Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 17, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Chris Zumbrunn wrote: On Feb 17, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Sander Vesik wrote: as a side note - whats teh licence / use policy of your designs you have been posting links to on FreeBSD related materials? As far as I'm concerned, the Beastie silhouette can be used as long as it is BSD related. Existing restrictions similar to those for the BSD Daemon ( http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/copyright.html ) may apply, I'll have to talk to McKusick about that. In other words, for now you'll have to ask me before you can use it. The word FreeBSD, of course, is a registered trademark of the FreeBSD foundation. I'll contact McKusick about that... Here's the resulting wording of the license and use policy: The Beastie Silhouette is copyright 2005 by Chris Zumbrunn and may be freely used in the context of BSD-related products and services. It is an approved derivative work from the original BSD Daemon image that is copyright 1988 by Marshall Kirk McKusick. I made gif and eps versions available at http://beastie.czv.com/ Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 329 41 41 41 Chris Zumbrunn Ventures - http://www.czv.com/ Internet Application Technology - Reduced to the Maximum ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:53:50 +0100, Chris Zumbrunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't you think this Beastie qualifies as a professional logo? http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif as a side note - whats teh licence / use policy of your designs you have been posting links to on FreeBSD related materials? [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 329 41 41 41 Chris Zumbrunn Ventures - http://www.czv.com/ Internet Application Technology - Reduced to the Maximum ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 17, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Sander Vesik wrote: On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:53:50 +0100, Chris Zumbrunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't you think this Beastie qualifies as a professional logo? http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif as a side note - whats teh licence / use policy of your designs you have been posting links to on FreeBSD related materials? As far as I'm concerned, the Beastie silhouette can be used as long as it is BSD related. Existing restrictions similar to those for the BSD Daemon ( http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/copyright.html ) may apply, I'll have to talk to McKusick about that. In other words, for now you'll have to ask me before you can use it. The word FreeBSD, of course, is a registered trademark of the FreeBSD foundation. I'll contact McKusick about that... [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 329 41 41 41 Chris Zumbrunn Ventures - http://www.czv.com/ Internet Application Technology - Reduced to the Maximum ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Steffl Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 10:54 AM To: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: ... of laziness. In my case I unfortunately decided it might be a good thing to use a Microsoft client mail program to handle e-mail. This was a decade ago. I now have around ten thousand archived e-mail messages accumulated in a massive *.pst file that I really want to keep - not because I want to look at all of them again some day, but because from time to time I have to go digging around in that archive looking for some specific piece from some specific person - sometimes these messages might be 5-6 years old. One of these days though when I get some time, that file is going to get exported so that I can get out of dealing with Outlook. As it is ... not sure how you plan to do the conversion but it looks like you are thinking about doing something with file itself. I'd install an IMAP server (it's good way to handle email anyway) and just use outlook to copy the emails from local folders (i.e. pst file) to an IMAP server. Pretty easy and you don't have to think about file formats etc., outlook does all the work for you. (maybe you already knew this but I thought it would be useful to have it out here for all readers because I have seen people puzzling about how to get the email out from outlook and not considering this trivial solution) Yes, that is how I was planning on doing it since I am already using IMAP Note that for Outlook 98, and Outlook 2000, you MUST install Outlook in Internet mode NOT corporate/workgroup mode in order to use IMAP with Outlook. This doesen't apply to Outlook Express, BTW. Only to the Outlook that comes with Office XXX. They might have changed that in Outlook 2003 though. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:49 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: That is laughable. MS IE on Windows has one of the worst reputations around for following web standards. Go ask any professional designer. I did better. I actually ran the W3C conformance tests against MSIE, and it passed. At the time, no other browser came close. This isn't the problem with IE Yes, IE does pass the conformance tests. The problem isn't that, the problem is that not only does IE digest correctly written HTML and display it, the problem is that it ALSO digest IMPROPERLY written HTML and displays whatever it damn well pleases. In short, there's no way to know how an incorrectly written HTML page will display on IE. By contrast it's easy to know how an incorrectly written HTML page will display on Netscape - it displays a blank page. As a result of this, people that create web pages (and I am NOT polluting the title 'web designer' by lumping every moron that writes a web page into that group) and only look at them with IE usually end up making lots of mistakes. They fix these by layering on even more bandaids and mistakes until they get something somewhat resembling what they are after. Is is of course only displayable in IE. Needless to say this is a VERY bad thing for the Internet because it undercuts the standards as it enables the proliferation of websites that don't follow them. By contrast the Netscape browser tends to reject bad HTML and displays nothing. And naturally what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander with Microsoft - since the homepage for MSN is made sure by the MSN designers to be perfectly displayable on even older versions of Netscape, which are the most intolerant of bad HTML. Whether or not IE really is failing compliance by doing this is arguable - it is pretty difficult to test for non-compliance when the way that the browser is non-compliant is because it is accepting incorrect HTML in addition to correct HTML. However web designers who are far more understanding of this have in fact created example web pages that display what some of the more obvious problems are. Today, MSIE is not the only browser with good conformance, but it is still one of the best. That depends on your definition of best Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:07 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Yes, and unfortunately that happens a lot. The most frequent constraint I encounter myself is the need to read or write Microsoft Word files. Fortunately it is mostly just reading, so I can get away with the free Word viewer downloaded from MS, but if I must write the files, I have no choice but to use the dusty old copy of Office running on my oldest desktop machine. Many wordprocessors write in Microsoft Word format these days. I personally have no use for Word at all, since I do all my text processing on Quark these days, but other people don't have Quark XPress, usually. That is what AW used to layout my book, as a matter of fact. It's currently the defacto standard in the publishing industry because they can go directly from it to a printing press. But it is rediculously expensive at $1,045.00 SRP. I hesitate to tell you how large of a percentage of my book royalties a purchase like this would take, but I will say it's definitely more than a single digit percentage. IMHO this is self-defeating. Very few book authors would spend this for writing software, and the publishers (like AW) spend millions a year in retyping costs to take manuscripts from printouts and such to stick them into Quark. Quark is really vulnerable from being disloged from this monopoly. I can see that Quark is already starting to fight a rearguard action as they are dumping copies of it at the educational price into the academic market, now. (where a lot of books originate) You should at least check out Scribus http://www.scribus.org.uk/ This is an open source project that is aiming to replace Quark There has already been one book published with it. While perhaps you might not be able to use it now, give it another 5 years and it might do it. I would have probably used this for writing mine if it had been available then. But even if this were not the case, the obvious question still arises: WHY would I switch to 100% UNIX, when Windows works perfectly on the desktop? YOU personally might not. But you were originally arguing that FreeBSD was unsuitable for a desktop OS. Now I see this is subtly changing, you are now only arguing that FreeBSD is unsuitable for YOUR desktop OS. But, you see, that is the point that I was trying to make in my last post. Anything can be used as a desktop OS, depending on your needs for a desktop. One of our customers for example uses Wyse Winterms (my idea, incidentally) that he purchases off Ebay, that are logged into a Fedora server. His desktops are at a number of stores that are in the grocery store chain that he manages the IT for, they have cash registers attached to them. The company he works for is one of the faster growing regional Mexican grocery store chains in this area. I am quite sure that his company is successful in a large part because of the massive inventory control they have - the second something is sold in any of their stores it's updated in the master inventory, there isn't any of this batching bullcrap that a lot of grocery stores use, where they have individual servers at each store who all dial into each other at night and attempt to create some recognizable update to the database. His chain can probably move product between stores and get product ordered faster than any of their competitors, and when your dealing with perishables this is of paramount importance. (particularly when most of them are shipped from Mexico) Now, most people aren't going to be using Winterms but the point is that people have wildly varying needs, and many of them could in fact use FreeBSD successfully as a desktop OS. They don't need an excuse. If they have a program that they know how to use, there's no reason at all for them to learn to use another program. Tell that to Microsoft then. The new versions of Word, Excel, etc ARE ANOTHER PROGRAMS the training required to bring most of the office users up to speed on them is considerable. I know this from experience I used to work as a sysadmin for a number of years and worked at several companies. I always hated when Microsoft brought out new versions of software because users would pester me with support questions for MONTHS after updating them. The worse offenders in fact were usually the same people who were the biggest pushers to get updated. And the costs had nothing to do with it. I remember the Office 95 - Office 97 upgrade, for example. At the company I was working at that time they were a small startup and didn't have a lot of cash - I sat down with the CFO the day after pricing was announced for Office 97 and laid out exactly all of the costs required for updating - from new system purchases (for some people with older systems that would just be too
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:11 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Ted Mittelstaedt writes: Like Anthony, I do use Windows on the desktop myself. Well, that says it all, doesn't it? No, the rest of the posting says it all If you had only one computer that could boot only one OS, which would it be? I have been in that situation before. Back in 1986 I was the stereotypical starving student and could not afford to run out and buy new computer hardware. And by that time, it was obvious the future was in Intel-based PC hardware, so none of my older computer gear was worth screwing with, and worse was that the used market for old computer gear was pretty well stuffed with non-Intel gear. People were still in 1986, using IBM XTs for business work, and if they were Dumpsterizing them, it wasn't in any of the Dumpsters I ever dived into. So, buying a cheap older used computer wasn't really an option then like it is today. I ended up buying the pieces of a clone IBM XT, brand new, and assembling a computer. I was too poor to afford a case for it so the thing sat with all it's guts on the table. The monitor was an amber composite that I had purchased, also new, back sometime in 1982 or 1983, driven from a CGA card (some of those older CGA cards had composite output) No hard drive, this was a dual floppy system. (initially, I ended up getting a 10MB drive later on) I initially ran a pirated copy of DOS on it (remember, at that time MS wasn't selling DOS retail) but shortly after I got it up I switched over to...drumroll Minix. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
MSIE has traditionally followed HTML standards more closely than almost any other browser. Firefox does pretty well, tough; Opera much less so. You are _definitely_ not a web designer. MSIE is _hell_ with standards compliance. Mozilla is the best, followed by Opera, KHTML/Safari is also up there; MSIE is the _worst_ and has several glaring errors when it comes to supporting standards. It botches: * The box model. * Transparent PNGs. * Position: Fixed. etc. Webmasters should probably be replaced if they design an open Web site for any _specific_ browser. Internal web sites are a different story. In an ideal world. But in the real world you have to build your site using standards compliance, then do tricks to make it work in explorer. Don't believe? look through my website code. Or even look at the variety of projects and tutorials dedicated to getting around the flaws in explorer. An example: http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/intro/ Vonleigh Simmons http://illusionart.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Monday 14 February 2005 09:32 pm, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: You can say all you want. Thank you. I feel better about it knowing that it's okay with you. Every professional designer I have ever talked with lamented the poor state of standards conformance of IE for Windows. They probably never actually tested the browser. And they could document it. Excellent ... where can I find a copy of their documentation? MS only has compatibility with itself, and that is it. It interprets HTML correctly according to W3C standards, and it handles CSS correctly as well. What other compatibility do you require? You can find test suites here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/ (HTML4) http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/ (CSS) And since it is the 800lb gorilla, they think they can basically do whatever they want. They know that some criticism of what they do has no basis in fact, and that people without emotional investment in a hatred of Microsoft may actually check the facts and invalidate the criticisms. People I highly respect have done lots of tests of browsers with the standard and conformance to the W3C standards suites and IE Windows does not do that well. I've done the tests myself, instead of believing what others say, and MSIE does fine. The URLs are above. I worked as a professional web developer and designer from 1996-2002. You have no idea what you're talking about. Not only have I done the tests, I've worked with it for a living. Knowing whether it was compliant was part of my job. A huge part of my job was spent hacking existing sites that were perfectly compliant as written so that they would work properly in IE. Talk to *any* web developer, and they'll tell you the same thing. MSIE at one time was getting better with compliance (around when NS 4.7 was the most popular, a horrible time for compliance in general), but it still wasn't very compliant, and the spec has changed since they last updated it years ago. MSIE's CSS2 support is pathetic, and CSS isn't very good as it is. It allows - and encourages - sloppy markup. They need to do more than push out security fixes. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
