From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 8 15:30:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10226 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usr09.primenet.com (tlambert@usr09.primenet.com [206.165.6.209]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10218 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA15359; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:30:36 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199709082230.PAA15359@usr09.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Do you have some neat configuration files? To: hcremean@vt.edu Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 22:30:35 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <19970908180219.40521@wakky.dyn.ml.org> from "Lee Cremeans" at Sep 8, 97 06:02:19 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > [ ... ] > > > > > Any other suggestions? > > > > fvwm95. > > > > Graphical logins. > > > > Other Windows95-type crap. > > WAH, NO, ANYTHING but that! :) :) :) I think his goals could be stated as: "Better a Win95 user with a FreeBSD engine than a Win95 user with a Win95 engine." If so, having a "Win95 mask" for FreeBSD is the best way to achieve those goals. No one said it would be the default (but of course, if it was, a power user could change it, and the target "market" would have a hard time putting the mask on an unmasked system, so maybe it should be the default, if only the defualt install option selection). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.