From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46416D6D8 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:31:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j814VK8m031877 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:31:21 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA16337 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:31:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mz3.forethought.net (mzpi5.forethought.net [216.241.36.14]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j814VIPA004694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:31:20 +0200 Received: from [216.241.35.41] (helo=[10.0.0.2]) by mz3.forethought.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1EAgjM-0002Zf-Kj for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:31:17 -0600 Message-ID: <4316841F.4090106@havenrock.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:31:27 -0600 From: Matt Gushee User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050108) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Does LablTk have a future? References: <20050830174757.99765.qmail@web30510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050830174757.99765.qmail@web30510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43168418.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43168416.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 labltk:01 windowing:01 pleasantly:98 wrote:01 suppose:05 interface:05 shortcomings:05 employer:91 platforms:08 majority:88 end:12 end:12 however:12 but:12 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 David Thomas wrote: >>Yes but we gain the ability to have a better >>interface on all platforms. > > While pleasantly egotistical, I would have to say that > this is a false statement. Yes, there are problems > with any given windowing system. Note, however, that > the user has already chosen the system whose > shortcomings they feel the most comfortable with. True in a way. But really, the vast majority of end users have not chosen. Their employer, school, or computer vendor has chosen Windows for them, and they become used to Windows and never give anything else a fair trial. But the end result is the same, I suppose. -- Matt Gushee Englewood, CO, USA