From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 25 20:47:49 1995 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA09116 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 20:47:49 -0700 Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (sri.MT.net [204.94.231.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA09106 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 20:47:42 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA12578; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 21:49:43 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 21:49:43 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199509260349.VAA12578@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports startup scripts In-Reply-To: <199509260138.SAA06487@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199509260055.SAA12300@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199509260138.SAA06487@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > Huh? What does the init stuff have to do with the desktop? Sean is > > arguing that by adding the extra complexity to init you aren't buying > > anything for the normal user. His arguement is backed by the fact that > > the average user is competent b/c Unix lost/doesn't have/never > > had/couldn't have/would like to have but didn't stand a chance on the > > desktop. :) > > The argument relies on the fact that a normal user doesn't use the > administrative utilities, but edits the files instead. Sure it is, given what I consider to be a normal user. > An easy argument to make, with no administrative utilities present, but > not a valid one. Until decent administrative utilities are present, it will continue to be a requirement of a 'normal' user. Don't put the cart before the horse. Nate