From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <339622e8b6ab21504ee73402fd2d3742@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:32:10 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: 9fans Digest, Vol 27, Issue 52 In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40607251423i5bbc79e2obc11e7640b57b449@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8dce7aea-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 i might be suffering from nih syndrome. i will take some time to check it out. - erik On Tue Jul 25 16:24:11 CDT 2006, nemo@lsub.org wrote: > Just curious. Anyone besides us at urjc tried omero? > It has images, as well as bugs :-) > > > On 7/25/06, erik quanstrom wrote: > > i think the ideal "browser" for plan 9 would be acme. > > > > if acme could handle a box-based layout with images and text, the > > "web browser" could consist of webfs, http/layout and http/acmectl. > > > > (giving acme the ability to display images inline with text would make > > replacing rio with acme more palatable.) > > > > - erik > > > > On Tue Jul 25 05:36:25 CDT 2006, jdp@syntelos.com wrote: > > > If we were to formulate mozilla for an OS like Plan9 or Inferno, what > > > would be different in that software architecture? One can either > > > descend into the endless void of great possibilities, or truncate that > > > space at a first stage (it's just an HTTP client) and then start over > > > from scratch for a second (it's a world of multi-protocol clients). > > > Maintain sanity.