Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:46:54 -0800
From:      gummibear@we.mediaone.net
To:        freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Unix Desktop
Message-ID:  <3.0.1.32.19981224204654.0069def4@we.mediaone.net>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981225134447.007ce250@qd.com.au>
References:  <3.0.1.32.19981224133345.006990d4@we.mediaone.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:44 PM 12/25/98 +1100, The Shuzza Man wrote:
>At 13:33 24/12/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>>Anyways, I still have alot to learn about the system and how it works.
>>Mostly I think I should really get into C programming to fully understand
>>how it functions internally.
>Very good idea. I think the computer industry has been set back by the need
>to build totally user friendly operating systems and applications that
>hopefully run without the user knowing a thing about whats going on. The
>beauty of Freebsd is that you have the opportunity to snoop around in the
>source code if you get a problem instead of having to call a tech support
>number and have them tell you to reinstall! Ive had Windows apps crash on
>me, reinstalled them and they work again for a while. This doesn't tend to
>happen with FreeBSD. If something crashes, it does it for a good reason and
>it needs to be fixed!
>If you're going to use an operating system like FreeBSD, you are selling
>yourself short by not knowing how to look at the code.

Well I just got done with a C programming class at the local community
college but I really don't feel like I learned anything.  I got excellent
scores on my exams, but I still don't feel like a guru yet.  Besides, the
instructor hardly had any homework for us to do, and it was mostly DOS
based C programming which really sucked.

>
>>
>>I mostly use my system as a Desktop alternative to Windows 95.  Windows 95
>>may have alot of internal problems and stability problems, but the
>>interface really isn't that bad.  Everything seems to look and work well
>>together, such as icons, menus, toolbars that dock along the side, etc.  As
>>far as appearance goes, it all seems to lookg good (although sometimes it
>>doesn't work so great).
>>
>This goes back to the industries current unspoken rule: If you can't make
>it good, at least make it look good. Sure it's a totally unreliable,
>unsecure piece of junk but hey look at all the pretty buttons. Good looks
>don't make the O/S.
>

Well, let's make a new rule stating: Make the OS look GREAT and work BETTER
than it looks! :)  How's that for an idea?

>
>>On the other hand, on my X desktop I've used KDE and WindowMaker and both
>>are pretty nice.  Window Maker has the cool Next-like look and feel. It
>>looks nice and keeps it's Unix attitude.  It also doesn't take a whole lot
>>of memory to run, which is really nice!!  KDE makes the system usable to MS
>>Windows users, and it all keeps a good level of interface standardization
>>(ala KDE style) and it has alot of neat applications of it's own.  It seems
>>to look like OS/2, Windows 95, and MacOS all roled into one.  Only problem,
>>it's a resource hog.
>>
>>Lately, I have basically evaluating the X Windows system, and I just can't
>>figure out why it hasn't been made any easier for average users.  I can't
>>figure out why antialiased fonts (such as true type fonts) haven't been
>>made the standard.  I can't figure out why there hasn't been a solution to
>>the problem of not having a standardized Interface (or a few standardized
>>interfaces to choose from when developing applications or whatever - choice
>>isn't a bad thing).  I can't figure out why the standard X libraries and
>>widget set hasn't been given the 90's look and feel (ala qt libraries).
>Xfree86 is free.
>A lot of hard working people put a lot of hours into it because they
>believe in what they are doing. The windows gui is built to offer no
>customization so hopefully stupid people won't break it. It just doesn't
>work that way. There are several Commercial X servers available that have
>theyre own customization built in so you don't have to do anything. I Think
>you'll find as a general rule, anything in Freebsd tends to be hard at
>first but once you have a go, read some documentation and fool around with
>it, It becomes a lot easier to work with than windows based stuff. This is
>because you REALLY know whats going on. You have a full grasp of the
>situation rather than just fumbling with a few menus and buttons.
>

Customization is great!  I like playing with settings and all, but for a
long time I didn't mess with the default setting in KDE because it all
worked how I needed it to work, and more importantly, it worked how I
expected it to work.  Then I got bored with how it looked and changed it
around a little but nothing dramatic.

>>I guess my biggest gripe is the font thing, because my girlffried keeps
>>bitching about it.  She does alot of work in photoshop using true type
>>fonts.  I know there are true type font servers for X windows, but she like
>>the ability to easily install and delete fonts with a click of a mouse
>>button and having the system do it's magic automatically.  And that's what
>>keeps me from getting Windows 95 once and for all.
>
>You have to Remember FreeBSD is the best Network Operating system available
>today.
>It's not strictly designed to be a desktop but this doesn't mean that it
>can't be used for that purpose! It is incredibly customizable and it's this
>flexibility that makes it great.
>I dont think drag 'n' drop fonts are a huge concern. Read some old mail
>from the archive, check out some documentation and you may find it can do a
>lot more than you expected.

I have to agree....FreeBSD is great.  I really like it better than Linux
(and Windows 3.x/95 for that matter), although I wished it has as much
support as Linux and Windows.  Then that would rule!

>
>>Well actually that's one reason I don't get rid of windows. She also likes
>>AOL Instant Messager so she can keep in contact with her family.  The tcl
>>version seems to need some work.  I don't know anything about the java
>>version to evaluate it.
>
>Really?
>I found it very very easy to install and use.
>What sort of problems did you have?
>
I don't quite remember, but I think it crashed a couple of times or it did
something funny.  I'm not sure what version it was that I was playing with.
 I really wasn't paying attention since it wasn't meant for my personal
use. :/

Joey

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.1.32.19981224204654.0069def4>