On 4/16/19, Marshall Conover <marzhal...@gmail.com> wrote: > [ ... ] > As an aside, Lucio, I'd second Ethan in that it's probably worth taking a > look; I'd be surprised if there was more actual code to change than there > was just ramp-up time to understand what you need to change, and a > one-or-two hour excursion into the code would probably get you how much > ramp-up time you need, at which point you could probably make the final > call on whether to move forward. > Thanks to both of you for the hint. My problem, spelled out neatly above, is that I have no idea how one targets the correct "window" in X. I have completely swallowed the Plan 9 kool-aid of fine-grained namespace separation and can't contemplate how xnest gets it wrong.
By the same token, incidentally, I've been wondering what the X equivalent of 9's window could be: nowhere in X's user space have I found a way to spawn a task in a window that matches the geometry I specify, unless that task includes the geometry among the command line arguments. That bit of philosophy shows so clearly how different Plan 9 and Unix really are. I will look, however. Frankly, if rio could provide a "little" more support, one may be able to run firefox (I'm assuming chrome/chromium isn't quite as liberated) in a rio window, but my efforts a while ago flopped completely - for which part of me is greatly relieved: somehow a firefox window on a Plan 9 background would be a constant thorn in my side. Lucio. PS: I did look at rio, not that long ago. But I think the problem extends to individual graphic commands. I'll see if I can get catclock to behave itself, next. Or shove the xnext magic into a rio option.
