Re: [9fans] Re: someone thinking about trying plan 9

[anothy@cosym.net]

[on the discussion of X vs. /dev/dran and rio]
i think it's misleading to say rio is analogous to *wm while
/dev/draw is analogous to the X server. rio provides or defines much
more in the way of facilities than your typical wm, "intruding"
substantially into the realm of the X server.

look at the nearest thing to a replacement for rio we've got: acme.
I/O behaves very differently under acme, and graphics programs written
to the /dev/draw model are totally useless (producing interesting
results). /dev/draw isn't analogous to the X server - it's a hardware
abstraction layer.

//It's conceivable that if you want to have windows that differ
//substantially from "asynchronous layers of text"... ...then they
//might be better handled by a different display management discipline.

just to be clear, rio can handle windows other than "asynchronous
layers of text". Acme, for example, or Inferno running on Plan 9 (i'm
not talking about the console, obviously), or games/plumb. oh, and
additional instances of rio. we're kind of short on applications that
do that, but it's quite possible in rio.

the above statement could still be true, however. i'm just pointing out
that rio can handle what you're talking about. there may well be other,
better, alternatives waiting to be created. personally, i'm looking
forward to Acme supporting graphics.

//Just as you can run a "nested" instance of rio inside a window, you
//could run an instance of your new window system within a rio window,
//or vice versa.

the "vice versa" part is tricky. X, for example, runs inside a normal
rio window, as does Acme. both provide "different discipline" from rio.
but good luck running rio inside either. again, this could still be
true, but it depends on the "other" window system providing the same
/dev/draw model provided by #i and rio.
-α.