Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[michael]

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 drive.
  

[...]
  
also, my vlc sees any mounted drive or directory, no matter the 
protocol. so does mplayer, etc. i don't know why your system doesn't 
operate correctly, but i don't have that issue at all.

e,g:
/mnt/Azureus Downloads
this mount is mounted over samba from a computer on the other side of 
the house, and i see everything on it and play my files over the

network.



But it doesn't work if you use "Places -> Connect to Server" - the share
appears on the Desktop as though it's mounted, but you have to realise
that it's actually a GVFS mount, not a kernel-level mount.  So only
Gnome applications which know about GVFS are able to see the files.
  

yeah.. i don't use that. mine are mounted with smbfs.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Bruce Cran]

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 vlc sees any mounted drive or directory, no matter the 
> protocol. so does mplayer, etc. i don't know why your system doesn't 
> operate correctly, but i don't have that issue at all.
> e,g:
> /mnt/Azureus Downloads
> this mount is mounted over samba from a computer on the other side of 
> the house, and i see everything on it and play my files over the
> network.

But it doesn't work if you use "Places -> Connect to Server" - the share
appears on the Desktop as though it's mounted, but you have to realise
that it's actually a GVFS mount, not a kernel-level mount.  So only
Gnome applications which know about GVFS are able to see the files.

-- 
Bruce Cran
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jerry McAllister]

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 speaking for yourself rather than that
reluctant expert character called Most People.   You seem to
do quite well working out issues that you encounter in your work, 
but everytime you start quoting this Most People guy you seem 
to get lost in the weeds.

Let Most People speak for himself and deal with his own problems.

FreeBSD has done quite well and developed an excellent product when 
people applied themselves to create solutions for the problems they 
were actually having and allowed Most People to do the same with his 
issues.

jerry

> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[michael]

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-odd years ago still pays, even through the evolvement of 
interfaces like KDE, which follows the same general structure. 

With certain other commercial products, you get to learn it again, and again, 
and again. What I've had to re-learn to support Windows 1.1, 2.0. 3.0. 3.11, 
95, NT, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista has changed dramtically over the years, and 
they're not done making it usable for the lowest common denominator yet, 
especially when you throw in de-enhancements like (un)FriendlyTree, 
a.k.a. "Where the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] are my files?!?!?!".


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. 
  

you basically lengthened what i said. :-)
also, using classic menus from xp and up looks like win95

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
  

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Tyson Boellstorff]

> > 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 through the evolvement of 
interfaces like KDE, which follows the same general structure. 

With certain other commercial products, you get to learn it again, and again, 
and again. What I've had to re-learn to support Windows 1.1, 2.0. 3.0. 3.11, 
95, NT, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista has changed dramtically over the years, and 
they're not done making it usable for the lowest common denominator yet, 
especially when you throw in de-enhancements like (un)FriendlyTree, 
a.k.a. "Where the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] are my files?!?!?!".

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. 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jerry McAllister]

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 on the GUI. I believe the best way
> >> to attack that problem is to find a new paradigm to replace the
> desktop,
> >> which is not a great interface model to begin with.
> > 
> > I guess that depends on your definition of "ease of use".  In my
> little
> > world, "ease of use" involves the ease, efficiency, and speed of task
> > completion via an interface with which I'm familiar.  It seems from
> what
> > you said that in your little world "ease of use" means "familiarity",
> > since that's really the major win for MS Windows interfaces, to the
> > majority of its users.
> 
> Here are two simple tests for ease of use.
> 
> 1. View a tree of files and directories, some local some remote mounts.
> Highlight a random group of those objects. Move the entire group in one
> motion by dragging and dropping the collection to a new location in the
> tree.

That's easy.   Actually easier with just a simple mv command.
Who cares about drag and drop.   That is harder.

> 
> 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.

Works fine around here.

jerry

> 
> I have not been able to do either of these on Ubuntu 7.10 or
> XFCE/Slackware 12. In the first case, I need to cut and paste the
> individual files one at a time. I can't even move a directory. In the
> second, I have been unable to get Amarok, vlc, xine or any other
> multimedia application I have tried, to recognize the SMB mounted
> directory. It is invisible to them. At the application level there
> should be absolutely no difference between a local drive and a mounted
> remote drive, no matter what protocol was used to mount it. The
> application should not need to implement smb:// itself.
> 
> I am not even going to talk about how difficult it is to find and modify
> basic configuration files, particularly after the LSB crowd really
> screwed everything up.
> 
> Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to
> redefine ease of use.
> 
> Bob McConnell
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[michael]

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 way
to attack that problem is to find a new paradigm to replace the
  

desktop,
  

which is not a great interface model to begin with.
  

I guess that depends on your definition of "ease of use".  In my


little
  

world, "ease of use" involves the ease, efficiency, and speed of task
completion via an interface with which I'm familiar.  It seems from


what
  

you said that in your little world "ease of use" means "familiarity",
since that's really the major win for MS Windows interfaces, to the
majority of its users.



Here are two simple tests for ease of use.

1. View a tree of files and directories, some local some remote mounts.
Highlight a random group of those objects. Move the entire group in one
motion by dragging and dropping the collection to a new location in the
tree.

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.

I have not been able to do either of these on Ubuntu 7.10 or
XFCE/Slackware 12. In the first case, I need to cut and paste the
individual files one at a time. I can't even move a directory. In the
second, I have been unable to get Amarok, vlc, xine or any other
multimedia application I have tried, to recognize the SMB mounted
directory. It is invisible to them. At the application level there
should be absolutely no difference between a local drive and a mounted
remote drive, no matter what protocol was used to mount it. The
application should not need to implement smb:// itself.

I am not even going to talk about how difficult it is to find and modify
basic configuration files, particularly after the LSB crowd really
screwed everything up.

Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to
redefine ease of use.

