Bruce Cran wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:04:51 -0500
michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
2. Do an SMB mount of remote directories onto the desktop or your
home directory. Open any application and access files in that
directory as easily as when they are on the loca
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:04:51 -0500
michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob McConnell wrote:
> > 2. Do an SMB mount of remote directories onto the desktop or your
> > home directory. Open any application and access files in that
> > directory as easily as when they are on the local drive.
[...]
> a
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 08:23:49PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >This is why I can easily justify teaching my elders FreeBSD -- they
> >unquestionably have more to learn, but they only learn it once, so the
> >investment pays off.
> but most people don't like to learn. even once.
You need to
Tyson Boellstorff wrote:
Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to
redefine ease of use.
Bob McConnell
ease of use is always relative to the person using.
Ease of use is also relative to the training investment. In X, a moderate
investment some 20-o
This is why I can easily justify teaching my elders FreeBSD -- they
unquestionably have more to learn, but they only learn it once, so the
investment pays off.
but most people don't like to learn. even once.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing lis
> > Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to
> > redefine ease of use.
> >
> > Bob McConnell
>
> ease of use is always relative to the person using.
>
Ease of use is also relative to the training investment. In X, a moderate
investment some 20-odd years ago still pays
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> >> On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
> >>
> >> On the other hand, both Unix and Linux have a long way to go before
> they
> >> can match Microsoft'
Bob McConnell wrote:
On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
On the other hand, both Unix and Linux have a long way to go before
they
can match Microsoft's ease of use on the GUI. I believe the best
Bob McConnell wrote:
On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
On the other hand, both Unix and Linux have a long way to go before
they
can match Microsoft's ease of use on the GUI. I believe the best
On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
>> On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
>>
>> On the other hand, both Unix and Linux have a long way to go before
they
>> can match Microsoft's ease of use on the GUI. I believe the best way
>> to attack that problem is
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 07:39:39PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
> unix is not windows replacements. all of these GUI overlays for which that
> much noise is heard are not just overlays, but are poorly designed even
> more poorly than windows.
>
> Windows is poorly designed too but at least i
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
>
> > While I agree that, without some kind of supporting argument, the
> > statement that Linux systems are "low end" Unix replacements are kind
> of
> > spurious sounding, I don't think that market share is
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:39:39 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is no sense of buying Sun hardware. they make excellent
> hardware but with more than "excellent" price
You are right about that. The quality is very high; prices are too.
> and their unix is damn slow com
This
shows more than a marginal increase in "market share". It suggests that
Sun and others have good reason to be nervous about their future
prospects,
and need to find new ways to make money.
there is no sense of buying Sun hardware. they make excellent hardware but
with more than "excellent"
On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 04:53:03PM +,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Your assertion that "linux is both low end unix and low end windows
>> replacement" is factually wrong: As a high end unix I think it's
>> earned it's stripes, currently dominating the top 500 superco
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 04:53:03PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> (Forgive the top-posting)
Why?
>
> Your assertion that "linux is both low end unix and low end windows
> replacement" is factually wrong: As a high end unix I think it's earned it's
> stripes, currently dominating the top
nt via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
-Original Message-
From: Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:13
To: Zbigniew Szalbot<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Subject: Re: FreeBSD and hardware??
>> usage or need.
>
> You
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:40:09 +0100, Manfred Usselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a small example, how limited Windows really is: Even today it is
> not possible to configure the standard interface of Windows XP (Luna)
> in any other color than blue, olive green and silver. LOL.
Not to menti
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:07:14 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the fundamental problem with the Windows UI is that it's
> > trying to cater for both advanced (e.g Shutdown, Restart, Sleep,
> > Hibernate or
>
> well funny - that being able to restart is being advan
I think the fundamental problem with the Windows UI is that it's trying
to cater for both advanced (e.g Shutdown, Restart, Sleep, Hibernate or
well funny - that being able to restart is being advanced user. good to
know.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:40:09 +0100
Manfred Usselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:13 +0100 (CET)
> Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> usage or need.
> > >
> > > You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be
> > > here
> >
> > is some
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:10:48 -0800
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cygwin is an atrocity,
Why's that?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail t
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:29:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>so why it have a much smaller market share?
> >
> >Because MS wrote restrictive contracts with companies trying to
> >sell PCs saying that if they wanted to put MS on any of their
>
> Apple produces it's own computers. Actually
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:22:56PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> >Time to forget this.It is a semantic and religious battle
> >playing hair splitting games with words.It is not a MS clone
> >but it is an MS replacement. If you overwrite your MS-Win with
> >FreeBSD, it completely rep
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:26:36PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>are happy to find that to be true.Give them a hand rather than
> >>a kick in the face.
