> I'm not advocating doo-dads, I'm just saying that's fundamentally > where I think a lot of the resistance to Plan 9 is coming from. A > large percentage of the OS hobbyists are vain. They would rather have > something like gnome or kde than something like rio because it looks > "cool." > > Noah > > On 3/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> But that is all computing time that could be better spent elsewhere. >> Who actually wants their machine to run no faster than a 4.7MHz IBM >> PC-Clone, albeit a very snazzy looking one? >> > Lots of people. That's the problem. > So what? I didn't ask "how many?", I asked "who?". We do not run Plan 9 development as a democracy, it is a meritocracy where program code gets you Noddy points. So is Linux, actually, and the real and significant difference is that Linux was there to fill a gap before Plan 9, so the expectant mediocracy took it on as their own. In a lot of ways, I'm glad Plan 9 didn't suffer that fate and I'm even more glad that the mediocracy is too busy shining the chrome on Linux to come and interfere with the engineering in Plan 9.
++L
