Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:49:48 +0000 From: Frank Shute <frank@shute.org.uk> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: installing freebsd on windows Message-ID: <20090328154948.GA96077@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20090328083932.6d2ad3d3@scorpio> References: <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> <20090328083932.6d2ad3d3@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 08:39:32AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:45:33 +0000 > 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. > > A system can never be over powered. > > >> >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? > > Virtual desktops. What are you referring to? Visit the power toys URL > for further information. > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx Thanks for that. Did they use to be called PowerTools? I downloaded them a few years ago but it didn't come with virtual desktops. > > >Why do I have to Google the info? Shouldn't there be a copy of the > >info locally? > > Not necessarily. Many people don't want to clutter up their system with > documentation that they will never use. I certainly don't. If I > actually need an obscure bit of information, I can always obtain it. And when your 'net connection is down, then you can obtain it? I maintain the Handbook locally. It's no effort and can save my bacon for whenever I don't have 'net access. > > >I can google for unbroken filemanagers, documented shells, install > >cygwin etc. but the software as it stands is horribly inadequate and > >undocumented. > > In your opinion. I never have a problem finding what I am looking for. > > >> MS Windows is probably the best documented piece of software around. > > > >Are you being sarcastic? > > > >Where's the Handbook like FreeBSDs? > > Are you being sarcastic? No. > > >You can read the source can you? I can't. > > If you are referring to the source code; well that is obvious. If > something else, then what? People get paid to develop the software. If > they gave it away, they would not make a living, the unemployment lines > would swell, and crime would increase. Now, if you don't believe in a > capitalistic system of free enterprise, please come over and paint my > house this weekend. I promise not to insult you by offering to pay you. You've fallen hook, line & sinker for the broken windows fallacy. I support free software with a subscription to TUG. It's not my job to keep software developers in employment though. > > >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. > > Yes, it is fragmented. The simple fact that there is so much information > is the cause, not the problem. It maybe the cause but it's also a problem. There should be one page on microsoft.com for each of their OSes where one can start looking for info. For instance, I did a search for "cmd.exe commands" on Google and it didn't return a useful page from microsoft.com on the first page. That's weak. What's even weaker is that cmd.exe isn't described in any of the local documentation on Vista/XP. > > >> 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. > > > >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. > > Did you actually install the 'Power Shell?' I assume that is what you > are talking about. Read the 'Getting Started" pages. I just installed > it and there is a wealth of information there. Certainly enough to get > started with. I was talking about cmd.exe. That's the shell on Windows isn't it? I thought Powershell shipped with my version of Vista (business) but I guess I was wrong. > > BTW, many people consider 'man' to be an acronym for "Much About > Nothing". Therein lies the reason that O'Reilly has make a fortune > distributing 'How-To' books. I own a shelf full of O'Reilly books. If I get my softs for free, I don't mind paying for extra documentation. When I pay for software, I expect it to be thoroughly documented (à la AutoCAD with a big thick manual). > > >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. > > Wrong, you are looking for a specific OS that is tailored to your very > specific specification. Everyone does not (thank GOD) have the same > criteria. If it suits you, then great. If not, find one that does. > Bitching like an old wash woman accomplishes nothing. I told you what constitutes my idea of some of the things that a proper OS consists of. Contrary to your assertion, that does not constitute "bitching like an old wash woman" you clod. FYI, I've found an OS that works for me. > > >Extensive documentation on the machine is a must. > > Then install it. Everyone does not want massive amounts of useless > clutter. That's your problem. You see documentation as clutter, I see it as essential. > > >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. > > Obviously, you have not installed the shell. Besides the info included > with the program, you might want to check out the following URL. It > should answer most of your immediate questions. I also question you > 'search' ability. I don't seem to be having any problem finding > gratuitous amounts of documentation. > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926139 User guide in rtf and docs in txt. Laughable. They've obviously put so much effort into documenting it </sarcasm> > > >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. > > Yes, it is commonly referred to as a 'learning curve' Personally, > anyone who cannot handle a Win32 machine has serous problems. Six year > old kids gleefully manipulate a PC without problems. I know several 7 & > 8 year old kids running MS Office without any difficulty at all. It all > depends on how motivated you are. Can they manipulate their files & dirs with the Vista file manager? Nobody's pointed out docs for the aforesaid file manager yet. > > Conversely, I know many individuals who just plain gave up tying to run > a *.nix system because they could not get a device to work, or locate a > driver, or find a support mechanism that was suitable for them > purposes. Things like FLASH have always been problematic on FreeBSD. > > >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. > > If you are happy with something, then why bitch. You sound like an old > lady. That's the second time you've accused me of bitching like an old woman. Top tip: If you can't write without throwing in ad hominems don't write at all. <snip guff> Now run along and play with Windows since it's the "best documented" OS in the world. Have fun & spend lots of money to keep those poor developers employed & stop the capitalist system from falling down! -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090328154948.GA96077>