Bob McConnell
  
also, my vlc sees any mounted drive or directory, no matter the 
protocol. so does mplayer, etc. i don't know why your system doesn't 
operate correctly, but i don't have that issue at all.

e,g:
/mnt/Azureus Downloads
this mount is mounted over samba from a computer on the other side of 
the house, and i see everything on it and play my files over the network.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
  

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[michael]

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 way
to attack that problem is to find a new paradigm to replace the
  

desktop,
  

which is not a great interface model to begin with.
  

I guess that depends on your definition of "ease of use".  In my


little
  

world, "ease of use" involves the ease, efficiency, and speed of task
completion via an interface with which I'm familiar.  It seems from


what
  

you said that in your little world "ease of use" means "familiarity",
since that's really the major win for MS Windows interfaces, to the
majority of its users.



Here are two simple tests for ease of use.

1. View a tree of files and directories, some local some remote mounts.
Highlight a random group of those objects. Move the entire group in one
motion by dragging and dropping the collection to a new location in the
tree.

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.

I have not been able to do either of these on Ubuntu 7.10 or
XFCE/Slackware 12. In the first case, I need to cut and paste the
individual files one at a time. I can't even move a directory. In the
second, I have been unable to get Amarok, vlc, xine or any other
multimedia application I have tried, to recognize the SMB mounted
directory. It is invisible to them. At the application level there
should be absolutely no difference between a local drive and a mounted
remote drive, no matter what protocol was used to mount it. The
application should not need to implement smb:// itself.

I am not even going to talk about how difficult it is to find and modify
basic configuration files, particularly after the LSB crowd really
screwed everything up.

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.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
  

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Bob McConnell]

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 new paradigm to replace the
desktop,
>> which is not a great interface model to begin with.
> 
> I guess that depends on your definition of "ease of use".  In my
little
> world, "ease of use" involves the ease, efficiency, and speed of task
> completion via an interface with which I'm familiar.  It seems from
what
> you said that in your little world "ease of use" means "familiarity",
> since that's really the major win for MS Windows interfaces, to the
> majority of its users.

Here are two simple tests for ease of use.

1. View a tree of files and directories, some local some remote mounts.
Highlight a random group of those objects. Move the entire group in one
motion by dragging and dropping the collection to a new location in the
tree.

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.

I have not been able to do either of these on Ubuntu 7.10 or
XFCE/Slackware 12. In the first case, I need to cut and paste the
individual files one at a time. I can't even move a directory. In the
second, I have been unable to get Amarok, vlc, xine or any other
multimedia application I have tried, to recognize the SMB mounted
directory. It is invisible to them. At the application level there
should be absolutely no difference between a local drive and a mounted
remote drive, no matter what protocol was used to mount it. The
application should not need to implement smb:// itself.

I am not even going to talk about how difficult it is to find and modify
basic configuration files, particularly after the LSB crowd really
screwed everything up.

Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to
redefine ease of use.

Bob McConnell
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 somehow complete.

What are you -- a troll?

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Larry Wall: "Perl is, in intent, a cleaned up and summarized
version of that wonderful semi-natural language known as 'Unix'."


pgpnKFz2J6TBm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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
> effective
> > metric for determination of the quality of a replacement for a given
> > class of OS.
> 
> I believe that he forgot to reference this article from ServerWatch.
> 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.
> 
> 

Market share is still not an effective metric for determination of the
quality of a replacement for a given class of OS.  Your statements and
the article to which you linked in no way contradict what I said.  Even
though the article whose URL you provided does talk about Linux
suitability for certain tasks traditionally handled by commercial UNIX
systems, market share itself is not a very effective metric except,
perhaps, by accident -- because growing market share can indicate any of
a number of different potential causes.


> 
> 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 new paradigm to replace the desktop,
> which is not a great interface model to begin with.

I guess that depends on your definition of "ease of use".  In my little
world, "ease of use" involves the ease, efficiency, and speed of task
completion via an interface with which I'm familiar.  It seems from what
you said that in your little world "ease of use" means "familiarity",
since that's really the major win for MS Windows interfaces, to the
majority of its users.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Friedrich Nietzche: "Those who know that they are profound strive
for clarity.  Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive
for obscurity."


pgpKqmFGb4VEh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[dick hoogendijk]

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 to FreeBSD.

These kinds of personal (subjective) remarks are FUD if you don't
deliver the test results.

-- 
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
+ http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv103 ++
+ All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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" price, and their unix is damn slow compared to 
FreeBSD.






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


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 somehow complete.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

RE: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Bob McConnell]

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
>> systems in the world, some no other unix has managed to accomplish
>> this time round. Notably, when compared to freebsd it offers support
>> for virtualisation where bsd is nowhere close to doing, just one
>> example of high end unix feature it provides. As a gui desktop,
>> I'm certain kde is a superior interface to windows in many ways.

> 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
effective
> metric for determination of the quality of a replacement for a given
> class of OS.

I believe that he forgot to reference this article from ServerWatch.
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.



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 new paradigm to replace the desktop,
which is not a great interface model to begin with.

Bob McConnell


If a messy desk is the sign of a cluttered mind, what is an empty desk
the sign of?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 supercomputer systems in the world, 
> some no other unix has managed to accomplish this time round. Notably, when 
> compared to freebsd it offers support for virtualisation where bsd is nowhere 
> close to doing, just one example of high end unix feature it provides. As a 
> gui desktop, I'm certain kde is a superior interface to windows in many ways.
> 

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 effective
metric for determination of the quality of a replacement for a given
class of OS.

I'm also not sure I see how virtualization makes or breaks the quality of
any Unix-like system, or qualifies it as "high end".

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Zat was zen, dis is tao.  http://tao.apotheon.org


pgpat2uiW7mAn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[twelcome]

(Forgive the top-posting)

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 systems in the world, 
some no other unix has managed to accomplish this time round. Notably, when 
compared to freebsd it offers support for virtualisation where bsd is nowhere 
close to doing, just one example of high end unix feature it provides. As a gui 
desktop, I'm certain kde is a superior interface to windows in many ways.