> >
> >Amen to that! This is something I am also asking for. Wojciech you
> >often help others here. Let's keep it this way. Please?!
>
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:37:21PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> The same applies to the X Window System. It sucks. It is laden with
> various and sundry big problems; annoyances and poor design decisions
> litter the X Window System. The drawbacks of Luna, Aqua, and Aero are
> all even worse t
Chad Perrin writes:
> > I read once that: "The difference between the lab and the real
> > world is that, in the lab, there is no difference." I wish I
> > had noted the source.
>
> The way I'd heard that sentiment was slightly different:
>
>"In theory, theory and practice are the s
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:13:40AM -0600, Andrew Gould wrote:
>
> I read once that: "The difference between the lab and the real world is
> that, in the lab, there is no difference." I wish I had noted the source.
The way I'd heard that sentiment was slightly different:
"In theory, theory an
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:42:26AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.18 12:23:24 +0100:
> > FreeBSD is very good in hardware support now, with most of drivers being
> > very stable and high performance.
> >
> > for now there is no such thing, except ReactOS which is i
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:18:13PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
>>> By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Windows replacement you are
>>>
>> and i will repeat it because it's true. it's every other unix replacement.
>>
>
> It did a quite admirable job of rep
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 07:10:48AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:40:09PM +0100, Manfred Usselmann wrote:
>
> I have a lot of reasons for loathing X. A *lot*. I've spent a lot of
> time (and even money; anyone remember AccelX back in the 90s? Yep, I
> bought it) tryi
so why it have a much smaller market share?
Because MS wrote restrictive contracts with companies trying to
sell PCs saying that if they wanted to put MS on any of their
Apple produces it's own computers. Actually a branded PCs now.
what a problem?
the problem is that Apple works the same way
are happy to find that to be true.Give them a hand rather than
a kick in the face.
Amen to that! This is something I am also asking for. Wojciech you
often help others here. Let's keep it this way. Please?!
i will do exactly what i'm doing now. no more no less.
helping those who ask quest
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:18:13PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
> >By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Windows replacement you are
>
> and i will repeat it because it's true. it's every other unix replacement.
It did a quite admirable job of replacing MS Windows for me. I don't
know why
Time to forget this.It is a semantic and religious battle
playing hair splitting games with words.It is not a MS clone
but it is an MS replacement. If you overwrite your MS-Win with
FreeBSD, it completely replaces it.
and you get something completely different. FORTUNATELY different.
Can you point out some places on the web that confirm this?
no. for me it's important that i confirmed this. that's why i'm far away
from using linux anywhere.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/
versus linux - of course, versus windows - it's different OS, we should
define how do you compare. for example running windows apps under FreeBSD
with wine will probably be slower than under windows.
This is not as constant a truism as one might think. I haven't run much
software in Wine, but w
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:23:24PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >I have read briefly on FreeBSD and it seems to be the winner on speed and
> >stability versus Linux and of course MS Windows.
>
> versus linux - of course, versus windows - it's different OS, we should
> define how do you compare
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:51:07PM +0100, Mel wrote:
>
> Not anymore. They were when it was still IBM. Some in-depth discussion here:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-mobile/2008-July/010831.html
Well, that's disappointing.
My current laptop is a Thinkpad R52, from just after the sal
Jerry McAllister([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.18 11:49:47 -0500:
> I can't point this out between Linux and FreeBSD, but back a few
> years ago, when I was involved in benchmarking high performance
Oh well, that was a few years ago...
Even So, a few years ago Felix von Leitner did webserving bench
Guys,
stephen jackson wrote:
> I have read briefly on FreeBSD and it seems to be the winner on speed and
> stability versus Linux and of course MS Windows.
[ ... ]
Can we play cool with each other? If someone likes/has to use Gnu/Linux over
FreeBSD or for that matter
any other operating system,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Jerry McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:54:48AM -0500, Dan wrote:
>
> > Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.18 16:51:16
> +0100:
> > >>
> > >> Have you used, erm... Linux? Both Linux and FreeBSD run pretty much at
> > >> har
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:54:48AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.18 16:51:16 +0100:
> >>
> >> Have you used, erm... Linux? Both Linux and FreeBSD run pretty much at
> >> hardware level. You benchmark either, you'll get very close results in
> >
> > for benchmarks d
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>All "nice GUI" for unices turned to be bad idea, every windows user will
> >>say it's poor compared to windows. and they are right.
> >
> >I totally disagree. Please note that your *opinion* doesn't become truth,
>
> i exactly r
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:49:40PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> >This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and not
> >very powerful.
>
> as KDE and Gnome and others.
>
>
> >when Win/95 came out being an OS/2 user at that time. From what I have
> >read even the user
Hi,
> but it is an MS replacement. If you overwrite your MS-Win with
> FreeBSD, it completely replaces it. It will do everything you need
> except look like MS-Win and people who are trying to get out of MS-land
> are happy to find that to be true.Give them a hand rather than
> a kick in t
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:18:13PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>usage or need.
