From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <56a297000703132126x4ffcad00s70f85c25815fbae8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:26:19 +0900
From: "Noah Evans" <noah.evans@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] interesting potential targets for plan 9 and/or inferno
In-Reply-To: <19652.1173689144@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <45EF5CB6.4040902@gmail.com>
	<19652.1173689144@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 222e7622-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

I think the root of the bias against rio is that it isn't "pretty". I
was joking when I talked about gradients and rounded corners, but I'm
willing to bet that if rio did have cute windows, anti-aliased fonts
and little whirry 3d doo dads that a lot of the complaints about it
would disappear.

I was serious about screencasts though. If there were actual,
watchable examples of the way acme worked and tools gurus did things
then I think people would start to "get" plan 9 more.

Noah

On 3/12/07, Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > 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?".
>