no they did and could point out specific problems and likely intentional changes. Where can I see a list of these? Here are just a few: http://www.positioniseverything.net/ie-primer.html A very basic one is the box model problem. Basically if you define the width of a box to be 100 pixels, and you put in a padding of 10 pixels, the total box size should be 120 pixels (100 pixels plus the 10 pixels on each side for the padding). However, explorer decided to take the width as the total size, so in the above example the box is only 100 pixels wide instead of 120. It would be ridiculously easy to fix it and behave as the standard dictates, however, they refuse to do it. This is a major problem and can completely destroy a design. Another major thing that would be easy to fix is the handling of transparent pings. This would allow great versatility in site design, and many times I would've loved to use it. What Explorer does however is not just disregard the transparency, which would make it workable, but puts a light blue background behind the whole transparent image; a behaviour that makes no sense. Not only that, using proprietary IE code is the only way to make transparency work, and it doesn't work with repeating images (so the code is there to make it work, they just make you use IE only code for it to work). And these are just a few examples, on every single site I've designed I've run into new issues. Explorer is the worst browser when it comes to standards compliance, I have spent too many hours hacking up my code that works beautifully in every other browser, just so it works in Explorer. It did better than any other overall. Next time STFW (really, google turns up many pages describing problems web designers have with IE), or at least don't talk about something you have no idea about. Vonleigh Simmons http://illusionart.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: In short, there's no way to know how an incorrectly written HTML page will display on IE. The solution is to not write HTML incorrectly. That's what HTML validators are for. No browser has any obligation to behave in any particular predetermined way in the face of bad HTML. As a result of this, people that create web pages (and I am NOT polluting the title 'web designer' by lumping every moron that writes a web page into that group) and only look at them with IE usually end up making lots of mistakes. They fix these by layering on even more bandaids and mistakes until they get something somewhat resembling what they are after. Is is of course only displayable in IE. Needless to say this is a VERY bad thing for the Internet because it undercuts the standards as it enables the proliferation of websites that don't follow them. These Web sites harm no one except themselves. Webmasters are sovereign over their sites and I think they should be allowed to write anything they want. If I don't like the way their site does or does not display in my browser, I'll leave the site. I already do that routinely for any site that contains Flash animation. That depends on your definition of best It is likely to display most pages in a correct way. I've been testing Opera, Firefox, and MSIE side by side, and right now it's between Firefox and MSIE. Opera is already out of the running. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 17:58 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: [snip] Please copy this down and put it on a sticky note on your monitor: PLEASE SHUT UP ANTHONY. Do you find it strange that you get so much flack in pseudo-technical discussions? Your understanding of the technology and the issues surrounding it are horrendously amateur. Please dump your subscription to PC World. Subscribers of freebsd mailing lists, please simply plonk him and move on. He will not concede when proved wrong and insists on the last word. Google him - I found him arguing friggin breastfeeding with female pediatricians!! Don't feed the trolls. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: Many wordprocessors write in Microsoft Word format these days. Currently I use Quark XPress instead of Word, as Word is too bloated and too uncontrollable, and does not produce output suitable for professional printing. That is what AW used to layout my book, as a matter of fact. It's currently the defacto standard in the publishing industry because they can go directly from it to a printing press. Yes, that's why I like it. But it is rediculously expensive at $1,045.00 SRP. That's cheap. In Europe, it sells for about 2500, and it requires a dongle. But it is likely to disappear slowly in the future, as it is overpriced and is taking a beating from the steadily rising InDesign. Unfortunately, Adobe isn't much better than Quark in its attitude, and that will only get worse. IMHO this is self-defeating. Very few book authors would spend this for writing software, and the publishers (like AW) spend millions a year in retyping costs to take manuscripts from printouts and such to stick them into Quark. Quark is really vulnerable from being disloged from this monopoly. It is indeed vulnerable, and the battle has already begun. Quark severely abused its dominant position (such as with the price gouging mentioned above), and now nobody wants to buy its more recent versions, leaving it with a dwindling revenue stream. Adobe is attacking with InDesign, with increasing success. It may going out of the frying pan and into the fire with InDesign, though. I can see that Quark is already starting to fight a rearguard action as they are dumping copies of it at the educational price into the academic market, now. (where a lot of books originate) Too little, too late, IMO. You should at least check out Scribus http://www.scribus.org.uk/ This is an open source project that is aiming to replace Quark There has already been one book published with it. While perhaps you might not be able to use it now, give it another 5 years and it might do it. I would have probably used this for writing mine if it had been available then. DTP programs are unusual in that they need only be able to write clean PostScript to succeed. The native file formats are relatively unimportant. I was able to move from PageMaker to Quark with relatively minimal fuss, for example, as they both produce clean PostScript as output. YOU personally might not. But you were originally arguing that FreeBSD was unsuitable for a desktop OS. Now I see this is subtly changing, you are now only arguing that FreeBSD is unsuitable for YOUR desktop OS. No, I'm still arguing that it is generally unsuitable for the desktop. When my mom and dad can run FreeBSD with the same ease and advantages that they can for Windows, I will know that FreeBSD is suitable for the desktop. Now, most people aren't going to be using Winterms but the point is that people have wildly varying needs, and many of them could in fact use FreeBSD successfully as a desktop OS. FreeBSD could be used as an OS on the desktop under certain conditions, but a native FreeBSD desktop might not look anything like Windows. For example, the FreeBSD console itself is in fact a desktop, it just doesn't look like anything that lovers and haters of Windows would want. Tell that to Microsoft then. I've tried. In fact, I tried this very day, without much success. The new versions of Word, Excel, etc ARE ANOTHER PROGRAMS the training required to bring most of the office users up to speed on them is considerable. An increasing number of sites just don't bother to upgrade at all. I haven't upgraded Office since 1997. And even the 1997 version still does more than I want or need, but that was the current version when I bought it. I know this from experience I used to work as a sysadmin for a number of years and worked at several companies. I always hated when Microsoft brought out new versions of software because users would pester me with support questions for MONTHS after updating them. The worse offenders in fact were usually the same people who were the biggest pushers to get updated. They are probably people who really weren't doing much with their PCs. People who have time to worry about and pine after updates are usually wasting their machines. People who have to do real work never are interested in updating anything unless the update is required to allow them to do something essential that they cannot currently do. And the few times I tried telling the user's supervisors to tell them to go get training, I was rebuffed with the that's what we are paying you for line. The job of a sysadmin is a thankless one. Hopefully they got the idiot they deserved after you left. So, don't give me the bullcrap about people wanting to stay with what they know. They don't. They do if they are doing serious work. But if you have a lot of goof-offs who spend their days just playing on the PC, they'll constantly whine for
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: I initially ran a pirated copy of DOS on it (remember, at that time MS wasn't selling DOS retail) but shortly after I got it up I switched over to...drumroll Minix. Ah, but anything even remotely similar to UNIX would have been superior to MS-DOS, so that move would make perfect sense. The situation is different today. At times that I've only had one computer, it has always been a MS-DOS (in the olde days) or Windows computer. I was tempted to try OS/2 once, but OS/2 wasn't around long enough for me to change my mind, and it wasn't free. I recall using CP/M very briefly, long ago. I like FreeBSD because it gives me something nice to run as a server. Windows is too expensive and too bloated for server use. My oldest machine does indeed run Windows NT Server 4.0 (as a PDC, no less), but I never actually used it in a server capacity--I was just trying to foresee the unforeseeable. By the time I actually needed a server of my own, I had discovered FreeBSD. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Monday 14 February 2005 05:34 pm, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vonleigh Simmons writes: If you need to run explorer to access a website, someone should be fired. Standards compliance is a good thing. MSIE has traditionally followed HTML standards more closely than almost any other browser. Absolutely untrue. Please stop saying this, as it's false. - jt Webmasters should probably be replaced if they design an open Web site for any _specific_ browser. Internal web sites are a different story. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 12:22 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... In any case, it's all completely unnecessary, since you can simply run real Windows instead and get 100% compatibility with better performance and stability. Actually that's not always true. Back in the mid 90's when IBM was into the windows emulation thing under OS/2, they did some time trials of Windows applications running under straight Windows vs running under Windows-that-was-running-on -top-of-OS/2. The apps ran faster in the non-native (OS/2) Windows, mainly because Microsoft's disk routines were so terrible. Why? Because I run specific applications for specific purposes. The applications are what's important; the OS is not. WRONG, the specific purpose is what's important, not the tool to accomplish it. If someone contracts with you to create an image and give the output to them as a photoshop source file, then obviously in that case Photoshop is a requirement. But if the same person wants the output as a tiff image, then there is no requirement to use photoshop, there are many other tools to create an image and output in tiff. So if I decide that I need Photoshop, I run an OS that supports Photoshop. Simple. But if your not needing to supply photoshop output, then you aren't actually needing to use it. Your choosing to use it. Which means that you COULD switch over to 100% UNIX if you selected other tools to use. So, unless your being required to output in photoshop files, you can't use Photoshop as a reason that you can't switch. People always use the line I have to run (insert here) Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. etc. because my boss tells me to do so, that is why I can't switch But this is MOSTLY in my experience, a load of bullcrap. Most of them could work up their business letter in any old wordprocessor, work up their spreadsheet in any old spreadsheet program, work up their presentation in any old presentation program. As long as the work got done, their boss is going to be happy. But people like to say this to give themselves an excuse for not having to learn how to use a new program. You should hear the whining and pissing and moaning in a typical office every time Microsoft upgrades one of their program and a new version comes out. It's the same issue. People just don't like learning how to do something in a new way, that's all it is. It doesen't mean they couldn't do it, though. There are hundreds of thousands of applications that run on Windows; something for just about everyone. This is baloney. There may be several hundred thousand Windows apps out there but there are only a few hundred that most Windows users use. Professional webmasters generally build their sites with text editors. No they don't, they use HTML editors which while they have a section that is text input, they do a lot of other things as well. An accurate statement would be that professional webmasters generally use text to build their sites, but it's absurd to imply that they use vi or notepad for this. If you want control and input, you use Notepad to build your site, or the equivalent. And if you want to be professional about it and get the thing done in time, you use Macromedia Homesite or something equivalent. (and no Homesite isn't a point-and-click website builder) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On 14 Feb Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Just curious. Why do you keep replying Anthony in such a professional way if all he does is promoting windows again and again. He uses windows on the desktop. Period. He won't change that. He only uses unix on his servers and keeps on stating that the real quality is and wil be a server-role. I value your contributions to the discussion highly. You seem to be open minded and serious. That makes good reading ;-) -- dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ++ Running FreeBSD 4.11 ++ FreeBSD 5.3 + Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dick Hoogendijk Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:11 AM To: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... On 14 Feb Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Just curious. Why do you keep replying Anthony in such a professional way if all he does is promoting windows again and again. I'm not actually replying to Anthony, because all Anthony is doing is parroting all of the same, tired old objections to use of FreeBSD on the desktop that are always raised. I'm replying to those same, tired old objections for the benefit of the newcomers to the list who might (understandably) assume that Anthony has some deep insight on the matter. Like Anthony, I do use Windows on the desktop myself. But not exclusively. And, much more importantly, I will readily admit that I haven't switched over not because I'm claiming I can't, I haven't switched over because of laziness. In my case I unfortunately decided it might be a good thing to use a Microsoft client mail program to handle e-mail. This was a decade ago. I now have around ten thousand archived e-mail messages accumulated in a massive *.pst file that I really want to keep - not because I want to look at all of them again some day, but because from time to time I have to go digging around in that archive looking for some specific piece from some specific person - sometimes these messages might be 5-6 years old. One of these days though when I get some time, that file is going to get exported so that I can get out of dealing with Outlook. As it is now, Outlook is barely able to manage the archive, and usually crashes a couple times a day. And it's such a well written program that when that happens, something internal to Windows gets jammed up and I have to do a shutdown and restart. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Giorgos Keramidas writes: Hmmm, how? There are several ways. I'll leave speculation on that as an exercise for the reader. Very little can be said about a black box system. It's not a black box. Much of it is pretty well documented, although some of the documentation is now out of print, I think. Now, when this is compared to something that is documented, clearly and visibly, in an open source tree... we can see why the apparent stability of NT is worth very little :-( Being documented and being readily accessible are two different things. The whole of medicine is very well documented by just about any decent public library, but that doesn't mean that having access to a library can make you a doctor. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: ... of laziness. In my case I unfortunately decided it might be a good thing to use a Microsoft client mail program to handle e-mail. This was a decade ago. I now have around ten thousand archived e-mail messages accumulated in a massive *.pst file that I really want to keep - not because I want to look at all of them again some day, but because from time to time I have to go digging around in that archive looking for some specific piece from some specific person - sometimes these messages might be 5-6 years old. One of these days though when I get some time, that file is going to get exported so that I can get out of dealing with Outlook. As it is ... not sure how you plan to do the conversion but it looks like you are thinking about doing something with file itself. I'd install an IMAP server (it's good way to handle email anyway) and just use outlook to copy the emails from local folders (i.e. pst file) to an IMAP server. Pretty easy and you don't have to think about file formats etc., outlook does all the work for you. (maybe you already knew this but I thought it would be useful to have it out here for all readers because I have seen people puzzling about how to get the email out from outlook and not considering this trivial solution) erik ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: WRONG, the specific purpose is what's important, not the tool to accomplish it. Sometimes the tool is part of the purpose, if you must be able to share data with other people or organizations. For example, if you have a client or supplier who requires AutoCAD or Photoshop native files, you have no choice but to run an Application that can read and generate these, and this in turn determines your choice of OS. These two formats are moderately widely supported, but many file formats are supported only by the applications for which they were originally designed. The problem grows more complicated if you need multiple applications; in that case, you must find an OS platform that supports all of them, or buy multiple computers. The numbers overwhelmingly favor Windows in this type of situation: the greater the number of applications you need to support, the more likely it is that only Windows will support them all. This is the inevitable consequence of the sheer number of desktop applications available for Windows. If someone contracts with you to create an image and give the output to them as a photoshop source file, then obviously in that case Photoshop is a requirement. Yes, and unfortunately that happens a lot. The most frequent constraint I encounter myself is the need to read or write Microsoft Word files. Fortunately it is mostly just reading, so I can get away with the free Word viewer downloaded from MS, but if I must write the files, I have no choice but to use the dusty old copy of Office running on my oldest desktop machine. I personally have no use for Word at all, since I do all my text processing on Quark these days, but other people don't have Quark XPress, usually. But if the same person wants the output as a tiff image, then there is no requirement to use photoshop, there are many other tools to create an image and output in tiff. That goes without saying. But if your not needing to supply photoshop output, then you aren't actually needing to use it. Your choosing to use it. Which means that you COULD switch over to 100% UNIX if