On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 04:05 AM, Chris Devers wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, John Gruber wrote: > >> Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 1/14/02 at 9:27a: >> >>> Yes, I agree it is confusing. I am not crazy about MacOSX, >>> but can think of nothing better, so I am not objecting. >> >> I have a feeling that "MacOSX" is not future-proofed. > > That's true, but it might work in the same way that "Win32" does. There, > of course, is no Windows 32 product, but rather a family of them that > can > be described as Win32. Mac OS X is clearly a big break with what > preceded > it, and presumably Mac OS XI (or whatever it will be) will evolve from > what we have now, rather than be another fundamental break. For lack > of a > better generic name for this new family of Mac systems, MacOSX might > have > to do -- though I'd be interested in better suggestions. Aqua? Darwin? My opinion is irrelevant my I sort of lean to darwin (after all that is what the hints file is called) but that may cause a problem with darwin/x11 vs darwin/aqua? Jon
