Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:33:30 -0700 From: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I'm leaving Message-ID: <3B01767A.1C24A9D7@acuson.com> References: <002b01c0db54$e0febaa0$5599ca3f@disappointment> <20010513171444.E26123@welearn.com.au> <00f401c0db7e$ff3ca2a0$fe00a8c0@kat.lan> <20010513122623.I97034@lpt.ens.fr> <20010513033434.A54250@xor.obsecurity.org> <3B001679.3172B050@acuson.com> <3B00E4F6.10DC397D@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > This is really insufficient, I think. Okay, you pushed by hot button... If you desire a default GUI desktop preconfigured for newbies, to be standard on each and every install, then you have to start somewhere. In the mean time, it may be prudent to consider that some folks don't want a standard default desktop, let alone one preconfigured for newbies. > Unfortunately, you can't replace the entire install > process and cut your own CDROMs, and still call it > FreeBSD, according to the trademark holders. No one (I think) was suggesting anything like this. The closest suggestions were to improve what was already there. Using a port is still operating within "the system". No one needs to burn their own newbie-CDs. Going up to the core team and saying "we want you to change x, y and z, is doomed to failure. However, getting a port committed is easy. Then you can go up to the core team and say "we want you to change just x because y and z are already on the CD". Presumably "x" would be another option in the "choose desktop" menu. > Having to grovel in the bowels of the packaging system > is a non-starter: if I have to go through all the > partitioning and other crap, or I boot to a non-graphical > login, well, you've already lost me, if I'm Joe Average > User... Joe Average doesn't have to do any of that crap for Windows, because his computer manufacturer has done it for him already. His idea of "installation" is handing his credit card over to the cashier. FreeBSD is already *easier* to install than Windows. It only seems harder because it doesn't come preinstalled with your new machine. Speaking of partitioning, compare the FreeBSD fdisk to the Windows fdisk... And there have been many times when I wished Windows had a non-graphical login. Like those times that Windows won't boot up because the video isn't configured right, and I can't configure the video right because I can't boot up Windows... The biggest attraction of FreeBSD and other unices is the control the user has over the system. Much of this control comes through choice. If you eliminate this choice you destroy the control, and FreeBSD loses it's attraction. If KDE is to be the mandatory desktop, then the GNOME user has to go through the completely pointless process of uninstalling KDE (if it's even possible) or keeping it around just to take up space. And vice versa. And why should those wanting a firewall have to endure KDE/GNOME/QT/GTK/X11? It is sufficient for sysinstall to ask me if I want X11, and then if I answer 'yes' to ask me what desktop/wm I want. This is how the process currently works. The original posting on this subject (at least how I interpreted it) was: 1) make a non-mandatory default desktop if no other desktop was chosen, and 2) add icons and menu items to the desktop packages that point to the FreeBSD documentation. The first is a decision to be made by the core team. The second can be done by anyone by submitting a port. In fact, now that I think about it, you could call this port "freebsd-desktop", and it would add FreeBSD specific icons and menu items to any installed desktop that it detects. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B01767A.1C24A9D7>