Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 01:53:16 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> Cc: freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I'm leaving Message-ID: <3B023FFC.A1EC1F0C@mindspring.com> References: <002b01c0db54$e0febaa0$5599ca3f@disappointment> <20010513171444.E26123@welearn.com.au> <00f401c0db7e$ff3ca2a0$fe00a8c0@kat.lan> <20010513122623.I97034@lpt.ens.fr> <20010513033434.A54250@xor.obsecurity.org> <3B001679.3172B050@acuson.com> <3B00E4F6.10DC397D@mindspring.com> <3B01767A.1C24A9D7@acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Johnson wrote: > > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > This is really insufficient, I think. > > Okay, you pushed by hot button... > > If you desire a default GUI desktop preconfigured for newbies, > to be standard on each and every install, then you have to > start somewhere. In the mean time, it may be prudent to consider > that some folks don't want a standard default desktop, let alone > one preconfigured for newbies. Yeah; we already have those weenies in our market segment; we don't need to care about capturing them, we need to capture the people we _don't_ have. > > Unfortunately, you can't replace the entire install > > process and cut your own CDROMs, and still call it > > FreeBSD, according to the trademark holders. > > No one (I think) was suggesting anything like this. The > closest suggestions were to improve what was already there. I _am_ suggesting that... other people have suggested it in the past. > Using a port is still operating within "the system". No one > needs to burn their own newbie-CDs. Operating "within the system" is not useful to those users we are interested in capturing. > > Having to grovel in the bowels of the packaging system > > is a non-starter: if I have to go through all the > > partitioning and other crap, or I boot to a non-graphical > > login, well, you've already lost me, if I'm Joe Average > > User... > > Joe Average doesn't have to do any of that crap for Windows, > because his computer manufacturer has done it for him already. Exactly. > His idea of "installation" is handing his credit card over > to the cashier. FreeBSD is already *easier* to install than > Windows. It only seems harder because it doesn't come > preinstalled with your new machine. Again, exactly. Preinstallation is the competition; therefore it must be as easy to install FreeBSD as it is to use a Windows "recovery CD". > Speaking of partitioning, compare the FreeBSD fdisk to the > Windows fdisk... The Windows one is graphical, and makes it practically impossible to trash Windows itself. Otherwise, we should be talking "Partition Magic"... which comes with the FreeBSD package sold by Walnut Creek these days, BTW. And yet it still runs only under Windows. > And there have been many times when I wished Windows had > a non-graphical login. You mean like holding down the function key during boot, and booting to a command shell? It works fine. > Like those times that Windows won't boot up because the > video isn't configured right, and I can't configure the > video right because I can't boot up Windows... Strawman. Windows will not set new settings unless they are confirmed by the user, and if the user can't read them because they are bad, they can't confirm them without really working at it (since the default is "Cancel". Even if they do manage to confirm a bad video setup (by hitting "Shift-Tab" folowedby "Enter"), they can boot into standard VGS mode once again at the boot prompt by holding down the function key, and selecting that option from the resulting menu. Compare that to XFree86 setup in FreeBSD... what are the "modelines" for _your_ monitor? > The biggest attraction of FreeBSD and other unices is the > control the user has over the system. Much of this control > comes through choice. If you eliminate this choice you > destroy the control, and FreeBSD loses it's attraction. If > KDE is to be the mandatory desktop, then the GNOME user > has to go through the completely pointless process of > uninstalling KDE (if it's even possible) or keeping it > around just to take up space. And vice versa. And why > should those wanting a firewall have to endure > KDE/GNOME/QT/GTK/X11? > > It is sufficient for sysinstall to ask me if I want X11, and > then if I answer 'yes' to ask me what desktop/wm I want. First of all, it's obvious that you haven't installed any Windows software in a while, if that's your impression of it; Windows applications will generally give you a choice of "Default", "Full", and "Custom". If FreeBSD did the same, you might well get KDE and a graphical login, after selecting "Default". This would not take the control away from you to select "Custom" instead: it would merely make the average user experience better, and make you select one more menu item out of the many dozens you will traverse, out of love of control, or would traverse anyway, without being given that option. > This is how the process currently works. No, it doesn't. X11 is a pain in the keister, and is in there as a "distribution" instead of a "package". To make things even worse, that distribution is _not_ built when you "make release" to build your own CDROM image: it is very, very hard to start with the sources, and end up with exactly what's on a Walnut Creek CDROM release. Since this thread is cross-posted to -advocacy, I hope you won't "gloss over" the points people have made recently about the robusness of the project and the distribution issues that sparked, among other things, this thread. > The original posting on this subject (at least how I > interpreted it) was: 1) make a non-mandatory default > desktop if no other desktop was chosen, and 2) add icons > and menu items to the desktop packages that point to the > FreeBSD documentation. The first is a decision to be made > by the core team. The second can be done by anyone by > submitting a port. See the "Subject:" line; the original posting was by someone who was giving up on FreeBSD because it was too difficult for a new user to comfortably install, and feel that they were doing the right things and picking the right options. > In fact, now that I think about it, you could call this > port "freebsd-desktop", and it would add FreeBSD specific > icons and menu items to any installed desktop that it > detects. I think that the target audience for such a port is _precisely_ the group of people you would see _never_ using it, because they couldn't find the thing, and because FreeBSD's installation system is rather an overwhelming quagmire, for a new user. It would be exactly like throwing a party for all the people you know, and only sending out the invitations in Turkish (or Japanese, if you happen to be in Turkey); no one would be able to show up, even if it was the best party ever. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B023FFC.A1EC1F0C>