> >
> >You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be here
>
> is someone that simply use unix an expert?
>
> no.
>
>
> >By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Windows replacement you are
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar typed:
> >>All "nice GUI" for unices turned to be bad idea, every windows user will
> >>say it's poor compared to windows. and they are right.
> >
> >I totally disagree. Please note that your *opinion* doesn't become truth,
>
> i exactly re
Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.18 16:51:16 +0100:
>>
>> Have you used, erm... Linux? Both Linux and FreeBSD run pretty much at
>> hardware level. You benchmark either, you'll get very close results in
>
> for benchmarks doing same thing over and over, or same thing in parallel
> linux
Have you used, erm... Linux? Both Linux and FreeBSD run pretty much at
hardware level. You benchmark either, you'll get very close results in
for benchmarks doing same thing over and over, or same thing in parallel
linux can even be better.
but try running many different tasks in parallel un
I am one of the few UNIX administrators who prefers to use Windows (XP
or 2K; cannot stand Vista) as a desktop/workstation operating system.
if you need really windows-like computing/desktop-environments/whatever is
called they RIGHT - windows is most windows like and it's good choice.
bough
Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.18 12:23:24 +0100:
> FreeBSD is very good in hardware support now, with most of drivers being
> very stable and high performance.
>
> for now there is no such thing, except ReactOS which is in early alpha
> state.
Have you used, erm... Linux? Both Lin
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Wojciech Puchar <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and not
>> very powerful.
>>
>
> as KDE and Gnome and others.
>
GUI's (and operating systems) should be evaluated by user type. For many,
the command
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:40:09PM +0100, Manfred Usselmann wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:13 +0100 (CET)
> Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> usage or need.
> > >
> > > You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be
> > > here
> >
> > is someone that simpl
This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and not
very powerful.
as KDE and Gnome and others.
when Win/95 came out being an OS/2 user at that time. From what I have
read even the user interface of Mac OS X is much better that Windows
although they have a much smaller ma
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:13 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> usage or need.
> >
> > You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be
> > here
>
> is someone that simply use unix an expert?
>
> no.
>
>
> > By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Wind
usage or need.
You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be here
is someone that simply use unix an expert?
no.
By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Windows replacement you are
and i will repeat it because it's true. it's every other unix replacement.
as linux tr
All "nice GUI" for unices turned to be bad idea, every windows user will
say it's poor compared to windows. and they are right.
I totally disagree. Please note that your *opinion* doesn't become truth,
i exactly repeat opinion of LOTS of windoze users that tried any unix GUI.
it's poor mans w
For FreeBSD supported laptops Lenovo as generally good choice.
Not anymore. They were when it was still IBM. Some in-depth discussion here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-mobile/2008-July/010831.html
thanks for info. it was really on place as i told someone yesterday.
fortunately
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:31, Ruben de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:23:24PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar typed:
>>
>> once again i repeat - FreeBSD is not windows replacement. it's unix.
>> All "nice GUI" for unices turned to be bad idea, every windows user will
>>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:23:24PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar typed:
>
> once again i repeat - FreeBSD is not windows replacement. it's unix.
> All "nice GUI" for unices turned to be bad idea, every windows user will
> say it's poor compared to windows. and they are right.
I totally disagree. Please
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 12:27:42 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > If you're thinking of trying out FreeBSD, then this is the right place to
> > come. A word of warning though: it's not at all like Windows, or even
> > MacOSX. You will be expected to learn quite a bit about the low level
>
> MacOSX
If you're thinking of trying out FreeBSD, then this is the right place to
come. A word of warning though: it's not at all like Windows, or even
MacOSX. You will be expected to learn quite a bit about the low level
MacOSX can run unix programs, but in every other respect is not like unix
as yo
I have read briefly on FreeBSD and it seems to be the winner on speed and
stability versus Linux and of course MS Windows.
versus linux - of course, versus windows - it's different OS, we should
define how do you compare. for example running windows apps under FreeBSD
with wine will probably b
stephen jackson wrote:
I have read briefly on FreeBSD and it seems to be the winner on speed and
stability versus Linux and of course MS Windows.
I have just experienced 2 days of never ending problems with a Sony laptop
and Windows XP, which cannot run Norton 360 virus nor AVG.
They need an XP 2
I have read briefly on FreeBSD and it seems to be the winner on speed and
stability versus Linux and of course MS Windows.
I have just experienced 2 days of never ending problems with a Sony laptop
and Windows XP, which cannot run Norton 360 virus nor AVG.
They need an XP 2.0 update which I downloa
66 matches
Mail list logo