you selected other tools to use. Yes. Unfortunately I _need_ to supply files in certain formats. But even if this were not the case, the obvious question still arises: WHY would I switch to 100% UNIX, when Windows works perfectly on the desktop? I have no ax to grind against Microsoft; I have no emotional attachment to any particular operating system. Windows is the logical choice for the desktop, why _shouldn't_ I use Windows? The only arguments I ever hear about this are invalid arguments, such as claims that Windows constantly crashes or is insecure. But my Windows systems don't crash, and I have no security problems with them. The only realistic argument is the cost, but I bought NT years ago and it has run ever since (I still have all the disks, too, so I could install it on a new machine if I retire the only one). Windows XP came preinstalled. It is true that the cost of installing Windows new on a machine is formidable, but I'd be compelled to do that, anyway, since I must have a Windows desktop somewhere. People always use the line I have to run (insert here) Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. etc. because my boss tells me to do so, that is why I can't switch But this is MOSTLY in my experience, a load of bullcrap. Most of them could work up their business letter in any old wordprocessor, work up their spreadsheet in any old spreadsheet program, work up their presentation in any old presentation program. As long as the work got done, their boss is going to be happy. But people like to say this to give themselves an excuse for not having to learn how to use a new program. They don't need an excuse. If they have a program that they know how to use, there's no reason at all for them to learn to use another program. It's not up to these people to justify to you their continuing use of a solution that has always worked for them and continues to work for them. It's up to you to explain to them why they should expend additional time and effort learning to use something new just to accomplish exactly the same thing. You should hear the whining and pissing and moaning in a typical office every time Microsoft upgrades one of their program and a new version comes out. There will be whining and moaning any time a new version of anything comes out. Usually upgrades aren't nearly as necessary as having the applications to begin with, so only a fraction of all upgrades are actually needed. It's interesting that you see the users' pain when it comes to switching to a new version of the same product, but you don't seem to understand why users would not want to switch to an entirely different product that offers no advantages and requires a long period of training and accommodation. You seem to think that switching from Windows to UNIX is no big deal, even though it serves no purpose, whereas
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: Like Anthony, I do use Windows on the desktop myself. Well, that says it all, doesn't it? But not exclusively. If you had only one computer that could boot only one OS, which would it be? And, much more importantly, I will readily admit that I haven't switched over not because I'm claiming I can't, I haven't switched over because of laziness. What's lazy about sticking with something that works? In my case I unfortunately decided it might be a good thing to use a Microsoft client mail program to handle e-mail. This was a decade ago. I now have around ten thousand archived e-mail messages accumulated in a massive *.pst file that I really want to keep - not because I want to look at all of them again some day, but because from time to time I have to go digging around in that archive looking for some specific piece from some specific person - sometimes these messages might be 5-6 years old. Many e-mail programs can import messages from Outlook and/or Outlook Express. When I switched to The Bat (mainly to better handle spam and eliminate security issues), I was able to import all messages from Outlook Express without any trouble. One of these days though when I get some time, that file is going to get exported so that I can get out of dealing with Outlook. As it is now, Outlook is barely able to manage the archive, and usually crashes a couple times a day. And it's such a well written program that when that happens, something internal to Windows gets jammed up and I have to do a shutdown and restart. Microsoft likes to put all sorts of system hooks in its products. That's why I've tried to get away from Microsoft applications. I still have a few legacy Microsoft applications that I haven't been able to get rid of, however. All the replacements run on Windows, also. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Flight Simulator I missed this. If you want a game, use that. But if you want a real flight simulator check out x-plane: http://www.x-plane.com/ Microsoft Internet Explorer If you need to run explorer to access a website, someone should be fired. Standards compliance is a good thing. Vonleigh Simmons http://illusionart.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Vonleigh Simmons writes: If you need to run explorer to access a website, someone should be fired. Standards compliance is a good thing. MSIE has traditionally followed HTML standards more closely than almost any other browser. Firefox does pretty well, tough; Opera much less so. Webmasters should probably be replaced if they design an open Web site for any _specific_ browser. Internal web sites are a different story. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Vonleigh Simmons writes: If you need to run explorer to access a website, someone should be fired. Standards compliance is a good thing. MSIE has traditionally followed HTML standards more closely than almost any other browser. Firefox does pretty well, tough; Opera much less so. That is laughable. MS IE on Windows has one of the worst reputations around for following web standards. Go ask any professional designer. For a long time, IE on the Mac was one of the best, but it too fell behind and is no a discontinued product. Chad Webmasters should probably be replaced if they design an open Web site for any _specific_ browser. Internal web sites are a different story. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: That is laughable. MS IE on Windows has one of the worst reputations around for following web standards. Go ask any professional designer. I did better. I actually ran the W3C conformance tests against MSIE, and it passed. At the time, no other browser came close. Today, MSIE is not the only browser with good conformance, but it is still one of the best. Firefox is young and has some security issues that worry me, but we shall see. Opera has the disadvantage of not being free, and you don't really get much in exchange for paying for it that you wouldn't already get with Firefox or MSIE. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: That is laughable. MS IE on Windows has one of the worst reputations around for following web standards. Go ask any professional designer. I did better. I actually ran the W3C conformance tests against MSIE, and it passed. At the time, no other browser came close. Today, MSIE is not the only browser with good conformance, but it is still one of the best. Firefox is young and has some security issues that worry me, but we shall see. Opera has the disadvantage of not being free, and you don't really get much in exchange for paying for it that you wouldn't already get with Firefox or MSIE. You can say all you want. Every professional designer I have ever talked with lamented the poor state of standards conformance of IE for Windows. And they could document it. MS only has compatibility with itself, and that is it. And since it is the 800lb gorilla, they think they can basically do whatever they want. People I highly respect have done lots of tests of browsers with the standard and conformance to the W3C standards suites and IE Windows does not do that well. Chad ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: You can say all you want. Thank you. I feel better about it knowing that it's okay with you. Every professional designer I have ever talked with lamented the poor state of standards conformance of IE for Windows. They probably never actually tested the browser. And they could document it. Excellent ... where can I find a copy of their documentation? MS only has compatibility with itself, and that is it. It interprets HTML correctly according to W3C standards, and it handles CSS correctly as well. What other compatibility do you require? You can find test suites here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/ (HTML4) http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/ (CSS) And since it is the 800lb gorilla, they think they can basically do whatever they want. They know that some criticism of what they do has no basis in fact, and that people without emotional investment in a hatred of Microsoft may actually check the facts and invalidate the criticisms. People I highly respect have done lots of tests of browsers with the standard and conformance to the W3C standards suites and IE Windows does not do that well. I've done the tests myself, instead of believing what others say, and MSIE does fine. The URLs are above. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: You can say all you want. Thank you. I feel better about it knowing that it's okay with you. Every professional designer I have ever talked with lamented the poor state of standards conformance of IE for Windows. They probably never actually tested the browser. no they did and could point out specific problems and likely intentional changes. Google on this issue of Windows IE standard compliance, especially with CSS. You will find reams of info with examples of where MS got it wrong, and many think intentionally got it wrong. Chad And they could document it. Excellent ... where can I find a copy of their documentation? MS only has compatibility with itself, and that is it. It interprets HTML correctly according to W3C standards, and it handles CSS correctly as well. What other compatibility do you require? You can find test suites here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/ (HTML4) http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/ (CSS) And since it is the 800lb gorilla, they think they can basically do whatever they want. They know that some criticism of what they do has no basis in fact, and that people without emotional investment in a hatred of Microsoft may actually check the facts and invalidate the criticisms. People I highly respect have done lots of tests of browsers with the standard and conformance to the W3C standards suites and IE Windows does not do that well. I've done the tests myself, instead of believing what others say, and MSIE does fine. The URLs are above. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: no they did and could point out specific problems and likely intentional changes. Where can I see a list of these? Google on this issue of Windows IE standard compliance, especially with CSS. You will find reams of info with examples of where MS got it wrong, and many think intentionally got it wrong. I've already tested the browser myself, with the official test suites. It did better than any other overall. In any case, MSIE doesn't run on FreeBSD. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: no they did and could point out specific problems and likely intentional changes. Where can I see a list of these? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/11/hakon_on_ms_interroperability/ This page points to a bunch. These are not the ones from people I know and respect as those communications were not public communications and their work not published on the web. Google on this issue of Windows IE standard compliance, especially with CSS. You will find reams of info with examples of where MS got it wrong, and many think intentionally got it wrong. I've already tested the browser myself, with the official test suites. It did better than any other overall. Based on your other postings, I don't think you'd know if they really passed or not. Merely rendering a page does not mean it passes. There are lots of subtleties in CSS. Chad In any case, MSIE doesn't run on FreeBSD. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: I can't think of any time that MS is the best choice, except in perhaps some vertical market cases. It is often the most convenient choice. Convenience is reason enough by itself to choose a particular OS. The only people who deliberately choose inconvenient operating systems are those with an ax to grind. Like the list of software you listed. Most of that can be replaced with other SW -- especially if you switch to Mac OS X, though probably also to a BSD or Linux solution. Maybe ... but that won't allow me to read and write the native file formats of these applications. I'm trying to find a way to reduce my dependence on expensive and bloated applications (which includes most Microsoft applications, unfortunately), but there aren't too many options. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: Maybe companies who support MS or other proprietary software can't as they don't have the source. But support companies that support open source can very easily fix problems -- they have the source and the license to use it Unfortunately, their fix makes the software non-standard. You need to be able to roll fixes into the official release. ? What the heck does this mean? I would bet that most larger installations of Linux or FreeBSD or any other open source OS would be considered non-standard. Heck, I bet YOUR installation of FreeBSD could be considered non-standard. Your statement make absolutely no sense. If the fix that you decry is a reasonable fix, who says it can't be rolled back into an official release. This is open source after all. Chad -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 13, 2005, at 1:00 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: I can't think of any time that MS is the best choice, except in perhaps some vertical market cases. It is often the most convenient choice. Convenience is reason enough by itself to choose a particular OS. The only people who deliberately choose inconvenient operating systems are those with an ax to grind. In that case, Windows is the least desirable, as it is not convenient. The amount of crap you have to put up with (viruses, malware, etc) makes them totally inconvenient. Like the list of software you listed. Most of that can be replaced with other SW -- especially if you switch to Mac OS X, though probably also to a BSD or Linux solution. Maybe ... but that won't allow me to read and write the native file formats of these applications. Sure it does. Apples new Pages.app word processor reads and writes Word .DOC files. OpenOffice can too. Maybe not 100%, but very close, and Microsoft does not guarantee 100% either from version to version. In most cases, except for customized vertical market solutions, Mac OS X and probably in many cases also FreeBSD offers solutions that work with native files. On OS X, you often HAVE the native program, like Photoshop, for example. I'm trying to find a way to reduce my dependence on expensive and bloated applications (which includes most Microsoft applications, unfortunately), but there aren't too many options. There are lots of options for people whose eyes are not closed. The link published in one of these threads about the Ernie Ball guitar string company was interesting. Where there is a will there is a way. Where there is no will, you get stuck with M$ OK, I am done replying to these threads. Chad -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: ? What the heck does this mean? It means that large organizations want to have a single official release of the OS running on all servers, and they expect that release to come formally from a specific official source. Hacking changes into the code and then installing that in production is not acceptable. Often every change to the OS must go through a test and rollout process that can take months at some companies. Emergency patches must be tested in advance by the vendor, and the vendor must stand behind them. I would bet that most larger installations of Linux or FreeBSD or any other open source OS would be considered non-standard. Yes. That's why so many companies run Solaris instead. Heck, I bet YOUR installation of FreeBSD could be considered non-standard. As the owner of the system, I define what is standard on my site, and I consider FreeBSD 5.3 to be standard. I don't make any modifications of my own to the code, though. Your statement make absolutely no sense. It does to someone who has worked in this kind of environment for several decades. There are still companies running Windows 3.x because it is so long and difficult to roll out anything new. If the fix that you decry is a reasonable fix, who says it can't be rolled back into an official release. It can be, but until that is done, many organizations won't touch it. There's another separate issue with source fixes. It's a common misconception that anyone with access to source can just dive into it and fix any problem. In practice, that is never the case. Nobody has all of any OS memorized, and no one person can dive into the code of any OS and come up with fixes to every problem. Even among official developers, typically each developer knows only his own code extremely well, and has only a vague idea of how the rest of the code works. While it is true that you could theoretically fix anything in time with access to source, in practice the time required is so long that it is effectively impossible in many situations ... you _must_ enlist the help of one or more developers familiar with the code segments that have to be fixed. And that in turn means that, in order to provide full support, you must be able to compel the cooperation of developers. Proprietary vendors can do this; open-source organizations cannot. