Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:17:45 -0500 From: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net> To: "FreeBSD Questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Re[2]: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD Message-ID: <00e501c16301$811c09a0$6600000a@columbia> In-Reply-To: <008b01c162cb$502771d0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:50 AM > To: FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD > > Ted writes: > > > Under UNIX the console is a console driver, and a login > > process. > > Under NT the console GUI is a pluggable subsystem (although it is > the only such > subsystem ever written for NT, as far as I know). Hmm... coming from someone that's just a "clueless young male on the Internet who bash Microsoft gratuitously because it is the fashionable thing to do, or because they are ruled by emotion rather than intellect", you should do some research. I've replaced the GUI in 95, 98 and NT before. Little program called LiteStep. But, I guess you've never heard of such a thing. Also, it's not the only one that's capable of doing this. But, alas, I don't think you'd want to get rid of the "beautiful" GUI look-and-feel of your precious Windows NT. Some of us realize that there are better designed GUIs out there and don't care for the "one size fits all" mentality from our "friends" in Redmond. > > But, all Solaris versions I've installed all came up > > with a default of a graphical login to a graphical console. > > My mistake, then. Another reason I'm glad I didn't pick Solaris. *takes a deep breath, having been a Solaris admin since 93* > > The command-line Windows UI is not used by 99.999% > > of all Windows programs out there ... > > Rather like the X Windows interface in UNIX, in other words. WHAT? What planet are you on?!? 1/10000 th of the software for "Unix" is written for X Windows? Uh-huh... and if you believe that, I'll make you a wonderful deal on some ocean front property in Montana. > > It's not intended for ordinary users to use > > anymore, and few to none user programs make use of it. > > I use it every day, as do many other engineers of whom I know. > Some things are > easier to do as commands; and some things can't be done any other way. When simple things can be done easier with a command line as opposed to a GUI, what does that say about an OS that relies on that GUI? I'd like to thank you for just shooting yourself in the foot there. > > For starters FreeBSD is not UNIX because it hasn't > > paid the fee to TOG to be able to use the trademark. > > I'm referring to the OS, not the trademark, but thanks for the > information (I > have often wondered why so many systems that are obviously UNIX are not so > called). > > So is Solaris a UNIX system in this restricted legal sense? Ask Scott McNealy. I get the feeling he might know. 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?00e501c16301$811c09a0$6600000a>