From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200012080710.XAA00514@tammananny.tiger> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] VGA Hell, what else?! In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:03:36 +0200." <20001208060335.F20270@cackle.proxima.alt.za> From: Quinn Dunkan Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 23:10:36 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 36ac7904-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > It is unfortunate that the Plan 9 developers are so serious :-) Graphic > games are a significant aspect of the more popular operating systems, and > Plan 9 is sorely lacking in that direction. Not that that isn't in > itself an advantage, keeping the more frivolous developers at bay, but it > does deter from serious developers applying their skills to port > otherwise solid, but graphic-demanding applications to Plan 9. > > A graphic ABI (what's that "B"? 'Tused to be a "P", can someone explain > the difference?) would be wonderful, but looking at the X11(3) man pages, > I fall into the deepest despair. A pity, really, I'd like Tcl/Tk to be > available in Plan 9. I don't have any particular desire for a buttons and menus style graphics toolkit, but an opengl library would be really nice. On the widget toolkit front, I wonder if it would be practical to have a 'gfx server' that does for graphical programs what acme does for text ones, or give acme the ability to display bitmaps and positioned text, etc. If there were to be a plan9 web browser, it could be built on such a foundation. Hey, maybe if we wish for these things enough they'll sort of materialize out of thin air :) Seriously, though, I don't think these things are lacking because plan 9 developers all shun graphics, but because they take a lot of work and there doesn't seem to be many swarms of eager developers around. I imagine that if someone did some solid work that added needed functionality, it would get folded into the main distribution. On a somewhat-related topic, would it be possible to teach aux/vga to load XF86 driver modules? If it could, that would basically solve the vga driver problem. Or maybe it's less work to just add each card to aux/vga directly, as is done currently? I haven't looked at the spec for the modules, but hopefully they're reasonably X-independent. Also, on the subject of cross-directory renames that came up a while back, is the plan9 position to just try to avoid having to move a large tree to a different directory, and if you must, sit back while it copies and deletes? From the sound of it, a cross-directory rename not implemented for good reasons, but what's the alternative? What do the bell labs people do when they find themselves confronted with 't/huge-dir' that needs to be './huge-dir'? Obviously, bind can work nicely, but is only really appropriate for situations where the "move" is temporary and only needs to be seen by procs in the same namespace group. I don't even know if there's a way to remove a file from the namespace. I know you could MREPL an empty directory over a directory, but a single file?