From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 13:35:55 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CA6106566B for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:35:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1638FC08 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:35:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-143-131.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.143.131]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88EE3CAEE; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:35:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id p1DDZq7b004254; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:35:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:35:52 +0100 From: Polytropon To: FreeBSD Message-Id: <20110213143552.3051a05e.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20110213073801.65518b9c@scorpio> References: <4D550415.8060105@ifdnrg.com> <20110211185738.GB45708@guilt.hydra> <4D56799D.13036.2335C99A@dave.g8kbv.demon.co.uk> <20110213073814.GC57674@guilt.hydra> <20110213092353.GA58281@guilt.hydra> <20110213073801.65518b9c@scorpio> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jerry Subject: Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:35:56 -0000 On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:38:01 -0500, Jerry wrote: > "Bloat" is a purely subjective term. It's not. > What one user considers bloat > could very well be a requirement for another use. For example, while > you might consider it bloat to have drivers for modern wireless "N" > protocol cards, many other users have a real need for them. This would not be bloat in any regards. Bloat refers to software that raises hardware requirements (or also software requirements) for NO benefit at all. For example, a program that re-implements existing functionality, but does it in a way that the final result becomes much slower, more vulnerable to attacks or generally more insecure, would be bloat. This is a relation between what software provides and what it requires for that in chance. A term in relation is "overall usage speed" which contains things like system booting time, program loading time, time needed for interaction and so on. The corresponding equation would be software requirements speed = ----------------------- hardware resources which shows that if you increase both parts, the result will stay constant. This is the explaination why a 386 with 40 MHz and GEOS (Geoworks Ensemble) does not feel slower than a current PC with plentycore processor and tenmelonhundred Gigahertz and tons of RAM, running "Windows" and the MICROS~1 office suite. This assumes that people do the same things with both example systems, as they usually do (here: generic example of word processing). You can easily see that working (!) hardware support would not be bloat. In opposite, it would be very WELCOME to have support for wireless "N" protocol cards on ANY operating system. But there are reasons why it is NOT the case. This means that bloat is not specific to an OS. There are systems that traditionally emphasize the development of bloatware for their own marketing reasons, but you can also find bloated software on efficient and secure systems. > I have four PC present working in my home. Three are FreeBSD machines > and one a Win7 one. The Windows machine is essential, if for no other > reason than there is software that is just not available on a FreeBSD > platform. Or if it is available, it is of very poor quality. MS Office > is a perfect example. Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community has > spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor clone > of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable someday; > however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it can be > compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. Which ordinary people treat like a worse typewriter. :-) I can see that there may be fields where office suites have their right to exist. I've been working in a multi-OS place where Linux, BSD, Mac boxes as well as some "Windows" have been working quite cooperatively. The MICROS~1 office programs always caused problems, and as the systems were all given a OpenOffice installation, things magically worked. This, keep in mind, is just a very individual observation that does not claim to be applicable everywhere, just as yours. > Until the FOSS can write > applications that are not only compatible with, but as fully functional > as MS Office and similar software, as well as provide drivers in a > timely manner Just ask for the many different file format specifications for DOC files. You do know where you need to ask, don't you? :-) Honestly: If you need to open outdated or defective DOC files, there is always OpenOffice which achieves what the MICROS~1 program can't. > (and I am still waiting for Java to be updated to the > latest version so that it will work with the FreeBSD version of > Firefox, or for acroread9 to actually work and play well with others, > etc), Microsoft will always be a requirement for many end users. Many things you named work also on the Mac OS X platform which is also essential to many end users. Also note that Java and Acroread are just requirements for OTHER things, as they are tools to support other fields of use. THOSE fields are the ones creating the initial requirements (e. g. changing file formats, language specifications, arbitrary interface changes, and so on). > This is in no way a condemnation of FreeBSD, or any other open-source > product. It is just a simple statement of fact. Which is to be seen in relation to reality. > The majority of users, > despite what they may publicly proclaim, want software and hardware > that just works. That's true. But MANUFACTURERS do not want such hardware, as this is NOT the way to increase geowth. Just imagine you could sell a "just works" PC that "just works" three years. Good idea? No. Better sell a "halfway works" PC every year along with a support bundle. If it doesn't break by itself, do it in software: "Feature X requires software Y, but software Y requires hardware Z." The NEEDS of the majority of users is NOT in the scope of the manufacturers, or the majority would use web-bases services entirely by the means of their TV set (as a kind of terminal access system). This would FULLY be sufficient for them, and keep them away from most problems they have with "modern" hardware and software that "just works" (which it in fact does not). > I had installed an older nVidia GeForce GT 220 card in > an older PC and then discovered that there was no sound being emitted by > the machine. Wasting valuable time, I finally discovered that I had to > modify the "sysctl.conf" file. Crap like that should just not happen. This is the natural result of multi-purpose hardware. As there are more and more possibilities to use hardware XYZ, the system has to make those CHOICES it inherits availabe to the user. Of course, there could be a preset value, but it may happen that this value does not fit the needs of a certain amount of users, be it 1%, 20% or 50%. So what preset value would be good, or would it be better to let the user decide? Or should he be limited in what he can do with the hardware he bought just to keep him from being able to choose? > Things should just work. Yes, I agree, they should. More and more often, you find that they don't, and the more functionality an egg-laying wool-milk-sow can provide, the harder it is for a system to provide access to that functionality, especially when the manufacturer does deny the existence of that OS in particular, or existing (!) standards in general. There would be no need for thousands of incomparable drivers if standards would be used. But as I said, it is not intended: If the customer can just use a generic PS printer profile for his new printer, why should he install the bloatware DVD coming with the printer that allows the manufacturer to spy at how many pages he prints, when, and with which content? > If other OS's can accomplish that feat, there > is no reasonable reason that FreeBSD cannot attain that level of > usability either, unless its goal is to remain nothing more than a > hobbyist's toy. Erm... excuse me... do I understand your statement correctly? Honest question! You state that FreeBSD is currently nothing more than a hobbyist's toy? I may say - again a very individual standpoint - that I am using FreeBSD on servers AND on my home desktop EXCLUSIVELY since version 4 without missing ANY cool feature that all the "Windows"-kiddies are so proud of. What they claim to be doing today has been done by me yesterday already. :-) It's your KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE defining the value of the system you use. It's NOT the system per se. > For the record, I have never played "Guild Wars", although there are > many fine games available that are not available on the FreeBSD > platform. Not natively, as FreeBSD doesn't exist. Didn't you know? Only the web exists, which is the Internet, this has been invented by MICROS~1 and consists of "Flash". :-) Having been a PC player myself, I've played many games on FreeBSD that were made for other systems, without many problems. It's very true that you traditionally can't play the most current games on FreeBSD, but you can't do so on the outdated "Windows" versions out there, too, and I do not mention specific hardware requirements here. > And no, I am not going to blame the authors of said software > for that since they have an absolute right, well maybe not according to > the EC aka ECUSSR, but in a normal and free business climate to write > and publish software in whatever OS language they desire. I do not disagree with that. If the developer of a program or the author of a web page wishes to exclude me from participating on his content, it's his ABSOLUTE right. But: There is NO right to require propretary and even financially-oriented software, protocols, mechanisms or other stuff to participate on a free and standardized structure of services and contents that the Internet provides, generally spoken, like "you need a 'Windows' to get online". "Eat or die" is an abuse of market positions. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...