Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:07:35 -0600
From:      Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
To:        "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>
Cc:        "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <chat@freebsd.org>, "Eric Melville" <eric@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Randall Hamilton" <nitedog@silly.pikachu.org>, "GB Clark II" <gclarkii@vsservices.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?)
Message-ID:  <15367.37543.15609.362257@guru.mired.org>
In-Reply-To: <03ea01c17986$b9dd6f40$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
References:  <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <000901c17892$28e1ce90$0301a8c0@nitedog> <01bc01c17892$f2dea380$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011129133936.A90325@FreeBSD.org> <032301c17946$6341c1d0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <004801c17872$98e47b40$6600000a@ach.domain> <017f01c1788c$8cb71d90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15365.52562.394957.602907@guru.mired.org> <01fe01c178a1$001d1be0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15365.58639.39658.89837@guru.mired.org> <022901c178ab$8b12cb50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <001401c1789c$f4ea1f60$6600000a@ach.domain> <021f01c178a9$43b2c500$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15365.63510.713899.607362@guru.mired.org> <026501c178c1$62f8fa70$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15366.45514.579030.680673@guru.mired.org> <032d01c17947$2e923fe0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <001701c17985$89206f20$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <03ea01c17986$b9dd6f40$0a00000a@atkielski.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types:
> Ted writes:
> > It does the job that Microsoft thinks you want
> > done nicely.
> Microsoft is right, for the most part.

My observation of windows users - both at home and in the office -
indicate that "most" is about 60%.

> > Getting from where Microsoft wants them to
> > be to where the user wants Microsoft to be
> > is very hard.
> The success of Microsoft is evidence of the contrary.

No, it isn't. You overlooked what happens in reality, which is that
the users go where Microsoft wants them to be, and give up on the
being where they want to be. That's easy but painful.

Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types:
> Mike writes:
> > Why don't you let them decide that for themselves,
> > instead of reaching that conclusion based on
> > your shallow exposure to the problem.
> I don't like to see ordinary users suffer.  They tend to become permanently
> hostile to computers after a bad experience.

But that users *is* suffering - that's why they're complaining about
Windows. That you believe it will be worse with Linux is another good
reason for telling them you won't be able to help them with it. That
way, if they do suffer, you won't have to see it.

As for the second part, most of the Windows users I know are hostile
to computers. Those that have had experience with things other than
Windows - the Mac, for instance - tend to be hostile to Windows.

> > For every task you listed, I found an application.
> "An application" isn't good enough.  It has to be compatible with the
> applications I named.

In other words, you've placed yourself in a position where you can't
escape from a proprietary solution. Having been there before, you have
both my sympathy and my pity. I'd also advise you to change that
situation as quickly as you can, because the longer you stay in it,
the more painful it will be when you are finally forced to change for
some reason.

> > In that case, I must conclude that Windows -
> > in any flavor - is completely unsuitable for
> > desktop use because there isn't a version of
> > ratpoison for it.
> If ratpoison is a sine qua non for your use, that's true.

Since experience has taught me not to get caught in the position
you're in, *nothing* is sine qua non for my use. It's just (as
discussed elsewhere) that ratpoison is about 50% more efficient than
most other window managers, including Windows. I'm currently
investigating PLWM, which should raise that figure to 75%. If there
were a window manager that could compete with those figures available
for Windows, I'd love to hear about it.

Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types:
> Eric writes:
> > As for the false perception of graphical items
> > being easier to learn, every version of windows
> > to date most certainly take time and effort to learn as
> > well.
> True, but not nearly as much as that required for UNIX, which is the very
> archetype of a geek's operating system.

That's why some of the Linux distributions are turning themselves into
a clone of Windows - because they want to lower the learning curve as
much as possible. 

> > I could have sworn that was also your reason
> > for X being bad.
> No.  Besides, I don't consider X bad, just not as good for general desktop use
> as Windows.  If I want a windowed GUI, why not pick the OS that was designed
> from the ground up for that purpose?

Windows certainly isn't that. It's basis is DOS, which was a
single-tasking program loader. Every version since has been saddled
with backwards compatability to that design, which is one of the
reasons for those platforms being unstable. I've been told by an NT
developer that that was the reason that Windows NT was so unstable
that even Bill Gates admitted it.

As far as I can tell, there have only been two OS's that have made it
to market designed from the ground up as a windowed system - the Mac
and BeOS. The Amiga was supposed to get that, but the people
contracted to provide the exec backed out at the last minute, so
Tripos was bolted on in in it's place. The seams definitely
showed. The previously mentioned Apple and Sun products that never
made it to market also fit your description, but they aren't
available.

> It doesn't matter where the interface is.  It's the fact of using a GUI that
> makes the difference.  X may be a server that can run _under_ UNIX, but it still
> is so complex and requires so many privileges that it destabilizes the system.

Gnome and KDE may be that way, but I've avoided them like the
plague. But for a graphic server and a simple wm, that's just not
true. Nuts, even with a relatively complex wm like gwm, it's not true,
because the window manager doesn't need any extra privileges. The only
time I've had problems with a GUI on X is when I was running a window
manager that was under active development. Basically, using Windows -
either 3.1, 95 or 98 - for a single day results in more problems from
the GUI than I've had with 15 years using four different graphics
servers and seven different window managers of release quality on
Unix.

> > I'd call the screensaver a waste as well. Why
> > does your server have a screen?
> To provide for situations when remote terminals cannot connect, as during boot
> operations.  I got only a small monitor for it, however.

So install a terminal server, and set them up with serial
consoles. Then run X and a simple windowm manager - ratpoison would be
nearly ideal for this - that has the console for each displayed in a
window.

	<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Q: How do you make the gods laugh?		A: Tell them your plans.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15367.37543.15609.362257>