Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:07:53 -0700 From: mike allison <mallison@konnections.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: jack <jack@diamond.xtalwind.net>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Message-ID: <335B0439.6E44D27D@konnections.com> References: <14308.861510406@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't think NT's interface for the admin tools is all that bad. It's a bit confusing and redundant at times, but when you do something I think it's clear what you're doing. It's very hard to `stumble' into an admin tool accidently (unfortunately you have to stumble into them on purpose). I think GUI - wise NT does a good job. It's just that it's ALL gui.... Not everyone needs that, nor wants it, BUT I wouldn't take it away from anyone. I thought FVWM-95 was a dumb idea, but I see why others like it. It might not be a bad evangelical tool to get people away from 95 and into Unix. Personally, as a user program, I like what NT gives me. As an administrator, it's just too much, or maybe I'm just not sure what's going on. I got used to it quickly, but there's times, like on the Mac, when I didn't know how to do what I wanted to do through the GUI.... -Mike Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > It's NOT - where did you get that idea? I merely said that their > implementation of GUIs to *handle these problems* was the key > advantage. It's the idea that counts, not the implementation. The > first n implementations of *anyone*'s installation & admin tools > generally suck, as things go, but if the authors have the right ideas > and are willing to stick with it, something pretty good can be > evolved. Windows has done a good job of creating a lot of > well-documented APIs and installation helpers, their implementation > just needs to advance another couple of generations more. :) > > Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?335B0439.6E44D27D>