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: In that case, Windows is the least desirable, as it is not convenient. There are a hundred million users out there who disagree. The amount of crap you have to put up with (viruses, malware, etc) makes them totally inconvenient. See above. Sure it does. Apples new Pages.app word processor reads and writes Word .DOC files. OpenOffice can too. Maybe not 100%, but very close, and Microsoft does not guarantee 100% either from version to version. Sometimes 99% isn't good enough. And there are hundreds of formats to be accommodated. In most cases, except for customized vertical market solutions, Mac OS X and probably in many cases also FreeBSD offers solutions that work with native files. On OS X, you often HAVE the native program, like Photoshop, for example. Like Photoshop, but not like many others. There are lots of options for people whose eyes are not closed. There are few options for people who use computers for work, and not for play. Using computers is not a game for most of the population; it's not a hobby or even a pleasant way to spend time. They just need computers to do their work. The fastest way to do that work is to install what everyone else is using, do the work, and be done with it. They don't care what the geeks think. They don't even care about viruses, spyware, adware, or anything like that, as long as they can finish their reports by the end of the day. But if anything gets in the way of them finishing their work, they get very, very upset. Any deviation from the mainstream is likely to do that, and so the safest route for them is Windows. The link published in one of these threads about the Ernie Ball guitar string company was interesting. Where there is a will there is a way. Where there is no will, you get stuck with M$ You don't understand. Most people have no bone to pick with Microsoft. They don't hate Microsoft. In fact, they couldn't care less about Microsoft. To them, insisting on a non-Microsoft solution is about as relevant and important as insisting on an Airbus aircraft for their flights home on Thanksgiving. They just do not care, nor should they have to care. The best solution for them is Windows. It's simple, fast, used by everyone, and allows them to return to important things in their lives as quickly and easily as possible after using the PC. The attitudes of IT departments that run servers are different, but the effects are often the same. In small IT departments with a shortage of qualified personnel, Windows is often the easiest server solution. In larger departments with UNIX expertise, Solaris is very attractive (for reasons I've previously explained). After that comes Linux, because of all the hype around the OS. Only IT staffs that look very carefully at their OS choices will be likely to install FreeBSD; it's a great OS, but it has no name recognition, and it has no formal support or vendor structure ... it just comes from somewhere, and there's nobody to turn to if it crashes. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:30:45 +0100, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael C. Shultz writes: I Agree! My FreeBSD desktop is very stable and user friendly. What ever time I spend fixing/managing desktops is on my friends windows machines, never my own because it always just works. Maybe you can explain to me how to get the following applications to run on a FreeBSD desktop: Adobe Photoshop Use on my SGI workstaion (IRIX), GIMP Adobe Illustrator Use on IRIX, also plenty of gpl etc vector drawing tools are available, Quark XPress Scribus The Sims 2 Works via cedega Flight Simulator Flight gear UltraEdit VI, emacs Visual InterDev Dreamweaver via wine, vi, emacs Microsoft Word Microsoft Excel Microsoft PowerPoint All of MS office can be run via wine, (im using office 2000), or openoffice, koffice, gnome office Microsoft Money Gnucash The Bat! evolution, thunderbird, sylpheed even Opera Available for freeBSD Firefox In ports Microsoft Internet Explorer Firefox, or can use via wine Corel KnockOut Quite probably plugins for GIMP to do that, infact if u know how to use photoshop correctly then why would you need it? Flight Check That looks like soft thats only needed by bad designers, I work with/for design companies on a daily basis and they dont use it Bar Code Pro BARZ_OUT pro MathType Openoffice Math SecureFX gftp does this SecureCRT ssh, kssh SFS If this means smart filesystem, then whats wronf with UFS2, ResierFS, XFS, Rebel GIMP, or stop being so fsckin lazy Fritz 6.0 knights POV-Ray how about erm.. POV-ray? Adobe PageMaker Openoffice,scribus Adobe Streamline Autotrace Adobe Acrobat (full version) openoffice, scribus, Paint Shop Pro GIMP Palm Desktop there is tronnes of pim softwar about and palm, otheriwse i wont be able to use my palm. SimCity simcity 3000 should work through linux compat GeoClock time-zones Ear Test loads of midi apps, and this could be easily witten,its a very simple ms app anyway BlitzIn knights Audio MP3 Editor take a look at http://linux-sound.org/ Forte Agent pan Movie Maker kino, drupal Nikon Scan gimp Rainbow gimp Wacom Intuos its pretty much pnp However, I should point out that I also have applications that will not run on Windows: BIND sendmail syslog sshd ProFTP SFTP Every heard of cygwin? The list is not long for FreeBSD, but every one of these applications is a critical application, and most must run without fail 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Any one of them is enough to justify running a dedicated FreeBSD server. There are alsways alternaitves that can do the exact same job, so i dont see the problem, Oh by the way I am a linux system developer, so i do know what im on about unlike Mr i cant be bothered to update my workstations. For this reason, I have several machines: a FreeBSD server, a Windows XP desktop, and a Windows NT server used as a desktop (to support some legacy applications). I have several machines too, running IRIX, BSD and Linux, I havnt had to for ages as everything i need to do i can do on a *nix box. -- Theres no place like ::1 Thanks, SimonB http://simon.geek-web.co.uk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Simon Burke writes: Use on my SGI workstaion (IRIX), GIMP I said Photoshop, not GIMP. I don't want equivalents, I want the same applications. I can get Photoshop on the Mac, so moving to a Mac would not present a problem for Photoshop (although it would for most of my other applications). All of MS office can be run via wine ... Why bother, when it's so much easier to run Windows instead? Corel KnockOut Quite probably plugins for GIMP to do that, infact if u know how to use photoshop correctly then why would you need it? Have you ever used KnockOut? If this means smart filesystem, then whats wronf with UFS2, ResierFS, XFS, No. SFS is a spectrogram analysis system for study of human speech and phonology. Rebel GIMP, or stop being so fsckin lazy Rebel is a chess program. However, I should point out that I also have applications that will not run on Windows: BIND sendmail syslog sshd ProFTP SFTP Every heard of cygwin? Just as it's illogical to run Windows applications in emulation under another OS, it's illogical to run non-Windows applications in emulation under Windows. There are alsways alternaitves that can do the exact same job ... I don't want alternatives, I want THE SAME PRODUCTS. Why is this so difficult to understand? I don't want to run just any SMTP mailer, I want to run sendmail. It's as simple as that. ... so i dont see the problem ... I do. Many geeks are extremely attached to their operating systems and relatively indifferent to their applications, since they often never do anything critical or serious with their systems, anyway. So they see no problem in using equivalents for certain applications in order to guarantee that they can play with their favorite operating systems. Non-geeks need specific applications for specific purposes, and the OS is irrelevant. So if application X runs on OS Y, then OS Y is the obvious choice. The vast majority of computer users are in this latter category--even many IT professionals are in this category. ... Oh by the way I am a linux system developer, so i do know what im on about unlike Mr i cant be bothered to update my workstations. I've been a system developer, too, several times. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to be one when I'm trying to achieve practical, useful goals with my computers. Playing around with an OS is only practical if you have nothing else to do with a computer except play around with an OS. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:59:29 +0100, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Burke writes: Use on my SGI workstaion (IRIX), GIMP I said Photoshop, not GIMP. I use photshop on IRIX i mean, and you can use gimp too, is what i meant. I don't want equivalents, I want the same applications. Why? , if the equiv can get the same job done, just as wel most of the time. I can get Photoshop on the Mac, so moving to a Mac would not present a problem for Photoshop (although it would for most of my other applications). You can get photoshop for unix, mainly IRIX but you can. All of MS office can be run via wine ... Why bother, when it's so much easier to run Windows instead? If this is your attitude why are you even using BSD, why not use MS server and XP? Corel KnockOut Quite probably plugins for GIMP to do that, infact if u know how to use photoshop correctly then why would you need it? Have you ever used KnockOut? No If this means smart filesystem, then whats wronf with UFS2, ResierFS, XFS, No. SFS is a spectrogram analysis system for study of human speech and phonology. There is quite probably a open sourced eqiv. Rebel GIMP, or stop being so fsckin lazy Rebel is a chess program. However, I should point out that I also have applications that will not run on Windows: BIND sendmail syslog sshd ProFTP SFTP Every heard of cygwin? Just as it's illogical to run Windows applications in emulation under another OS, it's illogical to run non-Windows applications in emulation under Windows. WINE is not an emulator, infact that is what wine stands for so get your facts straight There are alsways alternaitves that can do the exact same job ... I don't want alternatives, I want THE SAME PRODUCTS. Why is this so difficult to understand? I don't want to run just any SMTP mailer, I want to run sendmail. It's as simple as that. Why? you now seem to be contradicting your self, why dont you just use windows then? you'll obviously be much happier ... so i dont see the problem ... I do. Many geeks are extremely attached to their operating systems and relatively indifferent to their applications, since they often never do anything critical or serious with their systems, anyway. So they see no problem in using equivalents for certain applications in order to guarantee that they can play with their favorite operating systems. Non-geeks need specific applications for specific purposes, and the OS is irrelevant. So if application X runs on OS Y, then OS Y is the obvious choice. The vast majority of computer users are in this latter category--even many IT professionals are in this category. I would really get your facts straight before you say things, it makes you look ignorant. People use operating systems that suit there needs, not to be geeky, not to look down on other people. Windows is fine if all you want to do is point and click at things. EG, dreamweaver, its a very point click piece fo software, you dont have to know any web language to get a fairly decent web-site out, and that is not really a good thing. Where as if you have more knowledge then you would prefer to be able to have more control and input to the final prdouct where with most M$ apps you dont. If you are implying that it is useless using open operating systems (which it appears you are) then why are you on the mailing list. I've been a system developer, too, several times. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to be one when I'm trying to achieve practical, useful goals with my computers. Playing around with an OS is only practical if you have nothing else to do with a computer except play around with an OS. Excuse me? are you saying the system developers just play around with OS'es. I dont think i'd get paid £30,000 a year to play around, I create systems for a sucsessful solutions company and are used in a lot fo smaller companies who cant afford the extortionate prices of M$. S please stop being so ignorant. -- Theres no place like ::1 Thanks, SimonB http://simon.geek-web.co.uk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Simon Burke writes: I use photshop on IRIX i mean, and you can use gimp too, is what i meant. According to Adobe, Photoshop exists only for the Mac and Windows. Of course, Mac OS X is based on UNIX, but since it has a proprietary GUI, I don't think that would help much (?). GIMP is not an option, because it's a different application. You can get photoshop for unix, mainly IRIX but you can. I have the Adobe site in front of me right now, and all I see is Mac and Windows. If this is your attitude why are you even using BSD, why not use MS server and XP? I do use XP, on my desktop. I use FreeBSD as my server. The right tools for the right jobs. There is quite probably a open sourced eqiv. SFS is already free. I don't know if source is available. In any case, I don't have the time to build my own software. WINE is not an emulator ... I'm afraid it is. It has to intercept and emulate the Windows API (which is a very extensive and complex API). In any case, it's all completely unnecessary, since you can simply run real Windows instead and get 100% compatibility with better performance and stability. Why? Because I run specific applications for specific purposes. The applications are what's important; the OS is not. So if I decide that I need Photoshop, I run an OS that supports Photoshop. Simple. ... you now seem to be contradicting your self, why dont you just use windows then? I do, on the desktop. I use FreeBSD as a server. you'll obviously be much happier I am. People who make a religion out of an OS are always unhappy; I don't do that, so I don't suffer. I would really get your facts straight before you say things, it makes you look ignorant. People use operating systems that suit there needs, not to be geeky, not to look down on other people. Someone who runs WINE on UNIX just to avoided the Great Satan of Redmond is not using an operating system that suits his needs, he's using an operating system that appeals to his emotions. It's true that most people don't do this, because most people have a life outside of computerland. Windows is fine if all you want to do is point and click at things. There are hundreds of thousands of applications that run on Windows; something for just about everyone. The point-and-click interface is common to practically all GUIs. It is suitable for some applications, but not suitable for others. EG, dreamweaver, its a very point click piece fo software, you dont have to know any web language to get a fairly decent web-site out, and that is not really a good thing. Professional webmasters generally build their sites with text editors. Where as if you have more knowledge then you would prefer to be able to have more control and input to the final prdouct where with most M$ apps you dont. If you want control and input, you use Notepad to build your site, or the equivalent. If you are implying that it is useless using open operating systems (which it appears you are) then why are you on the mailing list. I'm not implying anything of the kind. I've pointed out on endless occasions that FreeBSD makes an excellent server. That's why I run it. Excuse me? are you saying the system developers just play around with OS'es. Yes ... that's what system developer usually means. As opposed to application developer. I dont think i'd get paid £30,000 a year to play around ... Most system developers wouldn't; the job usually pays better than that. ... I create systems for a sucsessful solutions company and are used in a lot fo smaller companies who cant afford the extortionate prices of M$. S please stop being so ignorant. So you're an application developer. Quite a different animal. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On 2005-02-12 14:03, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt writes: How exactly does one do this when the NT kernel code isn't available for perusal? One gains access to the kernel code. Hmmm, how? However, just observing the systems and studying their design tells a lot as well. The NT kernel is very well designed. Very little can be said about a black box system. Even then, a great deal of this little stuff is purely hypothetical and based on a lot of unproven assumptions. Assumptions which may be true for version 3.14 of said software but fail miserably with 3.15. Now, when this is compared to something that is documented, clearly and visibly, in an open source tree... we can see why the apparent stability of NT is worth very little :-( ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:26:05 +0100, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julio Capote writes: A website like www.spreadfirefox.com aims at targetting firefox to regular users that may not get the full marketing dosage from www.mozilla.org, so why not do the same for freebsd? Because FreeBSD is a server, not a desktop. The real market potential is on the server side. And if you want to convince large organizations to adopt FreeBSD as a server, you must not present it as a substitute for Windows desktops, a/k/a regular users. This is BULLSHIT. Not just any any bullshit either but virulent stinky bullshit - and also coincidentially the best way to dispromote FreeBSD. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Saturday 12 February 2005 12:58 am, Sander Vesik wrote: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:26:05 +0100, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julio Capote writes: A website like www.spreadfirefox.com aims at targetting firefox to regular users that may not get the full marketing dosage from www.mozilla.org, so why not do the same for freebsd? Because FreeBSD is a server, not a desktop. The real market potential is on the server side. And if you want to convince large organizations to adopt FreeBSD as a server, you must not present it as a substitute for Windows desktops, a/k/a regular users. This is BULLSHIT. Not just any any bullshit either but virulent stinky bullshit - and also coincidentially the best way to dispromote FreeBSD. -- Anthony I Agree! My FreeBSD desktop is very stable and user friendly. What ever time I spend fixing/managing desktops is on my friends windows machines, never my own because it always just works. To be fair though Xorg and KDE deserve some credit credit for this as well. