From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190601031208x1f78ca0ei5726aa18c25745f7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 07:08:38 +1100 From: Bruce Ellis To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] The mother-of-all-gnot? In-Reply-To: <1953FCA0-9FF4-44C6-8DAF-9A094CE59EEC@telus.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <4f4b408b9bd790339067cf8346c61f25@9netics.com> <1953FCA0-9FF4-44C6-8DAF-9A094CE59EEC@telus.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: cf7316a0-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Gnot that hard, bud. On 1/4/06, Paul Lalonde wrote: > > On 3-Jan-06, at 12:07 PM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote: > > If it is a Gnot-thingy and it is only connecting to Google, why would > > they muck with AJAX when they can use a file protocol? > > User-base and user-acceptability. > The user base comes from people already running AJAX boxes. > User acceptability comes from addressing a key shortcoming of Gnot. > I like Gnot --- I don't think Rob has gotten nearly the recognition > from the HCI community on this interface breakthrough and interfaces- > for-programmers in general --- but I continue to doubt that the > public is ready to put all their files on a remote server without > being able to get to them when the umbilicus is severed. Servers > make people anxious; by adding local disk Google can ease that while > still mirroring people's data on their network/computer. Gmail was > just the start of that particular slippery slope. > > Paul >