Hello >From tip9ug mail list:
http://www.wakhok.ac.jp/~kida/plan9/acmewin/ slds gabi -----Mensaje original----- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de Noah Evans Enviado el: miércoles, 14 de marzo de 2007 5:26 Para: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs Asunto: Re: [9fans] interesting potential targets for plan 9 and/or inferno 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?". >
