From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 2 18:44:21 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A777E1065673 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:44:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rvm@CBORD.com) Received: from smssmtp.cbord.com (mx1.cbord.com [24.39.174.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683F48FC17 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:44:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rvm@CBORD.com) X-AuditID: ac1f0165-00000c74000004b8-75-493582390dbe Received: from Email.cbord.com ([10.1.1.100]) by smssmtp.cbord.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:45:12 -0500 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:41:43 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20081202162808.GA5851@kokopelli.hydra> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FreeBSD and hardware?? Thread-Index: AclUmtOGLld1YF7vRoetKGgX82W/OQADmJQg References: <20081121211828.GA9493@kokopelli.hydra> <20081202162808.GA5851@kokopelli.hydra> From: "Bob McConnell" To: "Chad Perrin" , X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Subject: RE: FreeBSD and hardware?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:44:21 -0000 On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: >> On Behalf Of Chad Perrin >>=20 >> On the other hand, both Unix and Linux have a long way to go before they >> can match Microsoft's ease of use on the GUI. I believe the best way >> to attack that problem is to find a new paradigm to replace the desktop, >> which is not a great interface model to begin with. >=20 > I guess that depends on your definition of "ease of use". In my little > world, "ease of use" involves the ease, efficiency, and speed of task > completion via an interface with which I'm familiar. It seems from what > you said that in your little world "ease of use" means "familiarity", > since that's really the major win for MS Windows interfaces, to the > majority of its users. Here are two simple tests for ease of use. 1. View a tree of files and directories, some local some remote mounts. Highlight a random group of those objects. Move the entire group in one motion by dragging and dropping the collection to a new location in the tree. 2. Do an SMB mount of remote directories onto the desktop or your home directory. Open any application and access files in that directory as easily as when they are on the local drive. I have not been able to do either of these on Ubuntu 7.10 or XFCE/Slackware 12. In the first case, I need to cut and paste the individual files one at a time. I can't even move a directory. In the second, I have been unable to get Amarok, vlc, xine or any other multimedia application I have tried, to recognize the SMB mounted directory. It is invisible to them. At the application level there should be absolutely no difference between a local drive and a mounted remote drive, no matter what protocol was used to mount it. The application should not need to implement smb:// itself. I am not even going to talk about how difficult it is to find and modify basic configuration files, particularly after the LSB crowd really screwed everything up. Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to redefine ease of use. Bob McConnell