 



Sent 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 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 tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both low
end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".

not a nice future for FreeBSD IMHO.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Giorgos Keramidas]

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 that 90% of the programs that run on Windows use their
own 'theme engine', completely bypassing and making worthless
*everything* that may seem 'familiar' about the Windows GUI.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Bruce Cran]

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. good
> to know.
> 

Actually, I think it is.  See
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html for the reasoning.

-- 
Bruce Cran
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Bruce Cran]

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 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 tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both
> > low end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".
> 
> This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and
> not very powerful. Compared e.g. with the old OS/2 desktop, which was
> really powerful, flexible (and object oriented). How disappointed I
> was 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 market share. Anyhow, of
> course you can fully replace Windows with a unix(-like) system and a
> suitable desktop enviroment (e.g. KDE, Gnome, XFCE). It depends on
> your specific requirements and if applications exist which do what
> you need. But saying that GUI's under Unix are per se inferior is
> just spreading FUD. Leave that to MS. ;-)
> 
> 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.
> 

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
Log Off in Vista) and beginner users (Clippy, lots of wizards) at the
same time. As a result it's far too complex for everyday users but
doesn't have the flexibility that the really advanced users would
like.  An example of the complexity can be found in the mouse
operations: it's taken for granted that mice have two buttons so
Windows Explorer takes advantage of that: for most things you
left-click but for others you right-click.  I think even that's too
much for a lot of people who can't memorise the rules for the different
operations - and it's not for lack of trying!  It's something that
Apple got right: I find OS X to be incredibly limiting since
right-click isn't a first-class citizen, keyboard shortcuts aren't
enabled by default and it seems to be necessary to move the mouse a lot
to get things done. However for most people it works perfectly and is so
much simpler that they can learn it much better than they have
Windows.  

I think that's where the likes of Gnome and KDE go wrong too,
in trying to cater for two types of users at once and possibly failing
both. I think beginners might actually be better off using one of the
simpler window managers like Window Maker which have fewer items on
the screen with simple rules to get things done.  

-- 
Bruce Cran
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[RW]

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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jerry McAllister]

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 PCs now.
> what a problem?

Not at all the same thing.   Apple produces its own and puts an OS on
it.   If they tell an OEM vendor they cannot put anything else on it, then
it begins to go in the bad direction.   If they tell the OEM vendor that
not only can they not put anything else on the hardware that the OEM
build, but that they have to put their OS on EVERY piece of hardware
that they make, then it is like MS.It isn't as if MS made computers
and put their own stuff on every machine, which would be similar to the
Kodak issue of years gone by.   MS tried to force other hardware makers
to only put MS on their (the other maker) machines and put it on every
machine they sold.No manufacturer or OEM could sell a machine with
MS unless they sold EVERY machine they made with MS.  That is crooked
business.But they got away with barely a slapped wrist.

jerry

> 
> the problem is that Apple works the same way as Commodore 20-15 years ago.
> 
> Trying to get prices as high as possible, instead of looking in future.
> 
> Exactly what apple do now - selling ordinary PC (just more stylish cases) 
> 2-3 times more expensive.
> 
> if Apple computers would be similarly prices or slightly higher, then 
> they could really compete.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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.
> 
> and you get something completely different. FORTUNATELY different.

That doesn't change the fact that it *replaced* MS Windows.


> 
> but - if millions of now-windows users starts switching to FreeBSD, it 
> will quickly become more and more similar. as linux did.

Correlation does not imply causation -- just as repeating something many
times doesn't make it true.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
O'Rourke's Circumcision Precept: You can take 10 percent off the top of
anything.


pgp8FFoSN189G.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 exactly what i'm doing now. no more no less.
> 
> helping those who ask questions that make sense, and i know the answer (or 
> think i know).
> 
> And fixing bad statements and bad ideas. like the idea of "replacing" 
> windows with unix without first learning unix from basics.
> 
> And the idea that having as much FreeBSD users as possible is a good 
> thing. it is not.

I don't think that making having as many FreeBSD users as possible a
primary goal is a good idea, to be sure.  On the other hand, if we do so
only within the constraints of current design philosophy and an attempt
to focus more on quality than quantity, having more users *is* a good
thing for a number of reasons -- in large part because of the benefits
that can be gained from a stronger user base.

What we should *not* do is take such a hostile attitude toward potential
new users that the user base of FreeBSD ultimately dwindles due to the
attrition of time.  That seems to be your approach, and I find it quite
counterproductive, especially when you couple it with weirdly anti-Unix
statements like your continuing insistence that no Unix system can
effectively replace MS Windows.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Anne McClintock, University of Wisconsin: "The decisions that
really matter are made outside the democratic process."


pgpykmJ1fIoFI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 those of the X Window System, though, so I still with
> X.

This might be relevant to that, in fact:

  http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=650

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
O'Rourke's Circumcision Precept: You can take 10 percent off the top of
anything.


pgpnChs6HFsF2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Robert Huff]

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 practice, they
>aren't."
>  
>  . . . or something to that effect.

"The difference between theory and practice, in theory, is much
smaller than the difference between theory and practice, in
practice."


Robert Huff

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 practice are the same.  In practice, they
  aren't."

. . . or something to that effect.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Larry Wall: "A script is what you give the actors.  A program is what you
give the audience."


pgpqWQ189sBSL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 alpha  
> > state.
> 
> 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
> speed and scalability. Both are well optimized.
> 
> Unix is for servers, Windoze/OSX is for clients. They're much better
> clients than Unix. Cut and paste still doesn't work well in Unix GUIs.
> Think about that.

Uh . . . what?

I'll try pasting something:

  Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]

Yep, works great.  In fact, I *love* that middle-click paste thing, and
on the rare occasion that I find myself sitting down in front of an MS
Windows machine, I find myself quickly lamenting the existence of
middle-click pasting, and start wondering why MS Windows is such a
primitive excuse for a "desktop" operating system.

