On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:37AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:49 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to
> > use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this
> > from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best
> > "desktop" OS I've ever had the pleasure to use.
> Me too. But you have to be more enabled to get a lot of the software the
> is wanted on a desktop system working. Case in point: Gnome is not
> automatically installed (or kde or any other wm). Web browsing can be
> tricky because you have to get wrappers for plugins and so on. For you
> and me- we don't mind because we know the result will be fantastic, but
> others who just want to get on with it it can be a pain.
More enabled . . . ?
You have to be "more enabled" to use *anything* that isn't preinstalled
by the hardware vendor. That basically means anything that isn't MS
Windows or MacOS X. After all, Linux, FreeBSD, Plan 9 . . . none of them
are "automatically installed" on any computer, with rare exceptions.
> Therefore, I'd say a desktop version of FreeBSD would be better
> described as a workstation. Considering we're comparing to Ubuntu, I'd
> say thats a fair statement.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
McCloctnick the Lucid: "The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your
time waving your hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do."
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"