From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri,  9 Jun 2006 14:13:28 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
Message-ID: <20060609211328.GP1693@submarine>
References: <12bd3e4eeac406a7b2df5a203eb80021@vitanuova.com>
	<20060607231633.313b478e.20h@r-36.net>
	<3096bd910606071425x286bffc6p980b1767ffe82b82@mail.gmail.com>
	<200606071450.40128.corey_s@qwest.net> <44874DD2.8070108@gmail.com>
	<3e1162e60606071516j3375c9fek93db562a63c10a1f@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60606071516j3375c9fek93db562a63c10a1f@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 64acb532-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 03:16:13PM -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
> On 6/7/06, Llu=EDs Batlle i Rossell <viriketo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Corey wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:25, Rodolfo (kix) wrote:
> >>
> >>>God save us from QT and GTK ;)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Will god likewise save us from Rio and Acme?
> >In fact I use rio in Linux at my job. And by now I don't use Acme
> >because I have to deal with veryawfulcode (lots of very bad indentatio=
ns
> >fruit of many tab/spaces/tab/spaces at code changes, functions more th=
an
> >1500 lines long, an unworkable hierarchy of header files...). I agree
> >that acme is really pleasant for well-written code. As an example, I
> >like surfing plan9's with it. Also my code looks better if it's writte=
n
> >with acme, but this part is too subjective. :)
> >
> >Let's wonder why there is plan9port but there is no gcc in plan9.
> >
>=20
> I think a part of the problem is the momentum that linux got, and
> people have been fighting with the pains of migrating from windows
> (those that try to use linux as a desktop OS).  Many people got
> frustrated with Linux and went to Mac OS X.
>=20
> I don't see Plan 9 as a desktop OS for sure,

  Why ? Or better yet -- define "desktop OS". My point is just that
  it seems the Xwindows and WinAPIs are really showing its age when
  it comes to something like true desktop OS of today. And if on Linux
  there's an effort of trying to ditch X altogether and move onto
  something more in line with what we know about desktop today, I see
  no reason for not trying to reinvent Plan OS desktop side in the
  same manner. Granted, I'm not proposing porting anything, but rather
  careful reevaluation of what could be missing.

Thanks,
Roman.