I don't know where you get the idea that MS Windows is so good at being a
"client" and FreeBSD is so bad at it.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Mike Maples, as quoted by James Gleick:  "My job is to get a fair share
of the software applications market, and to me that's 100 percent."


pgpECzQ3hgqPF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Manolis Kiagias]

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 Windows for me.  I don't
> know why you're so down on it.
>
>
>   
>> as linux tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both low 
>> end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".
>> 
>
> 
>
> . . . and, as I said, FreeBSD is a great MS Windows replacement for me.
> I don't miss MS Windows *at all* when I'm using FreeBSD on my laptop
> every single day.
>
>   

(Responding to random post)

Could we please *close* this discussion now?
This is simply a waste of the list resources, people will always have
ideas on why an OS is better or worse than another. If the original
poster wanted to know something about all this, he would have probably
commented by now. Has it come to anyone's mind that the original post
was probably a simple act of trolling? (and someone is now amused by all
this?)

In the end, when someone is presented with the facts and can have a
hands on experience with a system (and it won't cost him a dime to do
so), he can decide whether he wants to use it, whether it can replace
his current system and whether he is willing to climb the steep learning
curve. Let's give people choice, we don't need to force this or any
other OS down anyone's throat.
Let's just help whoever comes in here - Some will appreciate FreeBSD
*and* the community and will stay. And it will be there choice.

Just my 2c
Over and out ;)

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 to adapt over the years, and I cannot.  I'm not going
> to provide details because it'll just induce more parking lot burn-outs
> and that's not what I want.

I loathe Firefox.  I find it incredibly annoying, bloated, cumbersome,
and otherwise sucky.  Unfortunately, the disadvantages of every other Web
browser I've encountered are *worse* (though Chromium shows promise, if
it ever gets ported to BSD Unix systems), so I keep using Firefox as my
primary browser.

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 those of the X Window System, though, so I still with
X.


> 
> Comparatively: I have co-workers who love X and KDE, and hate Windows --
> and I have co-workers who absolutely love OS X's GUI, and hate X and
> Windows.  (In fact, the few OS X users I know get quite irate when they
> find some OS X program actually relies on X11).

I'd be annoyed by that, too.  Software that is ported to other systems
should not drag along baggage like assumed reliance on other software
particular to the source system.  I get similarly irate at discovering
I've discovered an application that depends on a metric crapload of KDE
or GNOME libraries.  I don't think getting irate over software relying on
software that you otherwise don't have on your system, and that does not
provide functionality actually important to the operation of the software
you actually want, is really much of an indicator of how individualized
GUI taste can be.


> 
> The only time I curse Windows is when CMD.EXE or command-line utilities
> come into play.  Anyone who's used *IX will know what I mean by this.
> PowerShell/Monad is a joke, Cygwin is an atrocity, 4NT/4DOS is too
> quirky, and *IX application ports often have too many bugs (either not
> handling NTFS filenames correctly (resorting to 8.3 format), or having
> filesize limitations due to the porter doing it wrong; 2GB limits are
> found in common programs including Win32 wget).

I'm curious -- what exactly do you dislike about PowerShell?  This is the
first time I've really heard such a complaint about it.


> 
> Every operating system/GUI/environment has its share of quirks.  It just
> depends on which ones you can tolerate.  I can tolerate some of Windows'
> quirks (sans "focus stealing", although I'm told KDE applicationg are
> starting down this road too), but cannot with X or OS X.  I suppose it's
> because I've a mental stigma; I associate *IX and UNIX with servers, and
> I likely always will.  *IX/UNIX on the desktop is a crazy idea to me.

This is in line with my experience of people who prefer the MS Windows
interface over that of the X Window System -- their preference is usually
dominated by matters of familiarity.  I'm kind of the opposite type of
person in that regard: I regularly try something new, because I'm always
looking for a better way to do things.

> 
> That's all I have to say on the matter; I won't reply here on out.

That's a bummer.  I'd like to know your thoughts on some of my above
commentary -- particularly on the subject of PowerShell.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
A: It reverses the normal flow of conversation.
Q: What's wrong with top-posting?


pgpVkKp2rUFlu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 as Commodore 20-15 years ago.

Trying to get prices as high as possible, instead of looking in future.

Exactly what apple do now - selling ordinary PC (just more stylish cases) 
2-3 times more expensive.


if Apple computers would be similarly prices or slightly higher, then 
they could really compete.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 questions that make sense, and i know the answer (or 
think i know).


And fixing bad statements and bad ideas. like the idea of "replacing" 
windows with unix without first learning unix from basics.


And the idea that having as much FreeBSD users as possible is a good 
thing. it is not.


unless FreeBSD will change to commercial product that will be sold, then 
yes - get as much users as possible.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 you're so down on it.


> 
> as linux tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both low 
> end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".

Replacing MS Windows is not the same as becoming MS Windows.  Ubuntu has
been pursuing the specter of MS Windows feature parity for a while, and
as a result has become something I have no interest in touching.
Meanwhile, PC-BSD has been pursuing the goal of *replacing* MS Windows,
which is not at all the same thing as *becoming* MS Windows, and it seems
to be doing a great job of that without adopting MS Windows' flaws.  The
only limitation on the quality of PC-BSD, in my experience, seems to be
KDE, but I've long since given up caring about the default GUI facade on
open source OSes, since they *all* use KDE or GNOME (except a rare few
that use XFCE by default, when they want something "light").

KDE and GNOME (and even XFCE) are frighteningly bloated user environments
that seem lightweight only in comparison with the even more awfully huge
and lumbering GUIs of MS Windows and Apple MacOS X -- so I just take it
as a given that every OS in the world uses something bloated and
cumbersome for its GUI, and resolve to either not install the GUI (if
that's an option) or uninstall the GUI after the system is installed,
then install something different in its place.  In other words, there's
basically no escaping the problems inherent in something like KDE, GNOME,
or even XFCE if you go with default GUI setup -- but aside from that,
PC-BSD is doing an excellent job of becoming the definitive MS Windows
replacement OS without adopting MS Windows problems.

