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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?".
