On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:50 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > 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. > >
Considering the original question of the OP wouldn't you agree that this might be their background? > > > > 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. > _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"