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Am 12.02.2005 um 00:00 schrieb Johnson David: From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Because FreeBSD is a server, not a desktop. Agree and disagree. While FreeBSD is well suited for the server, it's also well suited for the desktop. That doesn't mean that we should be stressing the desktop to those shopping for servers, instead it means that we shouldn't be telling those shopping for desktops to go use Linux instead. How many business will be running Linux on the desktop but FreeBSD on the server? None! Currently Windows rules the desktop world, even for diehard Unix shops. But that will not last forever. We need to start thinking about the desktop today. We need to stop the official discouragement of desktop FreeBSD. I agree with you, David, that although FreeBSD is primarily a server OS right now the desktop should not be forgotten. So how about a www.serverfreebsd.com and a www.desktopfreebsd.com? You get the best of both worlds that way. I would not make completely separate sites. Maybe IMHO make two separate big areas you can choose on the start page of the website but make one entry point so people immediately can see that FreeBSD can be used for both. Alternatively one could make links from the single freebsd.com (or whatever its name will be) to these two sites you propose. Stephan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Paul Mather writes: The operating system is one thing; a certain level support is another. That's Free/Open Source software for you. Yes. And it's one of the factors that makes the open-source movement highly self-limiting. I don't know of any way around it. But that's why I'd only recommend open-source solutions for mission-critical functions if an organization already has all the expertise it needs to support those solutions in-house and on site ... because if something goes down, that's the only serious support that will be available. In many situations, a limited level of support is tolerable, but not for key and mission-critical production use. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Sander Vesik writes: This is BULLSHIT. Not just any any bullshit either but virulent stinky bullshit - and also coincidentially the best way to dispromote FreeBSD. You need to support your position with reasoned arguments, otherwise it will not persuade. That's what I do. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Michael C. Shultz writes: I Agree! My FreeBSD desktop is very stable and user friendly. What ever time I spend fixing/managing desktops is on my friends windows machines, never my own because it always just works. Maybe you can explain to me how to get the following applications to run on a FreeBSD desktop: Adobe Photoshop Adobe Illustrator Quark XPress The Sims 2 Flight Simulator UltraEdit Visual InterDev Microsoft Word Microsoft Excel Microsoft PowerPoint Microsoft Money The Bat! Opera Firefox Microsoft Internet Explorer Corel KnockOut Flight Check Bar Code Pro MathType SecureFX SecureCRT SFS Rebel Fritz 6.0 POV-Ray Adobe PageMaker Adobe Streamline Adobe Acrobat (full version) Paint Shop Pro Palm Desktop SimCity GeoClock Ear Test BlitzIn Audio MP3 Editor Forte Agent Movie Maker Nikon Scan Rainbow Wacom Intuos However, I should point out that I also have applications that will not run on Windows: BIND sendmail syslog sshd ProFTP SFTP The list is not long for FreeBSD, but every one of these applications is a critical application, and most must run without fail 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Any one of them is enough to justify running a dedicated FreeBSD server. For this reason, I have several machines: a FreeBSD server, a Windows XP desktop, and a Windows NT server used as a desktop (to support some legacy applications). -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:31 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Michael C. Shultz writes: I Agree! My FreeBSD desktop is very stable and user friendly. What ever time I spend fixing/managing desktops is on my friends windows machines, never my own because it always just works. Maybe you can explain to me how to get the following applications to run on a FreeBSD desktop: Forte Agent ^^^ You got to be kidding - you actually prefer this over trn? ;-) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Saturday 12 February 2005 02:30 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Michael C. Shultz writes: I Agree! My FreeBSD desktop is very stable and user friendly. What ever time I spend fixing/managing desktops is on my friends windows machines, never my own because it always just works. Maybe you can explain to me how to get the following applications to run on a FreeBSD desktop: Adobe Photoshop Adobe Illustrator Quark XPress The Sims 2 Flight Simulator UltraEdit Visual InterDev Microsoft Word Microsoft Excel Microsoft PowerPoint Microsoft Money The Bat! In ports Opera* In ports Firefox Microsoft Internet Explorer Corel KnockOut Flight Check Bar Code Pro MathType SecureFX SecureCRT SFS Rebel Fritz 6.0 POV-Ray Adobe PageMaker Adobe Streamline Adobe Acrobat (full version) Paint Shop Pro Palm Desktop SimCity GeoClock Ear Test BlitzIn Audio MP3 Editor pan is better, in ports Forte Agent Movie Maker Nikon Scan Rainbow Wacom Intuos However, I should point out that I also have applications that will not run on Windows: BIND sendmail syslog sshd ProFTP SFTP What about the other 12000 ports? How do they do in windows? Likely there is a *FREE* port for most of what you listed above. And if you wish to donate half of what you paid for each of those listed programs there would likely be a port author willing to customize/improve their port version just for you. The list is not long for FreeBSD, but every one of these applications is a critical application, and most must run without fail 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Any one of them is enough to justify running a dedicated FreeBSD server. At best windows can run two or three major applications at once before it pukes. On my lowly 256meg 1Gz machine I have 18 desktops, in those 18 desktops I normally have 3 to 4 major apps running, in two desk tops I have 2 terms with 4 tabs each running programs, and a handful of documents opened in the other desk tops. With all that going on in the foreground, in the background all of my apps are being automatically and continuously updated. When I want a break from work I open a move with mplayer and watch it with out worrying about shutting anything else down, and if I need a music fix, xmms solves it. Sometimes I'll go two weeks before rebooting. and when I do reboot it isn't because I have to, it is just an old hard to break habit picked up from my windows days. It was like going through withdrawl, not being able to defrag my drives, took a few years before I finally believed not all file systems frag themselves to death. For this reason, I have several machines: a FreeBSD server, a Windows XP desktop, and a Windows NT server used as a desktop (to support some legacy applications). Windows is crap, I feel sorry for you that you have to use it. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: You got to be kidding - you actually prefer this over trn? ;-) I've never used trn. Forte Agent works fine for me. I originally used Outlook Express but I couldn't put custom quote headers into it, and so I switched. Ultimately Agent turned out to be very superior to OE. Neither runs on FreeBSD, however. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Michael C. Shultz writes: What about the other 12000 ports? How do they do in windows? I don't know, since I don't need or use them. Likely there is a *FREE* port for most of what you listed above. No, there isn't. These software products run only on Windows, generally speaking. A few exist in Mac versions as well. Virtually none exist for any flavor of UNIX or UNIX-like operating systems. I have to run these applications for work and play. I therefore cannot use any operating system that doesn't support them on the desktop. And if you wish to donate half of what you paid for each of those listed programs there would likely be a port author willing to customize/improve their port version just for you. Why would I do that? They already run on Windows. At best windows can run two or three major applications at once before it pukes. I routinely have two dozen applications running under Windows, and depending on memory available and required, it can easily run several times that, or more. On my lowly 256meg 1Gz machine I have 18 desktops, in those 18 desktops I normally have 3 to 4 major apps running, in two desk tops I have 2 terms with 4 tabs each running programs, and a handful of documents opened in the other desk tops. On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run everything. With all that going on in the foreground, in the background all of my apps are being automatically and continuously updated. I never allow anything on my machines to be automatically updated. I perform all updates myself, explicitly, and I never update anything unless I have to. When I want a break from work I open a move with mplayer and watch it with out worrying about shutting anything else down, and if I need a music fix, xmms solves it. I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications running. Sometimes I'll go two weeks before rebooting. I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. I don't remember ever seeing a system crash on my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT system (all because of bad drivers). It was like going through withdrawl, not being able to defrag my drives, took a few years before I finally believed not all file systems frag themselves to death. Fragmentation is difficult to avoid entirely, but some file systems are better at dealing with it than others. NTFS is no worse than UNIX in this respect, as far as I can tell, although my guess is that UNIX is probably superior, if there really is a difference (because UNIX has been around for quite a while and seems to work pretty well without defragmentation). Windows is crap, I feel sorry for you that you have to use it. Emotional assertions don't persuade me, and you need not feel sorry for me, as everything runs perfectly here. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael C. Shultz Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 3:18 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... What about the other 12000 ports? How do they do in windows? Likely there is a *FREE* port for most of what you listed above. And if you wish to donate half of what you paid for each of those listed programs Ah, but that is the rub, methinks. Even if our Anthony is squeaky clean and paid for every one of those apps, there are so many many others who don't pay a dime for their Windows applications because they steal copies of them from their friends. That is one of the dirty little secrets about Windows you know. Price for price, for a great many people, the costs are equal. And not to mention all the people who got their copies legally yet paid nothing for them - because they happened to work at a company that has a Microsoft Site license. As those of you know who have dealt with such things, the site licenses that Microsquish writes for companies over 100 head all contain language that -explicitly- allows any employee to make and install copies of the site-licensed software that they use at work, on their home PC. And in some cases the companies don't even have to be that big to get one of these. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 3:42 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. That is really stupid since there's been many security patches that have come out in the last year that require rebooting during their install. If your NT system touches a network that touches the Internet, it needs to be patched to current levels. Failing to do this means you have a lack of consideration for the rest of us on the Internet, as unpatched Windows systems are the single greatest source of viruses and spam and attacks and other trouble on the Internet today. I suppose you don't fix the catalyatic converter on your car when it ruptures, either. Fragmentation is difficult to avoid entirely, but some file systems are better at dealing with it than others. NTFS is no worse than UNIX in this respect, as far as I can tell, Yes it is. That is why Diskkeeper is standard for all NTFS servers that exist within Microsoft. Another little Microsoft secret for Microsquish employees and their friends. Emotional assertions don't persuade me, and you need not feel sorry for me, as everything runs perfectly here. Except that your not patching, and worse you announced your running unpatched windows systems on a public forum - hmm, let's see if I can get that keyboard capture program installed on your system before the others do Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Saturday 12 February 2005 03:41 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Michael C. Shultz writes: What about the other 12000 ports? How do they do in windows? I don't know, since I don't need or use them. That was obvious by your confusion with Firefox an opera for example. You admit you don't know what is in ports yet feel it is OK to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop? Ever heard the saying better to remain silent and thought a fool.? Likely there is a *FREE* port for most of what you listed above. No, there isn't. These software products run only on Windows, generally speaking. A few exist in Mac versions as well. Virtually none exist for any flavor of UNIX or UNIX-like operating systems. How do you know? You just admitted you don't use what is in ports... I have to run these applications for work and play. I therefore cannot use any operating system that doesn't support them on the desktop. And if you wish to donate half of what you paid for each of those listed programs there would likely be a port author willing to customize/improve their port version just for you. Why would I do that? They already run on Windows. Why would you say FreeBSD is a poor desktop when your only desktop experience is with windows? At best windows can run two or three major applications at once before it pukes. I routinely have two dozen applications running under Windows, and depending on memory available and required, it can easily run several times that, or more. Bullshit. On my lowly 256meg 1Gz machine I have 18 desktops, in those 18 desktops I normally have 3 to 4 major apps running, in two desk tops I have 2 terms with 4 tabs each running programs, and a handful of documents opened in the other desk tops. On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run everything. Bullshit With all that going on in the foreground, in the background all of my apps are being automatically and continuously updated. I never allow anything on my machines to be automatically updated. I perform all updates myself, explicitly, and I never update anything unless I have to. I don't blame you, when something goes wrong on a Windows system the solution is usually to reinstall everything. FreeBSD is a bit more robust than that. On this point I guess you'll have to take my word seeing as you have no experience with FreeBSD as a desktop Why do you feel you are qualified to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop again? When I want a break from work I open a move with mplayer and watch it with out worrying about shutting anything else down, and if I need a music fix, xmms solves it. I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications running. bullshit Sometimes I'll go two weeks before rebooting. I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. I don't remember ever seeing a system crash on my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT system (all because of bad drivers). bullshit. You are a flat out liar friend. It was like going through withdrawl, not being able to defrag my drives, took a few years before I finally believed not all file systems frag themselves to death. Fragmentation is difficult to avoid entirely, but some file systems are better at dealing with it than others. NTFS is no worse than UNIX in this respect, as far as I can tell, although my guess is that UNIX is probably superior, if there really is a difference (because UNIX has been around for quite a while and seems to work pretty well without defragmentation). NTFS frags, and slows down noticeably if you fail to defrag it. I'll assume your line of work is not database related... Windows is crap, I feel sorry for you that you have to use it. Emotional assertions don't persuade me, and you need not feel sorry for me, as everything runs perfectly here. I'm sure it does, in your dreams. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: That is really stupid since there's been many security patches that have come out in the last year that require rebooting during their install. My NT machine does not require them. If your NT system touches a network that touches the Internet, it needs to be patched to current levels. It doesn't touch anything. Failing to do this means you have a lack of consideration for the rest of us on the Internet, as unpatched Windows systems are the single greatest source of viruses and spam and attacks and other trouble on the Internet today. A system that isn't exposed to the Internet is not vulnerable to direct attacks, and prudent use of the system renders it invulnerable to indirect attacks (clicking on infected e-mail, for example). This particular system hardly does anything right now; it supports a handful of legacy apps, and that's all. I suppose you don't fix the catalyatic converter on your car when it ruptures, either. I don't have a car. Yes it is. That is why Diskkeeper is standard for all NTFS servers that exist within Microsoft. Another little Microsoft secret for Microsquish employees and their friends. I never saw much of a difference after running defrag on NTFS, so I don't do it much anymore. Except that your not patching, and worse you announced your running unpatched windows systems on a public forum ... No, I'm not. - hmm, let's see if I can get that keyboard capture program installed on your system before the others do Since I have just about everything disabled--no Javascript, no ActiveX, no Java, no HTML--that might be difficult. I never execute attachments, and none of the software I have will execute attachments implicitly. I've installed the patches for the JPEG vulnerability. As I've said, the only virus infection I've ever had was on FreeBSD. