From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 23:39:03 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 B0A7616A4BF for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snickers.hotpop.com (snickers.hotpop.com [204.57.55.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8932143FE0 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:39:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com) Received: from hotpop.com (kubrick.hotpop.com [204.57.55.16]) by snickers.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 836A8777DB for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:38:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fortytwo. (ip68-109-49-234.lu.dl.cox.net [68.109.49.234]) by smtp-2.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 40D9A1800B5; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:38:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:36:38 -0500 From: Vulpes Velox To: Randi Harper Message-Id: <20030902063638.59777405.kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20030902051334.6de9da27.kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-HotPOP: ----------------------------------------------- Sent By HotPOP.com FREE Email Get your FREE POP email at www.HotPOP.com ----------------------------------------------- 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 06:39:03 -0000 On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:33:08 -0400 Randi Harper wrote: > > 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. Yeah, getting ppl past the 'eek, BSD hard' part is a real hurdle. Since my sister is willing to read documentation, it was not a problem in the least. I just showed her some basic commands and she was set. As long as the user is willing to read documentation stuff is cool. I think windows has really proven the problem of what happens when users don't read documentation and for a nice part don't feel the need to learn the basics. Computers are a tool regardless how they are looked at and, like any other tool, they have have a basic set of info required to use them properly and efficiently. This is something that really needs address in the public school system. > > > >> 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 >