Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:09:52 -0600
From:      Tim Judd <tajudd@gmail.com>
To:        Frank Shute <frank@shute.org.uk>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: installing freebsd on windows
Message-ID:  <ade45ae90903270909j6156376ev98241e79b4473f31@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090327144533.GA89056@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk>
References:  <20090325034317.160b149d.freebsd@edvax.de> <20090325041118.5c99710a.freebsd@edvax.de> <49C9A572.3070006@gwi.net> <20090325045911.56efaff6.freebsd@edvax.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903251125200.31143@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <49CC1230.8060005@onetel.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903270103090.47997@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20090327115040.GA88708@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20090327083131.59204048@scorpio> <20090327144533.GA89056@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frank Shute <frank@shute.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:31:31AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:50:40 +0000
> > Frank Shute <frank@shute.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 01:03:59AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >It's certainly not slow and messy here. I installed PCBSD a couple
> > >> >of months ago after a few years of rolling my own desktop and I
> > >> >love it. On reasonable spec hardware it runs very well, the
> > >> >developers have done an excellent job
> > >>
> > >> of course. windows vista runs well too on overmuscled hardware.
> > >
> > >No it doesn't. It doesn't run well on any hardware because it's got
> > >things like a file manager that is broken for all intents and
> > >purposes. No virtual desktops, undocumented shell etc.
> >
> > Actually, it supports at least four that I know of. You can Google for
> > the information.
>
> Four of what?
>
> Why do I have to Google the info? Shouldn't there be a copy of the
> info locally?


Want to download the Internet?  Ok, as soon as 5 minutes pass from the
download, your copy is old.


> I can google for unbroken filemanagers, documented shells, install
> cygwin etc. but the software as it stands is horribly inadequate and
> undocumented.
>
> > MS Windows is probably the best documented piece of software around.
>

I can see that perception.  Depends on where you look though.  Limiting
yourself to one source (google) or another (MSDN) isn't wise, because google
will give you real-world experience and help, whereas MSDN is documented as
it SHOULD operate and RECOMMENDED practices.


> Are you being sarcastic?
>

I'm not.


> Where's the Handbook like FreeBSDs?
>

Write one, publish it.


> You can read the source can you? I can't.
>
> Maybe I'm just getting old but Vista documentation seems to be
> scattered to hell and west over the 'net - if you can find what you're
> looking for at all.
>

Because not a single admin works the same as the next.  People with Windows
mindset will work in one way, people with Linux mindset will work another,
and people with OS X mindset will work in a 3rd way, all unique.so


> > What is it you are looking for?
>
> Where are the documents for using their crappy filemanager? There are
> some with what they call, exaggeratingly, their help system but they
> are useless compared to any unix documentation. Probably there are a
> limited number of ways you can describe such an excrescance as the
> Vista Explorer replacement.
>

Useless insults aside, there is a difference in the help systems for the
desktop systems, versus the server systems.  2008 is a good mix, although
it's not unix.

OS X 10.5, Leopard is certified unix, and still doesn't feel as natural (or
useful) as BSD or Linux does.  If you want to know why, let me know.


> Where are the manpages for their shell? They should at least have some
> documentation that comes with the OS that lists and describes the
> commands it supports. It doesn't.
>

manpages aren't an Internet thing.  It's not an RFC standard.

MS Windows has command line help, you use /? that works for most apps.

cmd /?


> I'm looking for an OS with a sane file hierarchy and a shell I can use
> to manage the files therein. An editor better than Notepad would be a
> bonus too.
>

I see the sense in C:\Users
I see the sense in C:\Documents and Settings
I see the sense in C:\WINDOWS
I see the sense in using CMD.exe -- after all, the dos box has been around
forever

An editor better than Notepad?  MS Write.  And then MS Office/Word, then
OpenOffice.  Somewhere there's Abiwrite.  Of all these 5, only one is
commercial software.


> Extensive documentation on the machine is a must.
>

Nope.  That's a personal belief, one that isn't a "must".  You're imagining
things on that.


> I've searched on google for documentation on the powershell to no
> avail. All the docs as such seem to be available if you are a member
> of MSDN - I presume so anyway, but for the general public they don't
> seem to be readily available.
>

PowerShell is still "new"..  If you want documentation, MS Press makes a
windows 2008 resource kit including a book called 'Windows PowerShell
Scripting Guide' that's over 600 pages.

Not all resources have to be google-able.  Spend a few bucks and buy
something that'll help you... it'll benefit you too.


> In short, I gave Vista a decent shot (I quite like XP) but it was like
> wading through treacle and I thought that if I am to get the best out
> of it, I'm probably going to have to sign up for MSDN and download
> vast amounts of "missing" software and spend inordinate amounts of
> time on google.
>

Books.  Or get something like a Safari Books Online subscription and then
start reading the info online... same books, online.  Save a tree.


> The cost and time benefits didn't seem worth it since I'm quite happy
> with FreeBSD and there's only one Windows only application that I use:
> AutoCAD; for that I maintain an XP installation.
>

> Staying on topic, my advice to the original poster is to dump Windows
> and use FreeBSD - it's better documented and you can either use WINE
> to run your "must have" Windows programs or have a separate Windows
> partition. With a bit of luck your Windows "must haves" will eventually
> have unix replacements.
>

On-topic?  HAH!  You went off the deep end.  And Wine doesn't work for when
you need NT Services and/or dependencies (such as .NET) -- at least, didn't
for me.



And I am flaming you, personally.  I understood lots of this was personal
views and I offered my personal views as well.

So fan the flame if you want.  I've said my peice and now you can ignore me
if you'd like.

--TJ



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ade45ae90903270909j6156376ev98241e79b4473f31>