From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] p9 mice From: Kenji Okamoto In-Reply-To: <53d39a62b928608347a764c76b8e5add@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:53:21 +0900 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 60e47100-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > Neither Presotto nor I use acme. We've tried, maybe we're just too old. Probably, you grows up in the character device era, right? If we consider Plan 9 only from character user interface, I can only find one advantage of Plan 9 on a file server side. If that's all the Plan 9, we don't need terminals. We need only file server, auth/cpu server. I know it's the very obvious advantage of Plan 9 system. However, I see another possibility of Plan 9 to use it as our GUI terminals, where I'm not saying that present distribution is satisfying for it. Acme of its present form may not be the goal of GUI terminals of Plan 9 which I'm saying, however, it seems to me that the goal must exist beyond the point where we could overcome it. According to my understanding, the most weak point of acme is that it's not fully impremented as user level file server model of Plan 9, but as older style of library calls. Rob will say something else, I know of course. Acme's user interface is best to me to write documents, paricularly its multi-window capability. Everytime when I teach beginner students, who are not computer science major, how to use acme, they learn it very quickly, of course, including chording. Kenji