Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:05:52 -0400 From: Matthew Hunt <hunt@mph124.rh.psu.edu> To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> Cc: yossman <yossman@yoss.canweb.net>, www@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 'x-windows' Message-ID: <19970904130552.62798@mph124.rh.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970904112236.9965F-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>; from John Fieber on Thu, Sep 04, 1997 at 11:31:05AM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970904110117.7797A-100000@yoss.canweb.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.970904112236.9965F-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 04, 1997 at 11:31:05AM -0500, John Fieber wrote: > Also, out of curiosity, other than the fact that it isn't on the > list of "appropriate names", what are the arguments against the > name "X Windows"? I certainly don't have any special insight, but my assumption has always been simply that X11 is a windowing system, and not windows themselves. That is, X11 is the software for producing and manipulating on-screen windows. Likewise, newfs could be called a "filesystem creator" but not a filesystem, and xfig is illustration software, but not an illustration. -- Matthew Hunt <mph@pobox.com> * Think locally, act globally. finger hunt@mph124.rh.psu.edu for PGP public key.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970904130552.62798>