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Saturday 12 February 2005 03:44 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael C. Shultz Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 3:18 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... What about the other 12000 ports? How do they do in windows? Likely there is a *FREE* port for most of what you listed above. And if you wish to donate half of what you paid for each of those listed programs Ah, but that is the rub, methinks. Even if our Anthony is squeaky clean and paid for every one of those apps, there are so many many others who don't pay a dime for their Windows applications because they steal copies of them from their friends. That is one of the dirty little secrets about Windows you know. Price for price, for a great many people, the costs are equal. And not to mention all the people who got their copies legally yet paid nothing for them - because they happened to work at a company that has a Microsoft Site license. As those of you know who have dealt with such things, the site licenses that Microsquish writes for companies over 100 head all contain language that -explicitly- allows any employee to make and install copies of the site-licensed software that they use at work, on their home PC. And in some cases the companies don't even have to be that big to get one of these. Ted Ted, one thing I've noticed in my years of computing, there is no shortage of stupid people. I thank god they gravitate towards windows and away from me. ;) -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael C. Shultz Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 4:03 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. I don't remember ever seeing a system crash on my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT system (all because of bad drivers). bullshit. You are a flat out liar friend. Well now Michael, maybe his experience is only with NT 3.51 - that was pretty stable before Microsoft put the GUI into ring 0 to make all the gamers happy (in NT4) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Michael C. Shultz writes: That was obvious by your confusion with Firefox an opera for example. What confusion? Firefox exists only for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. All of these require a GUI to work. I don't run a GUI on my FreeBSD machine. The only browser I have installed on FreeBSD is lynx. Opera has a wider selection of platforms (including FreeBSD), but it's still a GUI browser. You admit you don't know what is in ports yet feel it is OK to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop? I can say that based on the OS alone. Ever heard the saying better to remain silent and thought a fool.? Yes. How do you know? You just admitted you don't use what is in ports... Because I've checked with the vendors for these products. They ought to know. Why would you say FreeBSD is a poor desktop when your only desktop experience is with windows? I do have desktop experience with FreeBSD. I tried it briefly and abandoned it. It was so lame compared to Windows that it didn't take but a day or two to realize that it was a waste of my time. I don't have any emotional investment in operating systems, so I just went back to Windows. I don't blame you, when something goes wrong on a Windows system the solution is usually to reinstall everything. No more so than with any other OS. The main reason I disallow automatic updates is that I want to know exactly what is being installed on the machine at all times. FreeBSD is a bit more robust than that. No, it's not. It's neither better nor worse. But in a production environment, you never do any updates automatically, anyway. On this point I guess you'll have to take my word seeing as you have no experience with FreeBSD as a desktop Just as you've taken my word about the number of applications I run simultaneously on Windows? Why do you feel you are qualified to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop again? Because I've used it for that purpose, along with a number of other operating systems. Windows wins by a handsome margin. The closest competitor is the Mac. Nothing else is even in the running. bullshit Tell me again about how I should take your word for things. bullshit. You are a flat out liar friend. If you actually used these operating systems, you would know otherwise. NTFS frags, and slows down noticeably if you fail to defrag it. I have not noticed that. I'll assume your line of work is not database related... I don't currently run database servers. But database servers have a lot of issues relating to performance, not just file-system fragmentation. I'm sure it does, in your dreams. This brings back such distant memories! -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: Well now Michael, maybe his experience is only with NT 3.51 - that was pretty stable before Microsoft put the GUI into ring 0 to make all the gamers happy (in NT4) Later versions of NT and its successors are also extremely stable, although you're correct in that NT 3.51 had the purest kernel and the greatest stability and security thereof. Putting GUI functions into the kernel and other related actions were huge steps backward. A lot of the code put into NT4 was copied wholesale from Windows 9x, and anyone who has seen the source code of both operating systems knows just how scary and depressing this is. The stabilities of NT-based systems and UNIX are roughly the same when kernels are compared. However, NT-based systems are more vulnerable to badly-written applications than UNIX systems are, and that is entirely the fault of Microsoft, which weakened the NT base deliberately beginning with NT4 in order to court the desktop market. This is one reason why I wouldn't want to see FreeBSD make the same mistake. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 4:25 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... The stabilities of NT-based systems and UNIX are roughly the same when kernels are compared. How exactly does one do this when the NT kernel code isn't available for perusal? Other than, of course, just running both and assuming that because neither happens to crash running a screensaver, that they must be roughly the same. That's a marketing comparison which has no value. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: How exactly does one do this when the NT kernel code isn't available for perusal? One gains access to the kernel code. However, just observing the systems and studying their design tells a lot as well. The NT kernel is very well designed. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Saturday 12 February 2005 04:19 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Michael C. Shultz writes: That was obvious by your confusion with Firefox an opera for example. What confusion? Firefox exists only for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. I politely cautioned you over the wisdom of remaining silent versus the embarassment of speaking out when you are clueless. Now that we both have resolved whose the fool may I direct your attention to: /usr/ports/www/firefox All of these require a GUI to work. I don't run a GUI on my FreeBSD machine. The only browser I have installed on FreeBSD is lynx. And you STILL think you are qualified to say it is a poor desktop? Opera has a wider selection of platforms (including FreeBSD), but it's still a GUI browser. You admit you don't know what is in ports yet feel it is OK to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop? I can say that based on the OS alone. Can't you find a windows maillist somewhere? Sorry, maybe you did and even they give you the boot? Ever heard the saying better to remain silent and thought a fool.? Yes. Un believable. How do you know? You just admitted you don't use what is in ports... Because I've checked with the vendors for these products. They ought to know. Yes, I can see how you may feel comfortable trusting salesmen. Why would you say FreeBSD is a poor desktop when your only desktop experience is with windows? I do have desktop experience with FreeBSD. I tried it briefly and abandoned it. It was so lame compared to Windows that it didn't take but a day or two to realize that it was a waste of my time. I don't have any emotional investment in operating systems, so I just went back to Windows. Yes. Please go back to their list as well. They miss you probably. I don't blame you, when something goes wrong on a Windows system the solution is usually to reinstall everything. No more so than with any other OS. The main reason I disallow automatic updates is that I want to know exactly what is being installed on the machine at all times. I'm sure you are without a clue on that issue also. FreeBSD is a bit more robust than that. No, it's not. It's neither better nor worse. But in a production environment, you never do any updates automatically, anyway. Oh really? On this point I guess you'll have to take my word seeing as you have no experience with FreeBSD as a desktop Just as you've taken my word about the number of applications I run simultaneously on Windows? Un like you and FreeBSD, I have years of experience with windows, I am quite comfortable with calling your claims bullshit. Why do you feel you are qualified to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop again? Because I've used it for that purpose, along with a number of other operating systems. Windows wins by a handsome margin. The closest competitor is the Mac. Nothing else is even in the running. bullshit Now you are reorganizing this message?? Mayl I remind you, my deceitful little friend where the billshit really fell: I routinely have two dozen applications running under Windows, and depending on memory available and required, it can easily run several times that, or more. Bullshit. On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run everything. Bullshit I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications running. bullshit I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. I don't remember ever seeing a system crash on my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT system (all because of bad drivers). bullshit. You are a flat out liar friend. I don't currently run database servers. But database servers have a lot of issues relating to performance, not just file-system fragmentation. They do on NT anyways. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Jeremy C. Reed wrote: (Nevertheless, it is not time to advertise FreeBSD as a desktop alternative.) This is not so much about FreeBSD, as the Unix+X11 combination in general. It does not provide the fully integrated system the typical end-user, coming from a Windows or Mac perspective, expects. That it nevertheless works well enough for persons with a technical or academical background, and those who invest some time, is not questioned. What the Unix+X11 combination in its current blend doesn't provide is the one-size-fits-all solution that Windows and the Mac try to achieve. That's both a good and a bad thing, imho. There are, of course, situations where Unix is being used as a desktop successfully. Think about Unix workstations at universities and larger companies, which have been prevalent for the last 15 years. Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. What these applications have in common is, that the desktop user is normally different from the person maintaining the installation. This is different from a SOHO setup, where both are normally identical. mkb. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Matthias Buelow writes: This is not so much about FreeBSD, as the Unix+X11 combination in general. It does not provide the fully integrated system the typical end-user, coming from a Windows or Mac perspective, expects. That it nevertheless works well enough for persons with a technical or academical background, and those who invest some time, is not questioned. What the Unix+X11 combination in its current blend doesn't provide is the one-size-fits-all solution that Windows and the Mac try to achieve. That's both a good and a bad thing, imho. Yes. Perhaps I've not been clear, but the problems with FreeBSD as a desktop are shared by virtually all versions of UNIX, since they all create their GUIs in the same way. Mac OS X is a notable exception. There are, of course, situations where Unix is being used as a desktop successfully. Think about Unix workstations at universities and larger companies, which have been prevalent for the last 15 years. UNIX + GUI seem to work much better when they are used as what they are: UNIX systems with GUIs. When someone tries to make them look and behave like Windows, problems begin. Highly stable GUIs have existed on UNIX workstations for years, but they barely resemble Windows. Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. Why not just burn taxpayer euro in a bonfire? It would have the same end result and it would be faster. What these applications have in common is, that the desktop user is normally different from the person maintaining the installation. This is different from a SOHO setup, where both are normally identical. True, but I think other key differences are the discipline used in creating the GUI and the end result being targetet. Native UNIX GUIs are carefully written and do attempt to imitate any other OS. More recent desktop GUIs are crazy hodgepodges hastily written that amount to wannabe versions of Windows. There are a lot of people who desperately want to see UNIX as a replacement for Windows, and their desperation blinds them to the futility of their efforts and to the endless glaring defects of their attempts to achieve this. But the inadequacy of what they produce is very obvious to anyone without an emotional investment in hating Microsoft, and so these Windows clones will never gain much currency as the situation stands now. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:01:27 +0100, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Mather writes: The operating system is one thing; a certain level support is another. That's Free/Open Source software for you. Yes. And it's one of the factors that makes the open-source movement highly self-limiting. I don't know of any way around it. But that's why I'd only recommend open-source solutions for mission-critical functions if an organization already has all the expertise it needs to support those solutions in-house and on site ... because if something goes down, that's the only serious support that will be available. In many situations, a limited level of support is tolerable, but not for key and mission-critical production use. As I said, that's why you'd contract with one of those outfits in the Vendors section. This is not rocket science. (BTW, it is usually not realistic to expect an organisation to have all the expertise it needs to support those solutions in-house and on site. A simple case in point is the [mission critical] enterprise backup solution used at our University: Tivoli TSM. Sure, we have a TSM administrator who can serve in an operational capacity. But, she sure can't fix bugs in the TSM software (nor repair the hardware). That's why we have a Tivoli support contract, because Tivoli [IBM] have people who [hopefully eventually] can. Ditto with our Sun systems. We don't have on-site Sun engineers, but we do have a support contract with emergency call-out that fulfills the same practical function. The same is true of solutions built out of Open Source products.) Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. --- Frank Vincent Zappa ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Scott I. Remick writes: A better realworld example (which has been mentioned before) is www.sendmail.org vs. www.sendmail.com. I think that better reflects what people are suggesting for www.freebsd.com. Agreed! Although both sites actually aim at similar markets, since sendmail is not really something that anyone would use anywhere except on a server. (Nobody runs sendmail on a desktop, strictly speaking.) They both aim at exactly the same market, but different personalities. While sendmail.org aims at the more technical people, usually the ones that will actually run the software, sendmail.com aims for the directors, the ones that make the decision to run it. Our current freebsd.org website is perfect for the first category, but believe me, it scares the shit out of the higher management kind of people. Argue all you want that people like that should not be allowed to make such decisions, I've seen it happen and Im sure it happens all the time. So far, I have not seen one single valid argument against a freebsd.com website or a new logo, so I side with the people that wants some changes to happen in this one. -- R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. Why not just burn taxpayer euro in a bonfire? It would have the same end result and it would be faster. Well, if you just run a set of 1-3 applications, and don't do anything else with the computer, there shouldn't be much of a difference. Think, for example, of the software that the clerks feed applications for driving licenses or passports into. That's (most likely) one do-it-all software running on the terminal-like PC all the time. Or a secretary, using some kind of office software (I don't know if they consider OpenOffice). Apart from making a political statement, the advantage is of course being independent from the Microsoft update cycle. Of course whether it's cheaper having the inhouse staff or a consulting firm update the Linux desktops needs to be evaluated first (and I'm sure they did). Another point, as far as I got it, was security, i.e., higher resilience towards worms and viruses. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Jeremy C. Reed writes: Being able to run a desktop for over a hundred days without reboots, without annoying continuous software failures, without worry of malicious (or anoying) pop-ups, virus, and malware, and being able to quickly do my desktop work is a good reason to use an open source Unix desktop. Except that Windows does all of this. My XP and NT desktops will run until I reboot them, which often means months at a time. If I chose not to reboot them, they'd run for years (the NT code base is extremely stable). I haven't experienced any annoying software failures under Windows. I have no problems with pop-ups, viruses, or malware. The only virus I've ever experienced was an Apache virus on my FreeBSD machine, ironically, and that was because the Apache server had a bug and the server _must_ service ports that are open to the world (there's nothing I can do to protect the system in such a case). Windows viruses and other problems can be avoided by firewalls and safe computing; it isn't even necessary to run an antivirus product. Time between boots is similar for both the Windows and FreeBSD systems, but neither system actually requires a boot at such frequent intervals. I usually boot FreeBSD when I have to power-cycle the hardware, or when I make a change that is exposed at boot time and I wish to make sure that the system actually will boot (such as a change in rc.conf). A common reason for booting is installation of software on both platforms; FreeBSD doesn't require it, but I boot anyway to make sure nothing in the boot process has been misconfigured, and many Windows applications insist on it, even though the OS itself does not. I'm guessing *you* are atypical in this. Most of our Windows boxes are rather stable. But our FreeBSD ones are simply rocks. It's true I can't just pointy clicky them into a usable configuration, but the software runs for as long as we wish. That is in a rather direct opposition to the majority of our on-site service calls for clients, which generally have to do with troubleshooting software issues on Windows boxes related to annoying software failures, and pop-ups, viruses, and malware. And reboots with Win XP are probably about 1/3 lower (guesstimate) than they were with the 9x products. But, there were *many* back then. The other day we gained a client who had been sold a rather new M$ Server product. It was set up to be their PDC, but there were some issues. One of these issues was that the NIC it was connected to the network with was set to use DHCP ! We reconfigured the interface, and, true to form, You must reboot your computer for the changes to take effect. I would argue that you are not Joe User, because this is not necessarily his experience, even with XP. Nor Jane User either. Newer Microsoft products are more stable than their predecessors, but there is no comparison between them and the stability and security of FreeBSD in our experience. The fact that Windows XP is more stable than their previous products is known, but another chunk of evidence indicates that issues with that OS, as Jeremy described, are still well in evidence. There are thousands upon thousands times thousands of relatively clueless users out there who do have problems with Windows whether they know it or not. For my office, a FreeBSD desktop makes a good bit of sense. I don't have major software issues with FreeBSD, and my unit cost is a hundred bucks or more less than a Windows desktop. But, in that, *we* are atypical, I suppose. Kevin Kinsey DaleCo, S.P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
