Re: UI design | enhancements.

On 4/16/19, Marshall Conover <[email protected]> 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.