> > Well, FWIU, building from source is also the preferred method, as it creates a > much better system overall, rather than just installing binaries which have > been built on someone else's system. This allows every install to be > specifically built for the system on which it's installed. Not only that, but > the code in STABLE changes regularly, so it's better to build from the > version of the kernel you have and with your own make options. Also, FreeBSD > isn't really a desktop OS. I'm not sure if you're being precise with that > word, but, although it works very well as a workstation, it's not designed > for what many home users do with their desktop systems. You can use big > window managers like KDE and Gnome, but it's not necessarily designed for
"desktop OS" and "windowslike OS" is a big difference. so desktop os doesn't have to mean KDE or gnome, which - except some nice graphics - doesn't have any really useful features. i use fvwm2 and icewm as it gives enough needed without taking lots of cpu power and RAM anyway - good use of FreeBSD (or other unix) is to be a server with graphics terminals (X terminals) connected through ethernet. then it could be managed only in one place by qualified admin, while used by many people. definitely more stable, more easy to use and much cheaper (both hardware and TCO) than hundreds of winputers requiring operator intervention every few days at average. and no chance for end user to break whole system with clicking wrong icon. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"