From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] interesting potential targets for plan 9 and/or inferno
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <45EF5CB6.4040902@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <19651.1173689144.1@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:45:44 -0400
Message-ID: <19652.1173689144@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1f8bd130-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I'm really with Minnich on this one. The GUI is what *everyone*
> complains about and it's always the *first* thing they complain
> about.  I deal with pretty intelligent people in the security
> community and they can't handle Rio and don't want to.

In response, a serious, non-flame, question:  what's the realistic
alternative?  It would be possible, if arduous, to replace rio with
a clone of, say, fvwm.  But what about fluxbox and icewm and sawfish
and windowmaker and enlightenment?  Is "the problem" really rio per
se, or is the problem that for each person rio isn't the thing they
already use?

I guess my question translates into "Is there *one* X window manager
which, if cloned for Plan 9, would solve the 'rio problem'?".

Dave Eckhardt

P.S. And I guess the follow-on question is "Would that window manager
be sufficient, or are bash and turning vt into xterm necessary too?".