Kernel from 1999 or 2001, what's the diffrence? Both old...
Thats the thing with any version of windows, it's already outdated even
before it's released...
Why no FreeBSD? I set up a freebsd box for my brother, using fluxbox and
xfce4-panel, and a few "easy" applications (openoffice, xfe, firefox, gaim
ect.) and he has no trouble using it, even though he's a "computer idiot"
(well actually, he's an idiot, perdiod, hehe)
freebsd is actually easyer then windows, it's a bit harder to setup for
the avarage user, but once set up by someone who knows his stuff, it's
really easy to use...
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:07:51 -0000, Kevin Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Tournoy wrote:
Use windows 2000, works better and faster than XP anyway, has all the
features XP has, except the teletubby UI, but that's not a feature but
the work of the anti-christ...
No troubles with updating, or nagscreens
Heh, I've a Thinkpad T23 with Win2K on it, though it really
ought to be used for FreeBSD as well --- however, wifey doesn't
see it that way just yet. Maybe if I get her a shiny new
DELL (*ack, cough, *hack*, sniff, wheeze).
As for "no troubles with updating", that's all relative. If
I were using a BSD kernel from 1999, nobody would talk to me
around here ;-). I also appreciate FreeBSD's rich built-in
utility set, and dislike entering my passcode twice to switch
users in W2K (which, incidentally, isn't necessary on XP,
feature, bug, what have you....).
KDK
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
