From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 29 3:28:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from login-2.eunet.no (login-2.eunet.no [193.71.71.239]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC67614CA9 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:28:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) Received: from login-1.eunet.no (mbendiks@login-1.eunet.no [193.71.71.238]) by login-2.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.9.0/GN) with ESMTP id MAA18322; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:28:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (mbendiks@localhost) by login-1.eunet.no (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05095; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:28:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) X-Authentication-Warning: login-1.eunet.no: mbendiks owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:28:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Marius Bendiksen To: jack Cc: John Birrell , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Adding desktop support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Let's not end up with a system that any idiot can use, because > then only idiots will want to use it. This has just got to be the worst argument so far. The point here is for a user to still be able to go in-depth, if the user so chooses, but to make life easier when the user wants that. With your policy, you should go back to inserting instructions directly into the processor using In Circuit Equipment. The main argument around where I work, for not using unix, that is, is that it is text-based, and doesn't have an intuitive interface. To me, it seems perfectly logical. To them, it's cryptic. - Marius - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message