From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 16:57:50 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB81106566B for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:57:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from modulok@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571488FC15 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:57:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iyb26 with SMTP id 26so4091139iyb.13 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:57:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KBT77WDw1tAdlC02Wkx0Nz8RG4ifabtmBpsjfa9MAqs=; b=MKFxlurTMXl63yY5IVOBeC38MXHr3xzcxP3n+SRH7o4SFwlMs0JrtYPWXrFG5yd+5b 4r1d6UL6w/kNToAwRzNPp+FCorv6l59D+A4mLyk/FQLjBPgjT5PndrVho5QexmWR2Sy9 5CcPh5gGX/KUErTzAV8ZsVZJ7x0EfLf/uAKeQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=ZoZ4B+rxDNjKxlMZCharuUCDlx6TUyITwZSU+jp99VY8SZlri0RxFE4gVPeA2EvD6O 8GqfjLyAJL7B+gO1W9SmfGcWZQEvUEHFaP0k2ggddVLSqAdrlDIJlmTjfKpICfIwn+fm IiI5bTDJPGFBtz50nWAwnTG4gqcR+oOwAD0wo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.176.9 with SMTP id bc9mr2352829icb.64.1297616269419; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:57:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.177.74 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:57:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110213164254.GA60459@guilt.hydra> References: <4D550415.8060105@ifdnrg.com> <20110211185738.GB45708@guilt.hydra> <4D56799D.13036.2335C99A@dave.g8kbv.demon.co.uk> <20110213073814.GC57674@guilt.hydra> <20110213092353.GA58281@guilt.hydra> <20110213073801.65518b9c@scorpio> <20110213164254.GA60459@guilt.hydra> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:57:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: Modulok To: FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:57:50 -0000 So... how about those solid state drives... yup. -Modulok- On 2/13/11, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 07:38:01AM -0500, Jerry wrote: >> >> "Bloat" is a purely subjective term. What one user considers bloat >> could very well be a requirement for another use. For example, while >> you might consider it bloat to have drivers for modern wireless "N" >> protocol cards, many other users have a real need for them. > > If one OS has about a gigabyte installed size and another more like > fifteen to twenty, and both are suitable to accomplishing everyday tasks > for a given user, the latter is bloated. It doesn't matter if your > favorite 5% of the latter system is different from mine, and we consider > different parts of the system "bloat", it's still bloated to both of us. > This is why good design concepts like "modularity" are . . . good design > concepts. > > Well, it's *one* reason, among many. > > Shame Microsoft never caught on to that concept. > > >> >> I have four PC present working in my home. Three are FreeBSD machines >> and one a Win7 one. The Windows machine is essential, if for no other >> reason than there is software that is just not available on a FreeBSD >> platform. Or if it is available, it is of very poor quality. > > You use what you need. I get that. I never disputed it. On the other > hand, needing something because of a particular couple of requirements > does not mean it's well designed. > > >> >> MS Office is a perfect example. Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS >> community has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than >> a poor clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be >> usable someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way >> it can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. > > OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice offer functionality MS Office does not, > just as MS Office offers functionality they do not. Different people > have different needs, and those office suites serve slightly different > needs. On the other hand, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice encompass more > MS Office functionality than MS Office does of OpenOffice.org and > LibreOffice functionality. Since it became a household term (at least in > the open source community), for instance, OpenOffice.org has supported a > wider range of MS Office documents than MS Office, thanks to the fact > that despite its much-ballyhooed adherence to "backwards compatibility", > MS Office has tended to (intentionally?) break file format compatibility > between release versions. > > Of course, office suites are collectively steaming garbage anyway. > > >> >> Until the FOSS can write applications that are not only compatible >> with, but as fully functional as MS Office and similar software, as >> well as provide drivers in a timely manner (and I am still waiting for >> Java to be updated to the latest version so that it will work with the >> FreeBSD version of Firefox, or for acroread9 to actually work and play >> well with others, etc), Microsoft will always be a requirement for many >> end users. > > When your criteria for success are "identical to someone else's > software", you're just creating a rigged game, where the "someone else" > is the only possible winner -- because its efforts are in your eyes the > standard of excellence no matter what its efforts produce, and everyone > else just has to play catch-up. It has nothing to do with actual > quality, usefulness, or productivity. > > It's funny you are complaining about open source developers not doing a > good job by pointing out that closed source developers aren't doing their > jobs, by the way. You are aware that both components of the complete > Java system and Adobe's PDF reader are both closed source software -- > right? > > >> >> This is in no way a condemnation of FreeBSD, or any other open-source >> product. > > . . . aside from the part where you blame open source developers for all > the ills of the world above. Okay, so I exaggerate -- but you seem to be > trolling rather than making a salient point. > > >> >> It is just a simple statement of fact. The majority of users, despite >> what they may publicly proclaim, want software and hardware that just >> works. I had installed an older nVidia GeForce GT 220 card in an older >> PC and then discovered that there was no sound being emitted by the >> machine. Wasting valuable time, I finally discovered that I had to >> modify the "sysctl.conf" file. Crap like that should just not happen. > > I agree that there should be ways to handle such things without forcing > minimally competent computer users to search documentation for > information about how to use sysctl to make sound work. Sane defaults > and reasonable levels of autoconfiguration, at least as *options*, are > good things. > > On the other hand, I wish I had the option of searching documentation and > using a simple tool like sysctl to make graphics work on an MS Windows > system a few years back. Instead, I ended up having to just use a > different 3D graphics adapter because the one I had refused to work > properly on a given motherboard with MS Windows. I later discovered the > same hardware setup worked fine with Debian. > > There's no use pretending MS Windows never has issues with the efficacy > of its autoconfiguration. Most of us have used that OS quite a lot, and > know that problems arise -- and that, unlike with open source OSes, it's > actually fairly common to have no recourse at all when something does not > work. > > >> >> Things should just work. If other OS's can accomplish that feat, there >> is no reasonable reason that FreeBSD cannot attain that level of >> usability either, unless its goal is to remain nothing more than a >> hobbyist's toy. > > Things should not randomly stop working either. If FreeBSD can manage > that level of sanity, in the aggregate, there's no reason MS Windows > should not be able to accomplish the same feat -- except, of course, for > bad design. > > >> >> For the record, I have never played "Guild Wars", although there are >> many fine games available that are not available on the FreeBSD >> platform. And no, I am not going to blame the authors of said software >> for that since they have an absolute right, well maybe not according to >> the EC aka ECUSSR, but in a normal and free business climate to write >> and publish software in whatever OS language they desire. > > Of course, they have a right to do so. I wasn't even blaming them. > > I was just pointing out that, because my needs are more productive and > less entertainment-oriented, there might be some difference in how I > comparatively judge the quality of OSes. > > On the other hand, I have a FreeBSD laptop with Neverwinter Nights on it, > and until she got tired of it my girlfriend had a Debian laptop with > World of Warcraft on it, and we both use our respective systems to watch > TV shows on Hulu from time to time. Neither of us has played computer > games much lately, but there's some evidence to suggest that even for > time-wasting purposes our open source operating systems can serve > admirably -- even achieving better frame rates for the games we've played > than equivalent systems running MS Windows. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] >