Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:54:49 -0700 (PDT) From: White Hat <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> To: FreeBSD Users Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: solaris Message-ID: <20060906185449.41020.qmail@web34401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <eeef1a4c0609061118n575b8abah38f24f83ec4bb2c4@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/09/06, White Hat <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Immaterial. the singularly most important feature > is > > suitability to task. If it is free and it does not > > work, what good is it? > > It depends what you are using it for. You made a > comment about "occaisonal > word processing" (pasted below). For such use > OpenOffice is perfectly good > enough. That is a totally unqualified evaluation. While it may be totally suitable for one individual, that in no way infers that it meets the requirements of another. There is no way you can define an end users requirements based solely on your own usage. > > Yes, the lack of documentation is a shame. > > In Windows, yes. In FreeBSD I can't see a lack. You are kidding right. I can find vastly more documentation available for a win32 machine than for FBSD. In fact, the lact of documentation is one of the reasons that support groups like this evolved. To my great dismay, I am forced to search for and then download documentation via the web. Even then, that is often dated. Not anyones fault, it is just the way it goes. > > The same lack of documentation > > plagues every facet of software today. > > No it doesn't. FreeBSD is well documented. It is above average, I will agree. However, if it were really perfect then this forum would not exist. > > However, you have made my point. > > No I haven't. I have contradicted your point. You > said " A very large > majority of users simply want to use their PCs for > email, occasional word > processing and possible game playing." I am saying > that using XP as you > suggested is not as easy as you suggest for a very > large number of people. If that were true, MS would not rule 90+ percent of the PCs in use today. Why do you think users in third rate countries pirate MS when they could get FBSD for free? I would not want to insult anyone; however, if you cannot install an MS operating system then perhaps you should consider another hobby. Even my wife's sister can handle that project, and that is a woman who considers a can opener a high tech device. > > If a user cannot > > decipher how to configure a simple thing like > Outlook > > Express, and there are programs available that > will do > > it for them, then how are they suppose to be > capable > > of handling a CLI OS like FreeBSD? It boggles the > mind > > -- at least mine. Worse, the configuration of OE > is > > handled by a wizard. It is truly sad when a user > > cannot configure something when it is simplified > down > > to that level. > > It's not so much the wizards, but third party > applications like virus > scanners which change those settings which is a part > of the problem. But you > are not quite comparing apples with apples. > Configuring Thunderbird on > FreeBSD is near enough identical to doing the same > on Windows. I wouldn't > however expect a complete computer novice to be able > to set up a FreeBSD box > without some help. You have users here with 10+ years experience who run int problems. It is just the nature of the beast. It comes with the territory. > How? Drop in two CDs or download the programs, run > > them and case closed. Neither one requires any > > significant configuration. The defaults work just > fine > > for most users. You could eliminate the Counter > Spy > > since ZA has its own proprietary SpyWare program, > but > > I just happen to prefer Counter Spy. > > > Your statement is simply wrong. AV and anti-spyware > DO require > configuration. And they do require installing, and > maybe downloading, and > being kept up to date. The defaults certainly don't > work all the time in all > cases. Have a look here: " Obviously it required installation. Before you can install, it is again obvious that you must secure the item. One size definitely does not fit all. What is your point? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/06/faulty_ca_update/". > I have heard of > broken installations for Norton numerous times. And > trying to help these > customers is time-consuming for our techies. Norton is pathetic, that I will agree with you on that one. That is why I switched three years ago to ZA. It has never given me a moment of trouble, although the CA AV it uses by default is not RFC 2595 compliant which was causing my network problems. One I corrected it though, everything was back to normal. BTW, 'time consuming for your techies'? Ah gee, like what are they paid for? To stand around and kiss each others butt. I am sick of over paid techies who have no working knowledge of what they are doing. If they find their job to stressful, quit! Please do me one favor, do not CC me. I am continually getting two copies of these. I subscribe to the list. I don't send you duplicate copies and therefore would appreciate the same cutesy. Perhaps my address was already inserted by a previous poster. If so, please do remove it. Thank You! -- White Hat pigskin_referee@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060906185449.41020.qmail>