From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 22:33:17 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1255116A4BF for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freebsdgirl.com (daemonporn.com [66.36.228.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C77D43FE1 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:33:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sektie@freebsdgirl.com) Received: from freebsdgirl.com (nat-66-223-56.interland.net [66.223.56.127] (may be forged)) by freebsdgirl.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h825YsB4069895; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:34:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from sektie@freebsdgirl.com) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:33:08 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: Vulpes Velox From: Randi Harper In-Reply-To: <20030902051334.6de9da27.kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) cc: chad@gcatt.org cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 05:33:17 -0000 On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 06:13 AM, Vulpes Velox wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:07:03 -0400 > Randi Harper wrote: >> My mom runs FreeBSD. ;) > > Cool, I set my sister up with a FreeBSD box and Windowmaker awhile > back. It has > worked out well for her. You know, I think if more people would actually look at FreeBSD without thinking "eek, BSD, hard!", they'd realize it's actually a lot easier to run in the long run than linux is. I've been running FreeBSD for at least 3 years, and about a year ago I had to put linux on a laptop to run showeq because there was no port. I chose slackware, because I figured it had the least amount of crap. I had to upgrade a library in slackware, which involved upgrading pretty much the entire system. I didn't want to spend the time on that considering it was just to run one application, so I installed RedHat. showeq required QT 2.x. RedHat's QT 2.x RPM has QT 3.x as a dependancy. This is on a really tiny HD on a PII 300 laptop. :) After that, I realized how good I had it. Once you get used to the ease of use of the ports tree, there really is no going back. I'm not an anti-linux fanatic at all, but I remember the aggravation of that one experience, and I appreciate what I've got even more. > >> A desktop of it's own? Let's clarify something here. Having something >> like gnome or KDE doesn't qualify something as being a 'desktop' or >> not. Surely you can recall the days before gnome and KDE were popular. >> What did we use then? Window Maker? Enlightenment? KDE was somewhat >> popular, but it didn't have the momentum it has now. Yes, those are >> aimed at the Linux people. And for what it's worth, let them have it. >> gnome and KDE are the toilet paper of the stinky gas station bathroom >> that is X11, in my opinion. >> >> GTK, an integral part of gnome, works fine in FreeBSD. Instead of >> people just sitting on their butts and whining 'I need a GUI, I need >> things to click on, I want something that does stuff for me so I can >> be >> a freaking moron but still be able to brag about my uname -a on IRC', >> wouldn't it make sense to code one? I realize that's easier said than >> done, but it really isn't that difficult to code with GTK/GLib at all, >> and in doing so we'd stick with a look and feel that everyone is >> familiar with and is well supported and integrated into a variety of >> applications. > > GTK is nice. I am begining to look at it a bit, myself. Just wait until you try to code in it. Gooberssh (check the webpage in my .sig) is my first C project that I've even considered showing anyone. It's the first time I've coded in C in years (I'm more of a php/perl monkey), and of course I decide to make a GTK program. Gtk and glib are excellent for coding in, if you don't mind stuff that looks like gtk_window_really_long_function_name(arg, arg, arg, arg, arg). The API reference online isn't bad at all. Also, O'Reilly was supposed to be releasing a new book about Gtk 2.0, but it appears to have been canceled or put off. Bummer. I'm using one of the New Riders books, but it only covers Gtk 1.2. I don't recommend using any of those GUI things like glade though. It just seems to complicate things. > >> If there's one thing I've noticed by (mostly) idling on this mailing >> list, it's that people love to say "we need this", and "it should be >> this way", or "someone should code this", but no one ever wants to put >> forth the time to help. It's complete BS. Well, here it is, for what >> it's worth. I'm willing to put time into this if someone is willing to >> help. I'd do it on my own, but I've only been doing GTK coding for a >> few months. My C is mediocre at best, and my understanding of the way >> X11 handles things is nil. From what I've read, the X11 standard is >> complete trash, and I'm not delving into that alone. And if no one >> wants to step forward to help, none of you have anywhere to stand in >> this discussion. > > X11 rulz. I personally like how it handles things and the methodology > behind it. > The lack of a specific way of creating a GUI is really nice. > Ugh. Have you SEEN the X11 spec? If you have to write a window manager, I've heard it's a bloody nightmare. Read the Unix Haters Handbook. The PDF is online somewhere. They have a nice section explaining some of it. For me, it's a matter of: I hate it, I know it's ass, but I have as of yet to see a decent alternative that supports my video card, so I don't complain too loudly when I use it. Randi Harper sektie@freebsdgirl.com http://freebsdgirl.com