Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 04:56:41 +1000 From: jonathan michaels <jlm@caamora.com.au> To: Maxi Combina <maxicombina@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: filesystems not properly unmounted [OT] Message-ID: <20050607045641.28598@caamora.com.au> In-Reply-To: <285af08705060606255e26aa5b@mail.gmail.com>; from Maxi Combina on Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:25:51AM -0300 References: <285af087050603095356601a3d@mail.gmail.com> <200506061249.j56Cn1vd018910@lurza.secnetix.de> <285af08705060606255e26aa5b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:25:51AM -0300, Maxi Combina wrote: snipped for brevity > combined with a stable system. I have no trouble with a "diffucult / > unix-like" OS, but a lot of people do. And this a _fact_.They dont > have time to spend learning to use a "dificult" OS. And I think that > if we want to tell more and more people (friends, family, goverment, > companies, etc) to move to an open source OS, we must do an effort. I word of mouth advertising is teh best most reliable form of advertising going ... good working examples performing well and in a stable manner is the best way of showing pwople that an operating system is worth concidering. especially if it is a college is using it (comfortably and assuredly) to do the job at hand. > think that there are a lot of linux distros out there that are really > easy to use, and even more "friendly" or "beatiful" than windows. > I dont think that FreeBSD has achieved this. I dont think there is > need. FreeBSD is more suitable for a server station, but not for the > desktop. I use linux both as server and desktop with excelent results. servers can be managed by purpose built gui shells but they would needs be a very complicated and very very deep multi-leveled, many menued beast tehat would be an almost nightmare to navigate, eve if it were designed "properly" !!! user interfaces can be very well served by a text console or text shell .. basically it depends on what you grew up with and it is this dichotomy that is driving the current schism twix gui/non-gui users. each side has valid arguemnts .. but the truth lies in between teh two 'extremes', or so it has been shown to me over these few decades that i've watched this system develop, and so on. > I am using FreeBSD since a few weeks ago, also with excelents resutls. > But I see it is not desktop oriented (I repeat, this seems ok for me. > FreeBSD is better for a server station, not for a desktop). i've been using computers to solve problems and provide solutions since os9 was a twinkle in its parents eyes (microware) and qnx was going ultra reliable realtime unix(alike) operating systems and teh text console was king .. then came novel os/2 and ms windows v3.11 each one was really hard to adjust too and dificult to change from untill i came to qwindows this was based upon an x11 distribution (forgot which one) but it was quick clean comfortable to use and gave me direct access to teh cli (command line interface) if it was needed and it was an easy and simple switch. all of teh current crop of gui's are not ! what i'm trying to say is tha these days in an effort to become "easy to use" the gui interface which sits on top off and between teh user and the operating system propper has become a very complicated and indeed very bloated and in some cases almost uslessly crippling "user interface". perhaps, we (at freebsd) should settle upon a clean easyish simple and lightweight GUI that we accpet as the official freebsd gui and set up a dev team to set it up as the gui that freebsd uses to provide teh 'ease of use' most new users are looking for when they move from another gui'fied platform be it microsoft window, mac, or some other custom platform. thier whole task would be to work on integrating the freebsd gui into/with the freebsd oprating system but keeping it seperate so that it would be like a jacket one could put on when the weather turns bad or one goes from one environment to another .. to use another analogy. when one becomes aclimatised to teh new environment then to get better performance, easier usage and so forth then you could then take off the jecket (take out the gui environment) and use the "raw" or the cli shell that is the basic way most all operating systems have by way of teh users interoperating with the core of the "operating system". > I dont think that there is an OS that is the best for all the > purposes. Use windows if you want to play the latest games. Use *BSD > if you want or need a really good unix. Use linux if ...... ( fill in > the blanks ;) ) > Please let me know if you dont agree, and why. i disagree .. not so much with wghat you have said, maxi, rather with the usage paterns that we have all sortof assumed are teh way things were, work etc, etc, at teh end of teh line all operating systems are really identicle, why ? because an operating system is the controls built into the cpu systems command protocol structure that feeds information to, retrieves information from, queue work streams for the cpu to process, move around its varions media channels. now that "shell" that we users see, use and or interface with this raw and basic level protocol system/language. now this interface level can be a direct 'text console' cli as in most unix like shells or the ever more popular graphical user interface - gui. over time the developers of these interface tools start to add stuff that makes teh job 'easier' to use untill the point that the whole system become so overgrown that one need special ADDITIONAL keys to help make use of teh added system short cuts that are built into teh system to make it easier to use and so teh developement circle continuse --- all with teh (in my opinion) misguided notion of making the operating systems control mechanisms more and more complicated to use. what i am advocating (have done so for year i think) is that we (freebsd, et al) have a basic and simple graphocal user interface that is devoid of all teh 'tidbits' that are "work-savers" so called. perhaps i am agreeing with you in teh end .... sorta, grin. warm regards jonathan ps, perhaps we could start a mailing list (maybe freebsd-gui) to discuss these issues and to hammer out a longterm viable solution as it is becoming a more important question, seeking an answer as time progresses and all the 'popular' culture starts to believe that easy to use equates with graphical interface and any "operating system" that does not conform will be "doa" if it does not have a gui 'out of the box' to basically ease teh fears of teh end user ... it is really a babies teething ring that serves no other purpose .. again this last bit is my opinion not every one might see it as harshly or humouringly. with thanks. -- ================================================================ powered by .. QNX, OS9 and freeBSD -- http://caamora com au/operating system ==== === appropriate solution in an inappropriate world === ====
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050607045641.28598>