From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 24 08:33:55 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A9C16A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:33:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91.asp.att.net [204.127.203.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A31A43D45 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:33:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from m.hauber@mchsi.com) Received: from wizard.valleygate.net (12-219-204-24.client.mchsi.com[12.219.204.24]) by sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91) with ESMTP id <20050224083349m9100ouj22e>; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:33:49 +0000 From: Mike Hauber To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:37:44 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <200502231635.31538.m.hauber@mchsi.com> <1723646570.20050224064608@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <1723646570.20050224064608@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200502240337.44986.m.hauber@mchsi.com> cc: atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: Different OS's? Marketshare X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: m.hauber@mchsi.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:33:55 -0000 On Thursday 24 February 2005 12:46 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Mike Hauber writes: > > Found the thread... Have you tried installing an older > > version? > > No, but most of the problems I saw in my research were on 4.x > or older versions. This version (5.3) seems to run fine once > it's up; the only problem is getting the machine to boot it. > Also, I'm getting those weird SCSI disk errors. > Yeah. I just finished emailing someone who had the same problems, and it apparently isn't the problem I was having a while back. He also said that using the new version was the easier solution. > > Well... There's a lot of options available. Personally, I > > prefer something like blackbox for administrative logins. > > It's _very_ lightweight and (like all things should be), you > > pretty much build it from the ground up. > > What do you mean by building it from the ground up? > > What do I get when I type startx by default? It looks > extremely simple, whatever it is, just a few simple windows in > green borders on a rather irritating gray crosshatched > background. Hmmm... I tend to view a wm about the same way I view win.exe (not in the disrespectful way, of course) in the respect that it's real purpose is to provide a pretty point and click menu system (which I'm not knocking). It's very usefull and palletable to some, usually not a necessity, and downright apalling to others. So when he said "I'm looking for a wm that's not windowsy," I translated that to, "I'm looking for a point/click menu system that's easy on the eyes, won't suck my processor dry, or populate ~ with a bunch of stuff I'm never going to use." I mentioned that blackbox is what I use for administrative logins because you have to build it from the ground up (not in any literal sense (ie, not from a wm-developers point of view), but from the wm-user's view (for instance, I find the default menu (the purpose of the wm) to be pretty bare for my taste and therefore needs to be customized (built up). Make sense? Hope I wasn't any more confusing. :) Mike ps. What you get by default is more like the basement, man! lol