Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:43:29 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: "setantae" <setantae@submonkey.net> Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: home pc use Message-ID: <008f01c171fb$a5108da0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20011119220243.A268@prayforwind.com> <009a01c171a9$4eedbee0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120023948.A92409@xor.obsecurity.org> <00df01c171b0$2a938be0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120105642.GA75918@rhadamanth> <012d01c171b6$96b5adc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120114236.GA76431@rhadamanth> <005f01c171bf$c4d06b10$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120131850.GA77414@rhadamanth> <001f01c171cf$430e8ac0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120150009.GA78153@rhadamanth>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ceri writes: > We are talking about window managers. Window > managers don't run applications. Yes. That's why an X environment on UNIX that looks and feels like Windows is still useless--because looking like Windows doesn't mean able to execute Windows applications. > It's perfectly possible to run applications > such as Netscape without a window manager. There is a command-line version of Netscape??? Where? > This is not the someotheroperatingsystem-questions@FreeBSD.org list. It seems a lot like the Ihaveonlytwoyearsofexperience@freebsd.org list. > Yes, and you never heard of them, therefore > your statement (which I include below, since > you snipped it) make no sense. Sure it does. All operating systems look very much the same after you've seen a few of them. There are only so many overall architectures that make any sense for an operating system. > I evaluated your competence with FreeBSD. > Nothing more. Yes, that is obvious. > You were stating that a gui environment on FreeBSD > is no more stable than Windows, when you only have > three weeks experience with one window manager on > FreeBSD. The stability of a GUI is independent of the OS over which it executes. > I thought you were looking for a window manager > that doesn't crash. I was actually looking for an X server that would run on Windows, so that I could have a graphic environment for my UNIX interaction from Windows that would be similar to the native Windows environment. I am far less interested in a separate GUI to run on the console, and I only tried that out of curiosity, and as a second choice. > If you change operating system then you need to > realise and accept that you'll be changing the > way you do some things. I did that from the beginning. That's why I used the command-line interface exclusively from the start, and that's why I continue to use it. What I find amusing is that so many people seem to work so hard to make UNIX look like Windows. Is having a GUI really that important ... especially on an operating system that is really designed as a server, and not as a desktop? If you really want just a graphic desktop that badly, why run FreeBSD? Windows or even a Mac is a better choice (or perhaps even Mac OS X, if you feel compelled to have some sort of UNIX flavoring in there somewhere). > You shouldn't be using this list for that purpose. > You should be using newbies@FreeBSD.org. Newbies is not for questions. It's marked in the initial information sent out for that list. > This is an argument. Is it? > If you want useful information, ask a question > and don't make statements. More precisely: Ask a question and take whatever you are told as gospel. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?008f01c171fb$a5108da0$0a00000a>