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 local
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 really an
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 it's
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 to find a
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 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's ease of use
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, even
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
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
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 begin
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.
[...]
also, my
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 supercomputer
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 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 compared
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 500
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 mention
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: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD and hardware??
usage or need.
You seem to be reserving FBSD only
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.
___
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 advanced user.
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
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
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 can run
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 note
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
say it's
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
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
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
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 Windows replacement
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
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 simply use unix an expert?
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 line is
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 Linux
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.
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
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 can
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 repeat opinion
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
and i will
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 the
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 interface of
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 repeat opinion
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 doing same
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
hardware level. You
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,
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
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 sale
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. for
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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) trying
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 replacing MS
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 in early
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 and
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 same. In
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 than
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?!
i will do
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 replaces it.
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 a branded
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 to
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 someone that simply use
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
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
Hello
I've tried to find hardware requirement for FreeBSC 7.0
but I couldn't found that. Can you please send me the hardware requirement?
I have laptop(celeron 1.4, 256 ram) so Can you suggest me which verson is
suitable for my hardware.
Thanks and Regards,
Ketan.
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:43:07 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org
CC:
Subject: FreeBSD 7.0 Hardware Requirement.
Hello
I've tried to find hardware requirement for FreeBSC 7.0
but I couldn't found that. Can you please send me the hardware requirement?
I
ketan tada wrote:
Hello
I've tried to find hardware requirement for FreeBSC 7.0
but I couldn't found that. Can you please send me the hardware requirement?
I have laptop(celeron 1.4, 256 ram) so Can you suggest me which verson is
suitable for my hardware.
Thanks and Regards,
Ketan.
You
Im using 7.0 on my Dell Latitude C400 and works very fine (Pentium3
1.2, 256 ram). Sure, because I'm sometimes paranoic about performane
even with slow machines, I'm using xfce.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:43, ketan tada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
I've tried to find hardware requirement for
Hi,
i have installed the asterisk pbx port, does anyone know about
isdn hardware to work with ?
thanx thomas
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19.11.2004
On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:43:22 +1000, Antony Mawer wrote:
We're looking at probably 4x146gb SCSI drives in RAID5, and I want to
make sure we have hardware that's known to work under FreeBSD before we
go placing an order. What vendors/equipment are people currently running
reliably under
Hi all,
I've been asked to spec out a server designed to pull and store off-site
backups from ~60 sites (primary function). The intention is to run
FreeBSD on it, although at this point in time we're still deciding
whether or not to run -stable (4.x) or -current (5.x) on it; I have a
feeling
Paul A. Hoadley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe some more specifics would be helpful. The application is a web
application. It may or may not end up open source, but it will be for
sale, and I don't want it to inherit a restrictive license.
Even BSD licenses are restrictive, and even
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 07:58:15AM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
Paul A. Hoadley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe some more specifics would be helpful. The application is a
web application. It may or may not end up open source, but it
will be for sale, and I don't want it to inherit a
Hello,
For a certain niche market, I am considering selling a software
application by pre-installing it on a small machine running FreeBSD,
and then selling the whole thing. Are there any implications arising
from the GPL (or other more-restrictive-than-BSD licensed) code in the
tree? Would it
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 05:15:15PM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
For a certain niche market, I am considering selling a software
application by pre-installing it on a small machine running FreeBSD,
and then selling the whole thing. Are there any implications arising
from the GPL (or other
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 05:15:15PM +0930, Paul A. Hoadley wrote:
Hello,
For a certain niche market, I am considering selling a software
application by pre-installing it on a small machine running FreeBSD,
and then selling the whole thing. Are there any implications arising
from the GPL (or
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
There's no problem with selling GPL'd programs for money. As the
cant goes Free speech, not free beer.
I guess I'm interpreting Section 1 too restrictively then. I took
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 01:55:23AM -0700, Cory Petkovsek wrote:
Your own proprietary binaries you can distribute along side the GPL
and BSD code, provided you don't have GPL code within your programs.
It can all be bundled together as long as you have licensing,
copyrights and required source
Paul A. Hoadley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
There's no problem with selling GPL'd programs for money. As the
cant goes Free speech, not free beer.
We all use loose language like that, but a software seller should
keep in mind
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:04:46AM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
We all use loose language like that, but a software seller should
keep in mind that usually he's really doing two things: publishing
(or at least distributing) copies of the software and licensing use
of the software. The
Could you provide me some information if FreeBSD 3.5 will run on a PC?
Intel (R) Pentium
® $CPU 2.40 GHZ
AT/AT Compatible
1,048,048 KB RAM
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe,
Also what is the compatibility with FreeBSD 3.5 and the following CD-ROM devices:
Matsushita/Panasonic/Creative CD-ROM
Mitsumi CD-ROM
Sony CD-ROM
Thank you
DS
-Original Message-
From: Dwight Spence
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 7:24 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: freebsd 3.5
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 12:01:27PM -0500, Dwight Spence wrote:
Also what is the compatibility with FreeBSD 3.5 and the following CD-ROM devices:
Ah -- archaic CD Rom devices. That explains the interest in the old
version of the OS.
Matsushita/Panasonic/Creative CD-ROM
85 matches
Mail list logo