. . . and, as I said, FreeBSD is a great MS Windows replacement for me.
I don't miss MS Windows *at all* when I'm using FreeBSD on my laptop
every single day.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Larry Wall: "What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the sound of a
wall that people have stopped banging their heads against?"


pgpkRnEyFGQ7r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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.

but - if millions of now-windows users starts switching to FreeBSD, it 
will quickly become more and more similar. as linux did.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 what I have has performed comparably with how it
did on MS Windows, for the most part.  The one case where I could even


very possible. i'm even sure it could work better when good filesystem I/O 
and VM performance is required. but it may work slower in many cases.


i used wine to run demoscene prods - usually it works slower than in 
windows.



compatible OS, running windows programs, windows installers, but being
much better and faster.


Why the hell would I want "windows installers"?  The Microsoft model of


to be able to just put say - M$ Office or Corel Draw or whatever CD , 
click install and get installed

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 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 what I have has performed comparably with how it
did on MS Windows, for the most part.  The one case where I could even
detect a difference in performance was with World of Warcraft -- and it
performed much better under Wine than on MS Windows, even on the same
machine.


> 
> >Anyway, how about you plus Google cash, and others (?), putting a simple
> >easy partition of MS hard  disks and FreeBSD install with a nice GUI. And
> >getting Google to distribute it to the World. My question is, how much
> 
> 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.

Poppycock.  There are several "desktop environments" for Unix-like
systems that compare well with MS Windows and Apple MacOS X for matters
of glitz and glamour, even giving a far more confection-laden "user
friendly" appeal overall than the proprietary competition, as I've
pointed out before:

  http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=335

In fact, I seem to recall responding to *you* in particular about this
subject on this mailing list before:

  http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-June/176889.html


> 
> it will be very nice if someone/some company produce true windows 
> compatible OS, running windows programs, windows installers, but being 
> much better and faster.

Why the hell would I want "windows installers"?  The Microsoft model of
software installation is antiquated, inefficient, restrictive, and
difficult to manage.  While I'm at it, I'd miss more of the software
available on FreeBSD if I switched to MS Windows than I do of MS Windows
software when I'm on FreeBSD.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Niccolo Machiavelli: "It is a common failing of man not to take
account of tempests during fair weather."


pgpdeaex5yKNp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Chad Perrin]

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 to Lenovo
but while production was still going on in IBM facilities here in the
States.  It's a great piece of equipment and, aside from the fact that I
made the mistake of getting the model with an ATI graphics adapter rather
than an Intel adapter, it has perfectly suited my needs.  I've been a
long-time fan of Thinkpads, and I haven't found another laptop I like
nearly as much.  Even the feel of the keyboard is better than that of any
other line of laptops I've encountered.

I wondered if there might be dropping production value issues when the PC
division of IBM was sold off to Lenovo.  I'm pretty disappointed to
discover that was probably the case.  Another R52 purchased for my
significant other, a year after acquiring this laptop, has seemed to be
exactly as good as this one, with one exception: while the keyboard feel
is still better than that of any non-Thinkpad I've ever encountered, it
feels just slightly more flimsy and cheap than this Thinkpad's keyboard.
I'm pretty sure that second R52 was manufactured in a Lenovo facility
that was *not* inherited from IBM, and I wonder if that might be why the
keyboard has that different feel.


> 
> And of course, there's:
> http://www.ixsystems.com/products/bsd-laptop.html

I just spoke to a representative from iXsystems about the Invincibook.
It sound very promising.  My only complaint so far (having not had a
chance to check out how the keyboard feels, how heavy it is, how hot it
gets during operation, and so on) is that it's only planned to provide a
touchpad as an integrated pointing device.  One of the surprising
benefits of Thinkpads over the years has been the trackpoint, in part
because I don't have to break contact between my thumbs and the spacebar
when using the pointing device (I'm a Vim user), and in part because with
touchpads the heels of my hands occasionally brush across the thing
causing "interesting" problems with mouse pointer behavior while I'm
typing.  I'm also not too keen on the relative lack of mouse cursor
precision with a touchpad.

If it's all it promises to be, though, the Invincibook will probably be
worth the sacrifice of the trackpoint, especially considering the
apparent drop in production quality for Thinkpads.

In the conversation with the iXsystems representative, by the way, I was
told that the major holdup at the moment for Invincibooks going into
production is ACPI support -- of course.  I'm not terribly surprised,
since ACPI seems to *always* be the bugbear of laptop support.  I'm
pretty keen on the idea of finally having a laptop that can suspend to
RAM and, even more importantly for my purposes, to disk.  I'm willing to
wait until they get that part right, because "hibernation" is kind of a
"killer feature" for me -- or would be, if someone would finally get it
right.  I suppose one could say that it works just fine on my Thinkpad,
with the caveat that it fails to come back from suspension to either RAM
or disk, but that kinda defeats the purpose.

Anyway . . . I started out with my two cents on the matter, and ended up
rambling about a bunch of tangential nonsense.  I think that means it's
time to close up this email.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
print substr('Just another Perl hacker', 0, -2);


pgpYw9erjm52s.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Dan]

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 benchmarks for
both. Linux won, but FreeBSD was very close behind.

http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[en0f]

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, maybe its their choice;

If someone finds FreeBSD runs well compared to Gnu/Linux, could they just point 
to the right benchmark on the web or
post their personal benchmark here and be done with it? :)

My point being that we could all be doing something really productive right now 
instead of discussing
about all these. Don't you guys think so?

