Plan 9

UI aside, this video it's a nice little introduction to Plan 9 namespaces, one of the core concept of the OS
youtube.com/watch?v=1S2vLONjjfA

>> pastel colors
don't care tinkertrannies get out
>> mouse support implemented in a smart way
great feature for 1993 unfortunately it's 2022 now and everything has mouse support
>> windows don't try to guess where you want them to be drew
...so you have to make this uncomfortable hand movement to draw it
you could easily implement the same shit without it being such a pain to use
>> It doesn't get in your way at all
this one i agree with but only shitty DEs do it
You know what's shit about that fucking thing? You have to use your shitty flimsy mouse buttons and click perfectly on the 3 pixel border to fucking do anything with the windows and before that you have to click the middle button which is the most fucking unergonomic tihng in the world
and it's not some fucking genius simple way of doing shit because i can do the same with two fucking buttons and don't have to aim for that perfect single pixel fucking border like a retard and go through some shitty menu because I HAVE TWO FUCKING MOUSE BUTTONS WHY DO WINDOW OPERATIONS USE A SINGLE BUTTON IF THE INTERFACE IS DESIGNED AROUND 3-BUTTON MOUSE i have no clue
also you're expected to type the whole fucking command every time you want to launch anything by default which is just absurd i hope you faggots at least keep a window with some kind of shortcuts
it's not something linux or BSDs do but windows does and it obviously is a good idea because monolithic OS development is vastly superior to whatever kind of clusterfuck freedesktop/systemd/linux/gnu/X is
but while OS development in general has stagnated for the past 20-40years, graphical interfaces were relatively new when plan 9 was released and the understanding of usability has greatly improved since then, it naive to think that some experimental OS from the 90s has a better interface than windows and mac which had billions of dollars of investments to make them easy to use normal people and robust for professionals

>HY DO WINDOW OPERATIONS USE A SINGLE BUTTON IF THE INTERFACE IS DESIGNED AROUND 3-BUTTON MOUSE
ok ive just recalled you dont have to do that but you still have to click on the border which is retarded

> don't care tinkertrannies get out
You don't tinker rio. It's not meant to be done
> great feature for 1993 unfortunately it's 2022 now and everything has mouse support
It's still 2022 and yet nobody makes good use of 3 buttons of your mouse
> so you have to make this uncomfortable hand movement to draw it
You just dran and draw your window. I don't understand what "uncomfortable hand movement" you are talking about.

If it's uncomfortable for you to use a mouse you should be checked for RSI, no joking

> you could easily implement the same shit without it being such a pain to use
Explain how

> You have to use your shitty flimsy mouse buttons and click perfectly on the 3 pixel border to fucking do anything with the windows
you can also use context menu. The borders are big enough to be clicked, just like in any other de/wm
> before that you have to click the middle button which is the most fucking unergonomic tihng in the world
not really. You nevever press 3 buttons at the same time so you can use the middle finger for button 2 and 3 like you do on every mouse
Button 3 in mouse chording is generally used for cancel the command so it doesn't happen very often

> I HAVE TWO FUCKING MOUSE BUTTONS WHY DO WINDOW OPERATIONS USE A SINGLE BUTTON IF THE INTERFACE IS DESIGNED AROUND 3-BUTTON MOUSE i have no clue
Because it allows for a better usage of mouse

>ok ive just recalled you dont have to do that but you still have to click on the border which is retarded
No you don't

Attached: acme-mouse-chords.png (395x492, 18.08K)

>it's not something linux or BSDs do but windows does and it obviously is a good idea because monolithic OS development is vastly superior...
if you think there's no DOS code left in Windows 11 even, you're very misguided. every modern system for the most part has been built on a GUI-less foundation. also kinda funny that you name a bunch of systems with monolithic kernels and act like they're less monolithic than one with a hybrid kernel. BSDs especially are designed to be complete systems, that's why they all have their own core utilities and stuff specific to their system. it's not like Linux where there's a GNU/Linux separation. Hell openbsd maintains their own forks of UI stuff even specific to their system, like xenodm and xenocara (the latter of which addressed the issue of rootless X well before Linux). But at the end of the day Plan 9 is still probably the most monolithic system by far.

> it naive to think that some experimental OS from the 90s has a better interface than windows and mac which had billions of dollars of investments to make them easy to use normal people and robust for professionals
It kinda does, if you restrict to Plan 9 use case.
But if your reasoning were sound, OS would already have ported private namespaces from Plan 9, instead of relying on cheap hacks for having multiple ttys, sockets, and not having a network transparent OS

bump

>it naive to think that some experimental OS from the 90s has a better interface than windows and mac which had billions of dollars of investments to make them easy to use normal people and robust for professionals
For what it does, it is better. You don't often execute commands on windows or mac, and the mouse on plan9 makes easy to fix wrong commands and execute them.

Attached: esbejs3.gif (561x700, 209.12K)

Plan 9 is sleeping. Someday companies will see plan 9 as a better alternative to linux because of its license and better container management, and you will have to get used to it or get thrown out of your career.

>The borders are big enough to be clicked
i've read enough you have brain damage
>BSDs especially are designed to be complete systems, that's why they all have their own core utilities and stuff specific to their system. it's not like Linux where there's a GNU/Linux separation
that's very cool bro too bad i know this
>very modern system for the most part has been built on a GUI-less foundation
NTs design allows for isolation of different environments so you can have compatibility with older systems without shitting up the base system with old code
>also kinda funny that you name a bunch of systems with monolithic kernels and act like they're less monolithic than one with a hybrid kernel
linux is a hybrid kernel??? i have no clue what you're trying to say i've never said anything about kernels i wrote about development model
>you can also use context menu
moving mouse while holding the button is really not fucking ergonomic, one of my main complaints, fixing this issue would maybe make it somewhat viable
>It kinda does, if you restrict to Plan 9 use case.
maybe it does suit the plan9 interface but it's still uncomfortable to use and i don't like the plan 9 interface either
>But if your reasoning were sound, OS would already have ported private namespaces from Plan 9, instead of relying on cheap hacks for having multiple ttys, sockets, and not having a network transparent OS
my reasoning about what? that more research yields more innovation? For the purpose of maximizing profits for companies there is no reason to research OSs in such scale and it's natural for a more mature field to stagnate over time while graphical interfaces were under rapid development at the time and made companies money
also it's a different story because changing UI is different to changing the whole OS in that the first one is much easier and yes, features simillar to namespaces have been implemented "well enough" and often with cheap hacks like youve said

Go is the spiritual successor to Plan 9 with a pn even better mascot that doesn't look like that crazy rabbit from Alice in Wonderland

2000 char lengths i gimping my posts
>Hell openbsd maintains their own forks of UI stuff even specific to their system, like xenodm and xenocara (the latter of which addressed the issue of rootless X well before Linux)
you have no clue what you're talking about, xenocara is a custom build system it's not a fork and that's explicitly stated on the official website
OpenBSD devs refuse to touch Xorg code
>But at the end of the day Plan 9 is still probably the most monolithic system by far.
there are many OSs developed by a single party and plan9 still suffers from shitty unix design decisions, it's a better unix not something entirely different

petty bourgeois ideology

i think mouse was something new back in the day and pike wanted to have some experiments with it. they also tested it and got a conclusion that was faster to work with mouse chords than with full keyboard layout like unix was, or work like windows 95 worked.
plan 9 was not made to be used by dumb normal user (that was already a job of windows back in the day) but by programmers that need to write code fast, i think you are missing this point.

but you can also make your own window manager that uses more keyboard, or hack rio to be more keyboard driven.