Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:05:06 -0800 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Manfred Usselmann <usselmann.m@icg-online.de> Cc: Zbigniew Szalbot <zszalbot@gmail.com>, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD and hardware?? Message-ID: <20081118230506.654b6a82@tau.draftnet> In-Reply-To: <20081118154009.2e3be393.usselmann.m@icg-online.de> References: <7f8a05a80811171609h2f5742cfo2ae003415a99e45f@mail.gmail.com> <20081118121634.S84157@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081118123147.GA96005@ei.bzerk.org> <94136a2c0811180444n51cae14bg70654bc7b93445f8@mail.gmail.com> <20081118141648.M84450@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081118154009.2e3be393.usselmann.m@icg-online.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:40:09 +0100 Manfred Usselmann <usselmann.m@icg-online.de> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:13 +0100 (CET) > Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > > > >> usage or need. > > > > > > You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be > > > here > > > > is someone that simply use unix an expert? > > > > no. > > > > > > > By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Windows replacement you > > > are > > > > and i will repeat it because it's true. it's every other unix > > replacement. > > > > as linux tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both > > low end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor". > > This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and > not very powerful. Compared e.g. with the old OS/2 desktop, which was > really powerful, flexible (and object oriented). How disappointed I > was when Win/95 came out being an OS/2 user at that time. From what I > have read even the user interface of Mac OS X is much better that > Windows although they have a much smaller market share. Anyhow, of > course you can fully replace Windows with a unix(-like) system and a > suitable desktop enviroment (e.g. KDE, Gnome, XFCE). It depends on > your specific requirements and if applications exist which do what > you need. But saying that GUI's under Unix are per se inferior is > just spreading FUD. Leave that to MS. ;-) > > Just a small example, how limited Windows really is: Even today it is > not possible to configure the standard interface of Windows XP (Luna) > in any other color than blue, olive green and silver. LOL. > I think the fundamental problem with the Windows UI is that it's trying to cater for both advanced (e.g Shutdown, Restart, Sleep, Hibernate or Log Off in Vista) and beginner users (Clippy, lots of wizards) at the same time. As a result it's far too complex for everyday users but doesn't have the flexibility that the really advanced users would like. An example of the complexity can be found in the mouse operations: it's taken for granted that mice have two buttons so Windows Explorer takes advantage of that: for most things you left-click but for others you right-click. I think even that's too much for a lot of people who can't memorise the rules for the different operations - and it's not for lack of trying! It's something that Apple got right: I find OS X to be incredibly limiting since right-click isn't a first-class citizen, keyboard shortcuts aren't enabled by default and it seems to be necessary to move the mouse a lot to get things done. However for most people it works perfectly and is so much simpler that they can learn it much better than they have Windows. I think that's where the likes of Gnome and KDE go wrong too, in trying to cater for two types of users at once and possibly failing both. I think beginners might actually be better off using one of the simpler window managers like Window Maker which have fewer items on the screen with simple rules to get things done. -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081118230506.654b6a82>