Relax fellas.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Andrew Gould]

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 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 under linux. FreeBSD
> > > flies, while linux chokes.
> >
> > Can you point out some places on the web that confirm this?
> >
>
> I can't point this out between Linux and FreeBSD, but back a few
> years ago, when I was involved in benchmarking high performance
> systems for purchase here, we found this to often be the case.
> Some systems just screamed on certain very parallel tasks, but
> practically came to a halt when a mix of tasks were run or even
> when trying to edit a script while things were running.   Others
> were slightly less hot on the highly specialized tasks, but did
> well - much better - on the mix.  We chose the system that handled
> the mix - which ran a BSD UNIX by the way, although a proprietary
> version as did most back then.
>
> Anyway, so, even though I haven't compared FreeBSD and Linux, I am
> not surprised to hear someone say there is this sort of difference.
> It is possible.   Someone might investigate further and put out
> some verifiable numbers.
>
> jerry
>

I don't have verifiable numbers; but I can speak from personal experience.
I do complex financial/clinical data analysis for hospitals.  I was using MS
Access as a front-end.  On the server end, I started with Linux and
PostgreSQL.  I moved from Linux to FreeBSD because during my more
complicated series of queries, the Linux system would slow to a crawl.
Sometimes, the PostgreSQL server would die.  This never happened with
FreeBSD.  I even added Samba services and a web forum for the department.

>From 2000 to 2006, the only unplanned downtime experienced with my
PostgreSQL/FreeBSD combo was due to 2 separate, prolonged power outages.
When power was restored, the hardware and database servers came back
online.  Sadly, I no longer work there; and no longer have control over
database assets.

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.

Andrew
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jerry McAllister]

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 thing over and over, or same thing in parallel  
> > linux can even be better.
> >
> > but try running many different tasks in parallel under linux. FreeBSD  
> > flies, while linux chokes.
> 
> Can you point out some places on the web that confirm this?
> 

I can't point this out between Linux and FreeBSD, but back a few 
years ago, when I was involved in benchmarking high performance
systems for purchase here, we found this to often be the case.
Some systems just screamed on certain very parallel tasks, but
practically came to a halt when a mix of tasks were run or even
when trying to edit a script while things were running.   Others
were slightly less hot on the highly specialized tasks, but did
well - much better - on the mix.  We chose the system that handled
the mix - which ran a BSD UNIX by the way, although a proprietary
version as did most back then.

Anyway, so, even though I haven't compared FreeBSD and Linux, I am
not surprised to hear someone say there is this sort of difference.
It is possible.   Someone might investigate further and put out
some verifiable numbers.

jerry


> >
> > that's why i don't like benchmarks.
> >
> > ___
> > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jerry McAllister]

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 of LOTS of windoze users that tried any unix GUI.
> 
> it's poor mans windows.

So, we are not respopnding to someone looking for Windos, but to
someone looking for something else.GUI was not even mentioned
in the OP.If the guy tries FreeBSD and finds its GUI resources
not to his liking he can easily continue looking around.  He asked
for information about FreeBSD, not about finding a MS-Win look-alike.

jerry

> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jerry McAllister]

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 Mac OS X is much better that Windows
> >although they have a much smaller market share.
> 
> 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
machines, they had to put it on all of them.   So, immediately
every single PC that was sold ran some MS.   Most people went
with the flow.  It was an easier business decision than trying
to buck that current.   This action should be considered totally
illegal in the USA and probably many other countries.  It is 
restraint of trade and forming a monopoly.   Kodak lost a big
case with similar ramifications many decades ago when they were
refusing to sell film without including processing.  But, the law 
cases against MS tended to be centered around including stuff 
like IE in the OS and making it difficult to switch to Netscape
or other browsers.   Forcing the OS on everyone seemed to fall off
after the "settlement" (more like winding down) of those cases and 
now some PC sellers who still sell XP or Vista will sell you a 
machine with something else or even nothing.   But, the damage is
done.   People/businesses have put a lot in to MS-Win, not only
buying it and hiring large support forces to get it to work, but
also in staff training and acquiring other products to function
with it.

There are plenty of people who are happy to just stick with MS and
not think about it any more - just like businesses stuck with IBM
and never listened to any other vendor back in their glory days.
They will not be the ones who go to the trouble to read enough
about FreeBSD to find this Email list and post questions about it.

When someone goes looking for something OTHER than MS, then they 
are out of that MS fold and are searching for something better, not
just for MS by another name.  FreeBSD IS better.   Some portion of
those will look at it and decide to forget it.  So what!?  That is 
their problem.   But, it is completely non-helpful to keep chanting 
the 'it ain't MS' mantra in the face of people who are looking to 
get away from MS.   That is really 'DIS-ing' then to use a fad
term that has fallen out of popularity.

It is reasonable to caution people that FreeBSD and other UNIXen
have a fairly steep learning curve.   But, that is not an
inpenetrable impediment.   It is just part of the job of moving
to something better.   Anyone serious about finding a good
alternative will take on that challenge willingly.   

It is not reasonable to continue to throw up unnecesary barriers
to people moving to improve themselves.

jerry


> 
> >Anyhow, of course you
> >can fully replace Windows with a unix(-like) system and a suitable
> >desktop enviroment (e.g. KDE, Gnome, XFCE). It depends on your specific
> >requirements and if applications exist which do what you need. But
> >saying that GUI's under Unix are per se inferior is just spreading FUD.
> >Leave that to MS. ;-)
> 
> after being one of sponsors of "easy" linux distributions and desktop 
> environment (RedHat), microsoft now can say the truth that it's crap.
> 
> >
> >Just a small example, how limited Windows really is: Even today it is
> 
> you don't have to tell me this. as all unix "desktop environments" are.
> because this style of computing is limited by general.
> 
> 
> In technical university nearest me there was (or is) a guy that when 
> teaching students unix he said:
> 
> ---
> Don't use windows. Not because it crashes, not because it's buggy and not 
> because it's damn slow. But because it learns bad habits, that are then 
> almost impossible to get rid of.
> 
> 
> For me the best sentence about it.
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Zbigniew Szalbot]

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 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?!

-- 
Zbigniew Szalbot
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jerry McAllister]

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 repeat it because it's true. it's every other unix replacement.

