--- White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 06/09/06, White Hat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >  I have
> > > tried Open Office. No matter what anyone says,
> it
> > is
> > > just not as full featured as Word 2003. It is
> not
> > even
> > > close.

yeah cause most users want to use an MDI instead of a
PDF (inside joke, anyone in the telecomm industry who
does work for cell carriers or one in particular might

> > 
> > 
> > True, but also compare the cost. Not even close...
> Immaterial. the singularly most important feature is
> suitability to task. If it is free and it does not
> work, what good is it?

"...but most users" only care about writing letters
and resumes; openoffice does this fine. Even spits out
a PDF for me to email away with a coversheet. And then
there is always SunOffice...  Since spending money
seems to be the solution for all of the problems I
have with windows and the lack of integrated features
it contains. Maybe I should go out and get a Quad
AMDx2 motherboard and fill it with FX series chips to
handle XP being slower then Warp, but alas windows
still has no real support for 64-bit chips. Oh and it
sure would be a pain to have to reinstall EVERYTHING
because the PNP windows machine won't let me switch a
motherboard on it. 

> > He/she does
> > > not want to read tons of manuals and spend hours
> > in a
> > > frustrating attempt to get it to run.
> > 

if I buy a chain saw I take the time to read the
manufacturers suggested method to adjust the chain
tension. Maybe I'm not the normal person, but stuff
never works out of the box, and not taking the time to
read the manual is the users fault. and unlike windows
products the online help for FreeBSD and GNU in
general is incredible. Windows expects the use is an
idiot and makes no attempt to explain how the command
line switches work, or what registry keys do, or what
the blue-screen-o-death errors refer to. 

> > 
> > This is where you are completely wrong. I work for
> > an ISP. I'm not
> > responsible for tech support but I keep my "ear to
> > the ground". A VERY large
> > number of callers have problems configuring
> Outlook
> > Express, for example. No
> > matter what the polls say, the experience is often
> > very different. They may
> > not read the manuals (because they are no longer
> > supplied), they just ring a
> > call centre instead.
> Yes, the lack of documentation is a shame. Usually
> it
> can be obtained for an additonal cost which I
> suppose
> is better than nothing. The same lack of
> documentation
> plagues every facet of software today. Of course, it
> has been a boon for the after market book manual
> publishers. BTW, you have failed to document so
> called
> help line assistants who are nothing more than
> company
> mouth pieces who have at most a superficial
> knowledge
> of the product that they are suppose to be assistant
> a
> customer with. I had the experience of talking with
> a
> customer support moron who tried to sell me a new
> router while I attempted to explain the router was
> fine, but the installation CD was defective. I
> eventually just sent it back for a replacement.
> Usually these individuals are barely equipped to
> handle the job they are given.

which is why If i spend 300 on a license for windows
and 600 for a license for office I should get the
manual. Online help is useless in the windows world.
Nothing is more frustrating then having an error code
thrown in windows and the help system not having any
clue on what the error code is, but plenty of
information about how simple setting this thing up is.
Even more frustrating is the 15 chapters on how you
click the mouse and use the start menu.

> However, you have made my point. 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? 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.

I never thought the average user should have to set it
all up. I'm working towards deploying the system
amongst friends already configured becuase once it is
it don't break, is easy to use, and lightyears faster.
Make a PKzip of your windows install and try to copy
it to another machine. It doesn't happen, but if
someone took the time to setup FreeBSD they could copy
it on a million machines, and the users would never be
the wiser. Why can't I just zip up my windows machine
and keep a tape ready to go? why should it be an
ordeal to get it configured again. This is basically
what Apple did with Mac, and if they would just
release OS X on PC I wonder how fast the windows
market would shrink. As projects like PCBSD and
DesktopBSD advance it will be easier and easier to
convince folks windows is NOT the only kid on the

> > The average user
> > > does not care about configuring firewall, AV or
> > > Spyware, etc. Just drop in a copy of ZA with
> > perhaps
> > > Sunbelt's Counter Spy and they are on their way.
> > 
> > 
> > That's one statement contradicting the other.
> 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.
> BTW, if MS actually does market it 'One Care'
> program
> suite, that might even obsolete that entire process.
> I
> don't think they will offer it with the OS though.
> Too
> much of a chance the government will protest.
> Personally I believe a company should be allowed to
> market its product anyway it wants without
> government
> intervention; however, that is entirely another
> story.

and I think a company should be stopped by the
government for stealing code from a competitor or
potential licensor, hence: alpha chipset support in
NT4 and 3.5, and no SP5 for Windows 2000 and no real
replacement for the aging NT beast. XP is a joke,
slower, and annoying if you work in an environment
constantly mapping network drives to the same
letters... Not to mention security should be part of
the OS. Why should a person spend 300 on a license to
spend another 100 on the software that makes it
secure.  A recent article by "Information Week" Sept
4, 2006 edition; article "Windows After Vista":
Microsoft itself admits it maybe should use a virtutal
machine to support the old software and hardware so
they can remove the old and slow capatability code
from the protected system enviroment. hmm, it took em
10 years and thousands of exploits to figure out they
should use a "jail" system to make the kernel faster
and more secure by not allowing the old and flawed
programs with exploits due to the hacks they used to
make em work in the first place to talk to the system
directly, nor be part of the kernel directly; What a

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to