So far, I have not seen one single valid argument against a freebsd.com website or a new logo, so I side with the people that wants some changes to happen in this one. I'm with Roger here. It is time for a change, and perhaps a smaller, but business friendly image on the MAIN site. The website as it is is much too busy and confusing. Actually, I would not mind moving the current website over to freebsd_tech_user or something that clearly targets BSD technical users. But I work for a medium-sized, proprietary software company. I would _NEVER_ send even competent WIN32 people to the current FreeBSD site for them to evaluate the OS - the confusing structure and face of the site is sure to turn them off. Even asking basic questions in the Search function doesn't work cleanly - instead hundreds of manual links are returned. A clear and short Who is using it and Why it would help YOUR business page would be better than what we have now. I just don't understand the arguments of those who don't want change here. Is this not a question of survival in some sense? OBSD went through a logo change some time ago, and I would argue that this change was very successful. We've (IMHO) got to get the businesses who are looking at Open Source to consider FreeBSD. This means making the website friendly. This is simply so they'll move to the next logical step to ask who is using it already?. And this is getting critical, people - Sun is making SOLARIS free and will release the OS for _anyone_ to use in coming weeks. In the case of OpenSolaris a business doesn't even have to ask that next question, as millions of computers run Solaris worldwide - Wall Street brokerages use it everywhere, and MLB.com uses it prominently, to name a couple of examples. The heart of the matter is whether we will continue to target the uber-geeks of the world and be happy with a tiny niche, or whether we will make FreeBSD what it should be - _the_ standard against which other *NIX OS clones measure themselves. Appearances do matter in this case, and the current website should be moved over to target the few of us who are already committed. My 2 cents. dereck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: So far, I have not seen one single valid argument against a freebsd.com website or a new logo, so I side with the people that wants some changes to happen in this one. Well, if you put it that bluntly, let me disagree with you :-) If you look at the current freebsd.org website, you see a logo on top, a navigation bar on the left, news on the right and a large area in the middle that is reserved exclusively for advocacy content. There is nothing wrong with that concept and it can serve well as the main web page for both those that serve on a board of directors and those that are bored of directors. Yes, the design needs a face lift. That can be done without compromising usability. Yes, the navigation could be streamlined and should list sections such as white papers, success stories and solution guides. That stuff just needs to be produced! Without that it exists you can't link to it from the front page. Yes, the news should be more frequent and comprehensive. You can't report what isn't happening. More should be written about FreeBSD and links to new articles should be collected and updated daily. Yes, the advocacy content should be much more exciting and professional. There is a large need for lots of high quality advocacy content including white papers, statistics, market research, graphics, success stories, business cases, etc. All that just needs to be produced. None of the above will get accomplished by splitting the site in two. All of the above needs to be done either way. Changing the design of freebsd.org/freebsd.com is easy. The hard work is creating all the content that needs to go behind it. Cheers, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 329 41 41 41 Chris Zumbrunn Ventures - http://www.czv.com/ Internet Application Technology - Reduced to the Maximum ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chris Zumbrunn wrote: On Feb 12, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: So far, I have not seen one single valid argument against a freebsd.com website or a new logo, so I side with the people that wants some changes to happen in this one. Well, if you put it that bluntly, let me disagree with you :-) If you look at the current freebsd.org website, you see a logo on top, a navigation bar on the left, news on the right and a large area in the middle that is reserved exclusively for advocacy content. There is nothing wrong with that concept and it can serve well as the main web page for both those that serve on a board of directors and those that are bored of directors. Yes, the design needs a face lift. That can be done without compromising usability. Yes, the navigation could be streamlined and should list sections such as white papers, success stories and solution guides. That stuff just needs to be produced! Without that it exists you can't link to it from the front page. Yes, the news should be more frequent and comprehensive. You can't report what isn't happening. More should be written about FreeBSD and links to new articles should be collected and updated daily. Yes, the advocacy content should be much more exciting and professional. There is a large need for lots of high quality advocacy content including white papers, statistics, market research, graphics, success stories, business cases, etc. All that just needs to be produced. None of the above will get accomplished by splitting the site in two. All of the above needs to be done either way. Changing the design of freebsd.org/freebsd.com is easy. The hard work is creating all the content that needs to go behind it. I advocate changes, you disagree with me, and then you list a lot of points that should be changed? Im having difficulties with your logic here. :) All of your points are valid, there are so many things that would improve FreeBSD's image with just a little tweaking. However, everytime I've tried to suggest even the slightest change to freebsd.org, people has started to kick and scream and preach about the end of the OS as we know it. Therefor I have abandoned every hope of ever make freebsd.org evolve, and instead joined the advocates of a user-friendly freebsd.com website. Personally, Im backing out of this discussion now. I would love to see something happen, but there is a limit to how much resistance and stubbornes a man can take. Everytime this kind of discussion has come up, I've tried my best to support any attempts of actually making something happen, but the incredible amount of resistance we always meet has made me question if its worth it. Until core or atleast a group of committers *make* something happen, I doubt anything will change. If you go ahead and try to change freebsd.org, I wish you the best of luck. The brickwall you are about to bang youre head against is very hard. ;) -- R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: I advocate changes, you disagree with me, and then you list a lot of points that should be changed? Im having difficulties with your logic here. :) I'm not against the changes, of course. I'm not against a separate freebsd.com site either. But I disagree that there are no valid arguments against the site split. Changing the one combined site would be both possible and preferable. All of your points are valid, there are so many things that would improve FreeBSD's image with just a little tweaking. However, everytime I've tried to suggest even the slightest change to freebsd.org, people has started to kick and scream and preach about the end of the OS as we know it. Therefor I have abandoned every hope of ever make freebsd.org evolve, and instead joined the advocates of a user-friendly freebsd.com website. Personally, Im backing out of this discussion now. I would love to see something happen, but there is a limit to how much resistance and stubbornes a man can take. Everytime this kind of discussion has come up, I've tried my best to support any attempts of actually making something happen, but the incredible amount of resistance we always meet has made me question if its worth it. Until core or atleast a group of committers *make* something happen, I doubt anything will change. If you go ahead and try to change freebsd.org, I wish you the best of luck. The brickwall you are about to bang youre head against is very hard. ;) You may be right about that - or maybe the freebsd community will proof you wrong this time :-) ...Either way, I think there is to much talk and to much focus on the surface, cosmetic stuff. The hard work is in producing and collecting the content for the freebsd.com site - not in linking to it from a professional looking front page. That we can do, whichever TLD suffix (or alternative domain name for that matter!) it will use. /czv ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 9:26 AM To: Chris Zumbrunn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... However, everytime I've tried to suggest even the slightest change to freebsd.org, people has started to kick and scream and preach about the end of the OS as we know it. I have never kicked and screamed about changes to the website layout or such, as long as we don't get rid of the recognizable logos on it. What I and others have always said when someone like you comes along is that you should go for it. Put up a prototype website, it's a free country. Let us look at it. If it's better then the doc people will welcome your efforts on it. Generally when we say this people like you complaining about the website disappear when they realize they are going to have to put their labor where their mouths are. So bye bye. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 9:26 AM To: Chris Zumbrunn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... However, everytime I've tried to suggest even the slightest change to freebsd.org, people has started to kick and scream and preach about the end of the OS as we know it. I have never kicked and screamed about changes to the website layout or such, as long as we don't get rid of the recognizable logos on it. As far as Im concerned, there are no logos on the website. There is a mascot, but no logo. This, it seems, is a matter of opinion. What I and others have always said when someone like you comes along is that you should go for it. Put up a prototype website, it's a free country. Let us look at it. If it's better then the doc people will welcome your efforts on it. 'Better' would be a matter of opinion. It would also depend on how you define a good website. For technical people looking for documentation, the current website is very good. For marketing purposes, it sucks. Eventough it is possible to combine the two, I advocate the separated .org/.com solution, simply because the target audiences have very different needs. You, clearly belonging in the technical category, refuses to complement Beastie with a more proffesional logo, something I think is necessary to satisfy the second category. Hence, a separate site for marketing people seems to be a necessity. Generally when we say this people like you complaining about the website disappear when they realize they are going to have to put their labor where their mouths are. If someone points out that something needs improvements, but they are unable to improve it themselves, does this mean that the need for improvement does not exist? Im not a website designer nor a marketing droid, but Im still able to see that FreeBSD could need improvement in these areas. If I could contribute, I would, but I fear that anything I could design would not even beat what we have today. This does not mean that the current website is unbeatable, it just means that I suck at webdesigning. If I could contribute in other ways, I would. Im more then willing to contribute financially and technically, its just that money and technical skills alone will not make a website. So bye bye. Ted Bye. -- R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 8:16 PM, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 9:26 AM To: Chris Zumbrunn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... However, everytime I've tried to suggest even the slightest change to freebsd.org, people has started to kick and scream and preach about the end of the OS as we know it. I have never kicked and screamed about changes to the website layout or such, as long as we don't get rid of the recognizable logos on it. As far as Im concerned, there are no logos on the website. There is a mascot, but no logo. This, it seems, is a matter of opinion. What I and others have always said when someone like you comes along is that you should go for it. Put up a prototype website, it's a free country. Let us look at it. If it's better then the doc people will welcome your efforts on it. 'Better' would be a matter of opinion. It would also depend on how you define a good website. For technical people looking for documentation, the current website is very good. For marketing purposes, it sucks. Eventough it is possible to combine the two, I advocate the separated .org/.com solution, simply because the target audiences have very different needs. You, clearly belonging in the technical category, refuses to complement Beastie with a more proffesional logo, something I think is necessary to satisfy the second category. Hence, a separate site for marketing people seems to be a necessity. Don't you think this Beastie qualifies as a professional logo? http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 329 41 41 41 Chris Zumbrunn Ventures - http://www.czv.com/ Internet Application Technology - Reduced to the Maximum ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chris Zumbrunn wrote: [snip] Don't you think this Beastie qualifies as a professional logo? http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif Its a major step in the right direction. Personally, I dont really like it, but if it was to be the new logo I would not complain. It would solve most of the printing issues, but to me, it still does not look like something an advanced operating system would use. To much playground feeling over it. Maybe just the FreeBSD part and a couple of stylized horns over it, but that would mean Beastie would not be clearly visible and I dont know if I dare to suggest that. ;) No offense, I respect and appreciate your attempts. :) -- R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The stabilities of NT-based systems and UNIX are roughly the same when kernels are compared. How exactly does one do this when the NT kernel code isn't available for perusal? Other than, of course, just running both and assuming that because neither happens to crash running a screensaver, that they must be roughly the same. That's a marketing comparison which has no value. After taking out all the kernel level stuff for the GUI and other performance enhancements that MS has made for the gamers and other people, I would say that it is probably true that the NT kernel and the BSD kernels are in the same order of magnitude of stability. Dave Cutler and his crew from DEC did a good job with VMS and VAX/ELN and RSX-11M and I would assume that they would do the same job in their kernel design and implementation for M$. However, since that happened MS has dumped a ton of crap into it. Chad disclaimer: I have not seen the source to NT but I do know the reputations of the implementors and designers of (at least the original) NT kernel. ex-DECcie ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Saturday 12 February 2005 03:23 am, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt writes: You got to be kidding - you actually prefer this over trn? ;-) I've never used trn. Forte Agent works fine for me. I originally used Outlook Express but I couldn't put custom quote headers into it, and so I switched. Ultimately Agent turned out to be very superior to OE. Neither runs on FreeBSD, however. Maybe you should write to the developer of Agent and inquire about this issue. I'm not aware that anyone here can do anything about other projects, especially ones written specifically for Windows. Maybe you should try Pan. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Paul Mather writes: As I said, that's why you'd contract with one of those outfits in the Vendors section. If they can do the job. Since they didn't write the code, though, they aren't ultimately accountable for it. BTW, it is usually not realistic to expect an organisation to have all the expertise it needs to support those solutions in-house and on site. That depends on the size of the organization. I've encountered organizations that wrote their own operating systems. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Matthias Buelow writes: Well, if you just run a set of 1-3 applications, and don't do anything else with the computer, there shouldn't be much of a difference. True, if those applications run identically on both platforms. Apart from making a political statement, the advantage is of course being independent from the Microsoft update cycle. The disadvantage is that you need orders of magnitude more technical expertise in-house to support the OS. A serious problem will arise if the city wants to install a new application and it runs only on Windows. Another point, as far as I got it, was security, i.e., higher resilience towards worms and viruses. Except that this isn't the case. Most of the stuff I see on bugtraq these days references versions of UNIX, particularly Linux. UNIX has traditionally been a less tempting target, but it is not a less vulnerable target. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