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.   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 face.

jerry


> 
> as linux tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both low 
> end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".
> 
> not a nice future for FreeBSD IMHO.
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Ruben de Groot]

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 of LOTS of windoze users that tried any unix GUI.

And you fail miserably at noticing a single opinion of any unix user here who
works happily in a (mostly) GUI environment.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Dan]

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 even be better.
>
> but try running many different tasks in parallel under linux. FreeBSD  
> flies, while linux chokes.

Can you point out some places on the web that confirm this?

>
> that's why i don't like benchmarks.
>
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 under linux. FreeBSD 
flies, while linux chokes.


that's why i don't like benchmarks.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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.



bought it) trying to adapt over the years, and I cannot.  I'm not going


so you made the right decision.
but i think you use your windows through some NAT equipment/server when 
logging to your unix servers, or your passwords will quickly be 
compromissed ;)




Comparatively: I have co-workers who love X and KDE, and hate Windows --


i don't like any of them, because i can't concentrate on the actual 
work with them. but not "hate". hate in that context is nonsense.



The only time I curse Windows is when CMD.EXE or command-line utilities


windows CMD is a joke. simply.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Dan]

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 and FreeBSD run pretty much at
hardware level. You benchmark either, you'll get very close results in
speed and scalability. Both are well optimized.

Unix is for servers, Windoze/OSX is for clients. They're much better
clients than Unix. Cut and paste still doesn't work well in Unix GUIs.
Think about that.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Andrew Gould]

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 limiting.  For others, it is limitless.


>
>
>
>  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 market share.
>>
>
> so why it have a much smaller market share?
>

This is a big question that goes down many roads, including monopolistic
practices, effective marketing and the fact that Apple controls both their
OS and hardware, which made it less competitive for many years.  "Better"
does not always mean success in the marketplace. One of the best examples of
this is OS/2.  When I first started learning about Linux (FreeBSD came
later), I read many messages from older IT veterans that if OS/2 had
succeeded, they would have no need for Linux.


Andrew
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Jeremy Chadwick]

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?
> > 
> > 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 tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both
> > low end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".
> 
> This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and not
> very powerful. Compared e.g. with the old OS/2 desktop, which was
> really powerful, flexible (and object oriented). How disappointed I was
> 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 market share. Anyhow, of course you
> can fully replace Windows with a unix(-like) system and a suitable
> desktop enviroment (e.g. KDE, Gnome, XFCE). It depends on your specific
> requirements and if applications exist which do what you need. But
> saying that GUI's under Unix are per se inferior is just spreading FUD.
> Leave that to MS. ;-)
> 
> 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.
> 
> The only advantage Windows has is that many people are used to it.

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 we really want to talk about all the reasons why I abhor X, we can
discuss them some other time, because ultimately they don't (and
shouldn't) matter.  Why?  Because each person should conclude what works
best for them, depending upon whatever their needs are.

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 to adapt over the years, and I cannot.  I'm not going
to provide details because it'll just induce more parking lot burn-outs
and that's not what I want.

Comparatively: I have co-workers who love X and KDE, and hate Windows --
and I have co-workers who absolutely love OS X's GUI, and hate X and
Windows.  (In fact, the few OS X users I know get quite irate when they
find some OS X program actually relies on X11).

The only time I curse Windows is when CMD.EXE or command-line utilities
come into play.  Anyone who's used *IX will know what I mean by this.
PowerShell/Monad is a joke, Cygwin is an atrocity, 4NT/4DOS is too
quirky, and *IX application ports often have too many bugs (either not
handling NTFS filenames correctly (resorting to 8.3 format), or having
filesize limitations due to the porter doing it wrong; 2GB limits are
found in common programs including Win32 wget).

Every operating system/GUI/environment has its share of quirks.  It just
depends on which ones you can tolerate.  I can tolerate some of Windows'
quirks (sans "focus stealing", although I'm told KDE applicationg are
starting down this road too), but cannot with X or OS X.  I suppose it's
because I've a mental stigma; I associate *IX and UNIX with servers, and
I likely always will.  *IX/UNIX on the desktop is a crazy idea to me.

That's all I have to say on the matter; I won't reply here on out.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking   http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.  PGP: 4BD6C0CB |

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 market share.


so why it have a much smaller market share?



Anyhow, of course you
can fully replace Windows with a unix(-like) system and a suitable
desktop enviroment (e.g. KDE, Gnome, XFCE). It depends on your specific
requirements and if applications exist which do what you need. But
saying that GUI's under Unix are per se inferior is just spreading FUD.
Leave that to MS. ;-)


after being one of sponsors of "easy" linux distributions and desktop 
environment (RedHat), microsoft now can say the truth that it's crap.




Just a small example, how limited Windows really is: Even today it is


you don't have to tell me this. as all unix "desktop environments" are.
because this style of computing is limited by general.


In technical university nearest me there was (or is) a guy that when 
teaching students unix he said:


---
Don't use windows. Not because it crashes, not because it's buggy and not 
because it's damn slow. But because it learns bad habits, that are then 
almost impossible to get rid of.



For me the best sentence about it.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Manfred Usselmann]

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 you are
> 
> and i will repeat it because it's true. it's every other unix
> replacement.
> 
> as linux tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both
> low end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".

This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and not
very powerful. Compared e.g. with the old OS/2 desktop, which was
really powerful, flexible (and object oriented). How disappointed I was
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 market share. Anyhow, of course you
can fully replace Windows with a unix(-like) system and a suitable
desktop enviroment (e.g. KDE, Gnome, XFCE). It depends on your specific
requirements and if applications exist which do what you need. But
saying that GUI's under Unix are per se inferior is just spreading FUD.
Leave that to MS. ;-)

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.

The only advantage Windows has is that many people are used to it.

-- 
Manfred Usselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both low 
end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".


not a nice future for FreeBSD IMHO.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 windows.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 he didn't yet buy laptop




And of course, there's:
http://www.ixsystems.com/products/bsd-laptop.html

very expensive. some lower end model (in addition to that) would be nice. 
FreeBSD isn't slow, so in most cases much less powerful and cheaper do 
fine.


i understand good part of the price is because it's made quite resistant 
physically.


anyway - if i will like to buy NEW laptop and someone will sell it in 
Poland i would buy this.



