Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:25:27 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <00bc01c17b34$d2bcd0f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15367.37543.15609.362257@guru.mired.org><040701c179af$4bda25f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15367.43943.686638.723011@guru.mired.org><003301c179ea$8925d270$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15368.2156.193643.17139@guru.mired.org><005601c179f3$a4030640$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15368.5624.255357.964607@guru.mired.org><008901c17a30$7d084f40$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15369.3159.548082.862287@guru.mired.org> <000f01c17ab1$1ac8c590$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011202002100.F18351@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew writes: > It gets me from Point A to Point B. That doesn't > mean that "better" would not be "better". It might be better, but you obviously don't need better, you only need good enough. And that's what you bought. > So, in other words, you have no desire to make > any task any easier/quicker/more efficient than > the absolute bare minimum you can concieve at > the moment. No. I have no desire to make any task any easier/quicker/more efficient than I want it to be. For example, Office 2000 probably has 1350 more features than the old copy of Office 97 that I run. It is probably a "better" product because of this. However, Office 97 is good enough for me, and since it is good enough for me, I don't need anything better. Some people--particularly the more rabid strains of computer geek--wonder how I can possibly survive with a five-year-old PC as my principal machine. I point out to them that this machine was the state of the art when I bought it, and blazingly fast. It was good enough. And since my needs today are the same, it is _still_ good enough, even though there are "better" machines out there (much faster, and so on). I originally bought a machine that would do everything I required, and since it did everything I required at high speed then, it still does everything I require at high speed today. But some geeks don't understand that the development of faster machines doesn't make my machine _slower_ or less adequate than it originally was. > See above mentioned "Bullkaka". Would you rather > drive a Ford Focus, or a BMW 750? I'll drive whichever is good enough for my requirements. I'm not very interested in motor vehicles, so that generally means whatever is inexpensive, safe, reliable, and economical. > Why would anybody want to drive a BMW? I've always wondered about that. > I run X on my workstation. Doesn't make it any > more 'insecure' than otherwise. Then why won't it run at secure_level=3? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00bc01c17b34$d2bcd0f0$0a00000a>