On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > Immaterial. the singularly most important feature > is > > suitability to task. If it is free and it does not > > work, what good is it? > > It depends what you are using it for. You made a > comment about "occaisonal > word processing" (pasted below). For such use > OpenOffice is perfectly good > enough. That is a totally unqualified evaluation. While it may be totally suitable for one individual, that in no way infers that it meets the requirements of another. There is no way you can define an end users requirements based solely on your own usage.
It's not an unqualified evaluation. If OpenOffice were not good enough for even "occasional word processing," then certainly no-one would be using it on a regular basis.
> Yes, the lack of documentation is a shame. > > In Windows, yes. In FreeBSD I can't see a lack. You are kidding right. I can find vastly more documentation available for a win32 machine than for FBSD. In fact, the lact of documentation is one of the reasons that support groups like this evolved. To my great dismay, I am forced to search for and then download documentation via the web. Even then, that is often dated. Not anyones fault, it is just the way it goes.
YOU are kidding, right? "More" does not mean better. If the FreeBSD documentation is fit for purpose, then there is little point in reiterating it all over the net. If the Windows documentation were fit for purpose, (and the only official documentation I can think of is the Windows Help Files, which are rightly derided all the net over as "The Windows NoHelp files" and suchlike - in other words, fit for purpose it definitely is not), there would be no need for support lines to PC companies and such - and yet the MS Knowledgebase is gigantic. Not only that, but those helplines are often clueless.
> The same lack of documentation > > plagues every facet of software today. > > No it doesn't. FreeBSD is well documented. It is above average, I will agree. However, if it were really perfect then this forum would not exist. > > However, you have made my point. > > No I haven't. I have contradicted your point. You > said " A very large > majority of users simply want to use their PCs for > email, occasional word > processing and possible game playing." I am saying > that using XP as you > suggested is not as easy as you suggest for a very > large number of people. If that were true, MS would not rule 90+ percent of the PCs in use today.
MS rules 90 percent of PCs in use today because (a) it is preloaded on 90% of PCs in use today, (b) PC companies are tied to Microsoft for many reasons, hardly any of which have to do with the quality of its OS products; (c) because of (a) and (b), more companies release software for Windows than any other OS. Why do you think users in third
rate countries pirate MS when they could get FBSD for free?
Because (a) they don't know about alternatives, and/or (b) the software they want (e.g. games) is not available for those other OSes. And if you really think that no-one in the West pirates Windows software, then you are not living on the same planet as the rest of us. I would not want to insult anyone; ...it may be a little late for that... however, if
you cannot install an MS operating system then perhaps you should consider another hobby. Even my wife's sister can handle that project, and that is a woman who considers a can opener a high tech device.
Installing an MS operating system on hardware for which the OS has inbuilt drivers is easy. Changing the configuration, even to the point of loading drivers and software which the OS does not include, can be considerably harder and in some cases (such as adding it to th disk after the other OS) is a job best suited to computer engineers, UNLIKE doing that with other OSes.
> If a user cannot > > decipher how to configure a simple thing like > Outlook > > Express, and there are programs available that > will do > > it for them, then how are they suppose to be > capable > > of handling a CLI OS like FreeBSD?
Once again, FreeBSD is not "a CLI OS". It boggles the
> mind > > -- at least mine. Worse, the configuration of OE > is > > handled by a wizard. It is truly sad when a user > > cannot configure something when it is simplified > down > > to that level. > > It's not so much the wizards, but third party > applications like virus > scanners which change those settings which is a part > of the problem. But you > are not quite comparing apples with apples. > Configuring Thunderbird on > FreeBSD is near enough identical to doing the same > on Windows. I wouldn't > however expect a complete computer novice to be able > to set up a FreeBSD box > without some help.
I wouldn't expect a complete novice to be able to set up just any Windows box either. Even one that doesn't think a can opener is complicated. You have users here with 10+ years experience who run
int problems. It is just the nature of the beast. It comes with the territory.
And Windows is, of course, "problemlos" as the Germans would say. Except, not.
How? Drop in two CDs or download the programs, run > > them and case closed. Neither one requires any > > significant configuration. The defaults work just > fine > > for most users. You could eliminate the Counter > Spy > > since ZA has its own proprietary SpyWare program, > but > > I just happen to prefer Counter Spy. > > > Your statement is simply wrong. AV and anti-spyware > DO require > configuration. And they do require installing, and > maybe downloading, and > being kept up to date. The defaults certainly don't > work all the time in all > cases. Have a look here: " Obviously it required installation. Before you can install, it is again obvious that you must secure the item. One size definitely does not fit all. What is your point? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/06/faulty_ca_update/". > I have heard of > broken installations for Norton numerous times. And > trying to help these > customers is time-consuming for our techies. Norton is pathetic, that I will agree with you on that one. That is why I switched three years ago to ZA. It has never given me a moment of trouble, although the CA AV it uses by default is not RFC 2595 compliant which was causing my network problems. One I corrected it though, everything was back to normal. BTW, 'time consuming for your techies'? Ah gee, like what are they paid for? To stand around and kiss each others butt. I am sick of over paid techies who have no working knowledge of what they are doing.
Perhaps you should encourage them to use an operating system which encourages one to know what one is doing. If they
find their job to stressful, quit! Please do me one favor, do not CC me. I am continually getting two copies of these. I subscribe to the list. I don't send you duplicate copies and therefore would appreciate the same cutesy. Perhaps my address was already inserted by a previous poster. If so, please do remove it. Thank You! -- White Hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to " [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
-- Proud Linux user since 1998 _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"