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Zbigniew Szalbot]

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 poor compared to windows. and they are right.
>
> I totally disagree. Please note that your *opinion* doesn't become truth,
> even when you keep repeating it over and over. there's a whole spectrum
> of window/desktop environments to choose from for every conceivable
> usage or need.

You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be here
using this great OS if it had been you I met in the first place.
Fortuantely, there were very kind people here who helped me make first
steps into the world of UNIX and then continued supporting me along
the way.

By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Windows replacement you are
only discouraging fresh blood from entering the system. It is true
that the system has steep learning curve but it is not an elite system
for the chosen few. Contrary to what you think, the more people use
it, the more chance we get of (for example) hardware producers making
FBSD drivers. So please stop discouraging people from using it.
Please.

-- 
Zbigniew Szalbot
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Ruben de Groot]

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 that your *opinion* doesn't become truth,
even when you keep repeating it over and over. there's a whole spectrum
of window/desktop environments to choose from for every conceivable
usage or need. 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Mel]

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 unix programs, but in every other respect is not like unix
> as you said.
>
> > nitty-gritty of the OS in order to achieve the best results.  Of course,
> > the "best results" are very good indeed, and in my humble opinion, well
> > worth the effort required.
> >
> > Installing on laptop type hardware is a tricky proposition: it's very
> > much luck of the draw whether your particular model has sufficient driver
> > support
>
> 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

And of course, there's:
http://www.ixsystems.com/products/bsd-laptop.html

-- 
Mel

Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules
and never get to the software part.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 you said.



nitty-gritty of the OS in order to achieve the best results.  Of course,
the "best results" are very good indeed, and in my humble opinion, well
worth the effort required.

Installing on laptop type hardware is a tricky proposition: it's very much
luck of the draw whether your particular model has sufficient driver support


For FreeBSD supported laptops Lenovo as generally good choice.
Of course others may work too.

It's best to go to the shop and run LiveCD, check dmesg to see if 
everything is detected, check if it works, and then buy/not buy.


But yes - laptops have very often strange/nonstandard hardware.



Driver support really is the kicker in all of this.  Apple MacOSX doesn't
have this problem, since it only runs on Apple proprietary hardware.  If the


AFAIK it can be run on ordinary PC with simple patches. just because 
todays Apple hardware are just ordinary PCs, just with 2-3 times higher 
price ;)



Even if Apple does have a driver for a piece of kit not already supported in
FreeBSD, it cannot be assumed that Apple will automatically donate the code
to the FreeBSD project.


BTW are there any drivers in FreeBSD source tree that was written by 
Apple?


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Wojciech Puchar]

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 be slower than under windows.



As your laptop was probably sold with windows, request it's 
manufacturer/reseller to fix the problems or give it back, and buy another 
better supported.



Anyway, how about you plus Google cash, and others (?), putting a simple
easy partition of MS hard  disks and FreeBSD install with a nice GUI. And
getting Google to distribute it to the World. My question is, how much


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.


it will be very nice if someone/some company produce true windows 
compatible OS, running windows programs, windows installers, but being 
much better and faster.


of course - they could reuse lots of FreeBSD code, like device drivers for 
example and graphics modules from Xorg.


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.




hardware can you produce drivers for. Presumbably Apple Mac OSX have most of
the hardware drivers, so can you??


Mac OSX reused lots of unix code, mostly FreeBSD AFAIK, + everything by 
it's own.


it could be seen as a competitor for M$ Windows, if it's better or not i 
don't know, i don't use both.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: FreeBSD and hardware??

[Matthew Seaman]

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 2.0 update which I downloaded, but it then refused to
install. Even the Symantec CHAT and remote control of my PC couldn't get it
working. I am about ready to wish unimaginable woe upon Microsoft...


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
nitty-gritty of the OS in order to achieve the best results.  Of course,
the "best results" are very good indeed, and in my humble opinion, well
worth the effort required.

Installing on laptop type hardware is a tricky proposition: it's very much
luck of the draw whether your particular model has sufficient driver support
to satisfy your requirements.  You should check out this site to see what
other people's experiences are with your laptop or similar models:

   http://laptop.bsdgroup.de/freebsd/


Anyway, how about you plus Google cash, and others (?), putting a simple
easy partition of MS hard  disks and FreeBSD install with a nice GUI. And
getting Google to distribute it to the World. My question is, how much
hardware can you produce drivers for. Presumbably Apple Mac OSX have most of
the hardware drivers, so can you??


Distribution is not the difficult part.  No need to involve Google -- the
FreeBSD project already has a very good world-wide on-line distribution
system.

If you want a pre-packaged desktop oriented version of FreeBSD, then check
out the PC-BSD project:

 http://www.pcbsd.org/

Driver support really is the kicker in all of this.  Apple MacOSX doesn't
have this problem, since it only runs on Apple proprietary hardware.  If 
the hardware side of Apple wants to, say, change to a new graphics card,

then the OS development team will be involved at an early stage and there
will be a simultaneous release of the new hardware and of system updates
so that hardware is supported.  That's a very different problem than trying
to provide support for all (or even a large fraction) of the readily available
devices on the market at the moment, which is what FreeBSD faces.

Even if Apple does have a driver for a piece of kit not already supported in
FreeBSD, it cannot be assumed that Apple will automatically donate the code
to the FreeBSD project.  Apple is frequently constrained by proprietary
agreements with equipment manufacturers. They simply can't reveal the low
level information necessary to be able to write an effective driver.  The Mach
kernel and driver architecture in MacOSX are also significantly different to
the FreeBSD equivalents, and it's not possible to just lift code from one and
drop it into the other with minimal effort.

Cheers,

Matthew

--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
 Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
 Kent, CT11 9PW



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature