on Unix does.

>Then there is the beautifully seamless networking capabilities of unix 
>machines. Unix machines can access many files and run applications on remote
>machines from any number of X windows all simultaneously. Can macOS or AUX
>do this?  
>
>Inquiring minds want to know?

Yes, both can.  In the first place, AUX is Apple's port of Unix, so
obviously it can do anything Unix can do.  MacOS can do quite a bit
more than you might think.  There are two command-line interfaces
for the Mac, and there are network protocols for dealing with remote
processes.  These just aren't supplied by default with the Mac.

I agree with you that Unix is more powerful for advanced users.  Hell,
I'm a Unix systems programmer.

Still, it's not Mac vs. Unix that's being discussed here, it's Mac
vs. other modern graphical user interfaces.

-- 
David Elliott
dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
(408)944-4073
"But Pee Wee... I don't wanna be the baby!"