From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <83403ad2ab9a0c44be1bef3d89406b63@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:17:01 -0500
To: jdp@syntelos.com, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: 9fans Digest, Vol 27, Issue 52
In-Reply-To: <44C5F39C.3010002@syntelos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8cf45a7c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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.