Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:06:58 +0930 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: FreeBSD LIST <FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.Org> Subject: Re: What do we need in a FreeBSD desktop? (was: Peter heads back to M$FT WinBloze [support groups]) Message-ID: <20020731033658.GL17787@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20020729102059.GA73294@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> References: <00d301c23504$9bbe0c60$0a01a8c0@mswolf> <20020726210341.N20468-100000@earl-grey.cloud9.net> <20020728023016.GA51076@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20020729102059.GA73294@freepuppy.bellavista.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 29 July 2002 at 12:20:59 +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:00:16 +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > >> The real problem I have is knowing which of the over 7,000 ports you >> want to install to get "basic" desktop functionality. > > yes. and this is the problem with stuff like your > instant-workstation port. you can't please everyone, and i dare > to say that any such thing will only please a tiny minority of > people. This is like saying that people won't use Microsoft because it pleases only a tiny minority of people. > probably the reason you haven't got much feedback on the port. No, the reason I haven't had much feedback is almost certainly because nobody knows about it. That's the problem I mention above. >> 2. "instant" is a misnomer, at least if you build from source. I'm >> building on a Dell Inspiron 7500 with a 600 MHz processor, and it >> takes over 12 hours. > > as suggested by someone else before, it could use packages where > possible, Yes, of course it does, but you still need to have the ports. The instant-workstation port itself really is pretty instantaneous.. > but that would make it fall out of the ports system pretty much. Why? >> 3. Once it's built, it works "out of the box". I've installed the >> XFree86 4 port, and installation is really nothing more than this: >> >> # X -configure >> # mv /root/XF86Config.new /etc >> # echo exec kdestart > ~me/.xinitrc >> >> You can then run startx or xdm and end up in a relatively complete >> kde environment. > > this still makes it lag behind most of linux distros in terms of > "ease of use". the (new) user still has to know to perform these steps. > note that i don't care. i don't use linux for a reason. A valid point. I could add that to the port. >> My questions to you: is there anything missing? > > inevitably, yes. plus there are things *i* don't use on that list. > shell, for example. i don't use bash. if you want to make the port > attractive for me, you have to let me choose my favorite shell. Nobody's stopping you. You can override anything in the port. That's what the Ports Collection is for. But this port is addressing a different kind of user. > if, however, i have to select a shell, i can >> (cd /usr/ports/shells/chooseone && make install clean) > just as well. same with the other software. Of course. But that's not the point. >> Has anybody tried instant-workstation? I'd be interested in >> suggestions about how to improve it. > > you could perhaps abstract the installed software away into software > categories similar to the /usr/ports directory: > > which shell do you want to use? (ash bash tcsh ksh zsh): > which browser do you want to use? (...): That assumes you understand the questions and can decide which is the one for you. > a big boon would be a possibility to configure the ports from > here. that would probably require a change to the ports system: > right now you can only tell what knobs a port features by > reading the Makefile. That's a separate, but valid, problem. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020731033658.GL17787>