I have to run these applications for work and play. I therefore cannot use any operating system that doesn't support them on the desktop. Rat Bastards at FreeBSD that don't break into the companies, steal the code, and port their apps. I never allow anything on my machines to be automatically updated. I perform all updates myself, explicitly, and I never update anything unless I have to. ...snip... I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. *looks up your IP* Vonleigh Simmons http://illusionart.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Kevin Kinsey writes: I'm guessing *you* are atypical in this. I know that I am not. About 95% of all problems with Windows machines are experienced by about 5% of the user base. The rest of the world has no problems. Most of our Windows boxes are rather stable. But our FreeBSD ones are simply rocks. It's true I can't just pointy clicky them into a usable configuration, but the software runs for as long as we wish. All of my machines are rock stable, both FreeBSD and Windows. FreeBSD might win over the long run, but when both systems will run for years, the winner isn't that important. That is in a rather direct opposition to the majority of our on-site service calls for clients, which generally have to do with troubleshooting software issues on Windows boxes related to annoying software failures, and pop-ups, viruses, and malware. User errors, in other words. There are thousands upon thousands times thousands of relatively clueless users out there who do have problems with Windows whether they know it or not. They would have the same problems with FreeBSD, or with any other OS. For my office, a FreeBSD desktop makes a good bit of sense. I don't have major software issues with FreeBSD, and my unit cost is a hundred bucks or more less than a Windows desktop. I'd use FreeBSD on my desktop if I could, but I can't. I'd love to be able to save 400 in license fees per machine and have all the source code. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 5:30 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Michael C. Shultz writes: I Agree! My FreeBSD desktop is very stable and user friendly. What ever time I spend fixing/managing desktops is on my friends windows machines, never my own because it always just works. Maybe you can explain to me how to get the following applications to run on a FreeBSD desktop: Adobe Photoshop Adobe Illustrator Quark XPress The Sims 2 snip I never quite liked these arguments. The question to ask is, What can I use for graphics editing on platform X? What can I use for desktop publishing on platform Y?. Otherwise, it's like saying, Explain how I can get a Ford from Chevrolet? Not everyone absolutely needs Photoshop to edit their family Xmas digicam pictures. -Bart ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Jerry McAllister wrote: Matthias Buelow writes: And your point is..? I can see that FreeBSD marketing has a long way to go. To where?FreeBSD is not marketed in any particular way - on purpose. No one wants to do it, so no one will do it. jerry I want to, and frequently do, market FreeBSD. I can tell you that the website and the community is not much help when trying to sell FreeBSD to the un-enlightened. When trying to sell it in commercial companies boardrooms, I make damn sure not to mention Beastie and usually never even show them the official webpage. -- R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: After taking out all the kernel level stuff for the GUI and other performance enhancements that MS has made for the gamers and other people, I would say that it is probably true that the NT kernel and the BSD kernels are in the same order of magnitude of stability. Dave Cutler and his crew from DEC did a good job with VMS and VAX/ELN and RSX-11M and I would assume that they would do the same job in their kernel design and implementation for M$. They did. The kernel is excellently written. Microsoft threw a lot of that away in favor of the gamers you mention and of clueless Windows desktop users generally. The solid NT kernel is still there, but MS has drilled a great many large holes through it. disclaimer: I have not seen the source to NT but I do know the reputations of the implementors and designers of (at least the original) NT kernel. I have seen the source to both NT and the Win 9x family, and the difference is like night and day. The former was clearly written by a lot of people with a lot of prior experience under their belts; the latter was clearly written by people who had never written much of anything before they started working on Windows. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Joshua Tinnin writes: Maybe you should write to the developer of Agent and inquire about this issue. What issue? -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: Chris Zumbrunn wrote: [snip] http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif [snip] Maybe just the FreeBSD part and a couple of stylized horns over it, but that would mean Beastie would not be clearly visible and I dont know if I dare to suggest that. ;) I agree something like this... http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/freehorns.gif ...would be possible as well. But personally, I think FreeBSD should celebrate some of its idiosyncrasies - specially the ones that are representative of its BSD UNIX tradition. To professionalize FreeBSD we would have to change its name before we would have to drop Beastie as its logo. It's probably even true that FreeBSD is more associated and recognized by its Beastie logo than by its name - and I'm not kidding. Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 329 41 41 41 Chris Zumbrunn Ventures - http://www.czv.com/ Internet Application Technology - Reduced to the Maximum ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Vonleigh Simmons writes: Rat Bastards at FreeBSD that don't break into the companies, steal the code, and port their apps. I don't understand this comment. I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. *looks up your IP* My IP won't tell you what uptime I have on my systems, although Netcraft can tell you how long the production server has been running (but I can save you the trouble: I booted it 26 hours and 50 minutes ago, because I had thought that I had soft updates turned off). -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Bart Silverstrim writes: I never quite liked these arguments. The question to ask is, What can I use for graphics editing on platform X? What can I use for desktop publishing on platform Y?. Not in this case, because many of these applications must produce files that I can share with others, and/or they must work with legacy files that I've collected myself, and/or they must read files provided to me by others. So equivalent functionality isn't good enough: it has to be the same application. Not everyone absolutely needs Photoshop to edit their family Xmas digicam pictures. Neither do I. But I do a lot of other editing. And the average family user is better off using a turnkey commodity OS like Windows than trying to install something like UNIX. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Vonleigh Simmons writes: Rat Bastards at FreeBSD that don't break into the companies, steal the code, and port their apps. I don't understand this comment. I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly a year without a reboot. *looks up your IP* My IP won't tell you what uptime I have on my systems, although Netcraft can tell you how long the production server has been running (but I can save you the trouble: I booted it 26 hours and 50 minutes ago, because I had thought that I had soft updates turned off). Um...methinks he was referring to finding your IP to crack your system since you just announced you don't update it... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Chris Zumbrunn wrote: On Feb 12, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: Chris Zumbrunn wrote: [snip] http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif [snip] Maybe just the FreeBSD part and a couple of stylized horns over it, but that would mean Beastie would not be clearly visible and I dont know if I dare to suggest that. ;) I agree something like this... http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/freehorns.gif Looks like a stereo-typed viking :-) Chad ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Bart Silverstrim writes: I never quite liked these arguments. The question to ask is, What can I use for graphics editing on platform X? What can I use for desktop publishing on platform Y?. Not in this case, because many of these applications must produce files that I can share with others, and/or they must work with legacy files that I've collected myself, and/or they must read files provided to me by others. So equivalent functionality isn't good enough: it has to be the same application. Thank you for supporting vendor lock-in. At any rate, what you're essentially saying is that you want to run a particular application so no matter what happens this is what you must have and use. Do don't even bother asking people who will suggest alternatives, because it's not what you want to hear. Use what you're going to use. *shrug* ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chris Zumbrunn wrote: On Feb 12, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: Maybe just the FreeBSD part and a couple of stylized horns over it, but that would mean Beastie would not be clearly visible and I dont know if I dare to suggest that. ;) I agree something like this... http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/freehorns.gif ...would be possible as well. But personally, I think FreeBSD should celebrate some of its idiosyncrasies - specially the ones that are representative of its BSD UNIX tradition. To professionalize FreeBSD we would have to change its name before we would have to drop Beastie as its logo. It's probably even true that FreeBSD is more associated and recognized by its Beastie logo than by its name - and I'm not kidding. Totally agree, and thats why I suggest keeping Beastie as a mascot. Look at linux, everyone knows the linux penguin, but that doesnt stop RedHat, Caldera, Debian etc from having professional looking logos. And I think most of us agree that the reason RedHat is more accepted then FreeBSD in the commercial world is not due to its superior quality, stability or heritage, right? Maybe their more professional looking image has something to do with it? ;) -- R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Bart Silverstrim writes: Um...methinks he was referring to finding your IP to crack your system since you just announced you don't update it... I've made a note of his premeditation. However, the system in question is not accessible from the Net. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Bart Silverstrim writes: Thank you for supporting vendor lock-in. Recognizing, not supporting. At any rate, what you're essentially saying is that you want to run a particular application so no matter what happens this is what you must have and use. Yes. Do don't even bother asking people who will suggest alternatives, because it's not what you want to hear. It's not a matter of what I want or don't want. I don't have any choice. That's business. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chris Zumbrunn wrote [02/12/05 1:53 PM]: Don't you think this Beastie qualifies as a professional logo? http://top.ch/sitedata/freebsd/beastie.gif He's certainly austere enough with that Roman nose. Gravitas. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:25:36 +0100, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Mather writes: As I said, that's why you'd contract with one of those outfits in the Vendors section. If they can do the job. Since they didn't write the code, though, they aren't ultimately accountable for it. I hate to burst your bubble, but neither is any other OS vendor ultimately accountable for its code. By that, I mean you can file problem reports or trouble tickets or whatever the phrase du jour is, but the company is ultimately under no obligation to fix them. (Also, if you read your license carefully, they don't guarantee the OS will work, nor are you protected against it destroying your data.) Even some critical reported bugs go unfixed for relatively long periods of time. (This is not to suggest that problems don't get fixed, but merely an illustration that when it comes down to it, you have no guarantees with them, either.) Just because a support/contracting company is not ultimately accountable for code they didn't write does not mean they can't put together a well-crafted solution that is known and tested to work within given client parameters. (FreeBSD's general adherence to POLA helps here.) MSCEs aren't ultimately accountable for Windows code, but they get hired all the time to fix things and build solutions, right? BTW, it is usually not realistic to expect an organisation to have all the expertise it needs to support those solutions in-house and on site. That depends on the size of the organization. I've encountered organizations that wrote their own operating systems. Sigh Which would make them representative examples, I suppose (note my use of the word usually)... And, with that statement, I'll confess that the laws of diminishing returns threshold has now been reached for me in this thread and I'll bid my farewell. The reason I posted in what is probably the biggest bikeshed of the year was due to one of your pronouncements that it was not possible to get professional telephone support when it comes to FreeBSD. I pointed out it is. That's all. I'll leave it to the various consultants that frequent the list(s) to argue the merits and relative quality of the service they provide. :-) Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. --- Frank Vincent Zappa ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 12, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Bart Silverstrim writes: Thank you for supporting vendor lock-in. Recognizing, not supporting. Every $ spent on a product is another $ supporting it. Do don't even bother asking people who will suggest alternatives, because it's not what you want to hear. It's not a matter of what I want or don't want. I don't have any choice. That's business. Rarely. You have no choice but to play Sims 2, eh? Business...some people find alternatives that can read more than one format. http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=lh But like I said...you don't want to seek a change, so you wouldn't even want to look for an alternative. Maybe not everyone out there looking for information is in your position, so I'd rather let them find this post with some hope of finding something that may suit their needs rather than your postings of FreeBSD can't run insert favorite Windows-only application here, so don't even bother trying... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Paul Mather writes: I hate to burst your bubble, but neither is any other OS vendor ultimately accountable for its code. Actually it is. That's why companies tend to prefer support from vendors; vendors have a vested interest in making good on support requests, because they can lose a lot more than just a support contract if they fail to do so. By that, I mean you can file problem reports or trouble tickets or whatever the phrase du jour is, but the company is ultimately under no obligation to fix them. Vendors can fix problems; third-party support companies cannot. Also, if you read your license carefully, they don't guarantee the OS will work, nor are you protected against it destroying your data. Many of those disclaimers have never been tested in court. The notion that all a software company need guarantee is a readable CD is very extreme and untested; personally, I rather doubt that it would survive a test. It's hard to explain why a mere CD should cost $2500. MSCEs aren't ultimately accountable for Windows code, but they get hired all the time to fix things and build solutions, right? They are hired to build, not to fix. When things need to be fixed, Microsoft Product Support gets the call. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Bart Silverstrim writes: Every $ spent on a product is another $ supporting it. Incidentally true, but not always the objective. Rarely. Frequently. Many software choices and upgrade decisions today are driven primarily or solely by a need to become or remain compatible with other business partners. Business...some people find alternatives that can read more than one format. Sometimes there are no alternatives. Sometimes there is no advantage in looking for alternatives, since the usual choice is also the best choice. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
