Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 07:24:33 -0400 From: Stuart Krivis <ipswitch@apk.net> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ExBSD Message-ID: <200105231124.f4NBOdT25968@smyk.apk.net> In-Reply-To: <014301c0e249$debd93f0$0300a8c0@oracle>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail-125296086-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 21, 2001, at 07:00 PM, Doug Young wrote: >> From my point of view (having done a few hundred FreeBSD installs) > there isn't much to pick from between Windows & FreeBSD installation. > The difficulty comes trying to configure X / sound / printers / ppp / > etc. > > There are two factors here ... firstly, the original use of unix > appears to have been as a research / development tool rather than as a > mass market desktop / gameplaying platform. Developers & other > assorted geeks will accept horribly user hostile things like vi, lpr, > X, ppp, etc, that certainly couldn't be described as "user friendly" > to non-experienced users. I'm not suggesting FreeBSD can be (or I find vi and lpr to be user-friendly. They do just what I tell them to, without having to wade through 6 levels of pointy-clicky things. There are far less surprises with unix than with some mass-market OSs. > should be) suitable for everyone ... there are even countless "levels > of enlightenment" within the faithful. I'm quite impressed by its > performance for webservers etc, but I couldn't imagine using FreeBSD > in its current form as a workstation. For those of us wanting > relatively basic functionality, X is a useless poxridden waste of > space, vi is an exercise in needless complexity, lpr is an extremely > messy abortion etc etc. > Whenever I have to use Windows, I miss X. But I am generally manipulating plain-text, so unix suits me well. vi is far simpler than almost anything else I can think of. lp(r)(d) itself is fine. The only trouble comes from the underlying setup. There are various solutions to that. It really isn't any worse than trying to get Windows or MacOS to print in many instances. Windows still wants to see local printers or else a printer attached to a Windows machine on the network. Getting it to print to any number of models of printers via IP is a hassle. Also, any printer that needs extra drivers or software leaves you at the mercy of the printer manufacturer. MacOS can be very easy, but I have watched Mac users struggle to get it to find the right printer out of several of the same model on the same network. It doesn't label them in the way you might expect. > Secondly, the traditional documentation was written by extremely > experienced users who had long forgotten to mention the countless > minor but critical points essential to someone less knowledgeable. Points like plugging in the power cord? Connecting the modem to the phone jack on the wall? I've run across a number of users who have been bitten by these problems. Where do you start? What level of complexity (simplicity) is useful for a given user? At what point does "user-friendly" become annoying and bothersome? Every person is going to have different needs. Some may not be served well by a system as flexible as unix. It's good that we have choice. I'd say that unix is best used by the "average"' person in an environment where there is at least one person who knows unix well. Hmmm... that's true of Windows and MacOS also. So much for the user-friendly approach. > Man > pages may have relevance to the former but are utterly useless to the > latter. Thankfully things have improved recently, at least the > handbook has & various other books / resource sites have appeared to > help fill the gap .... however man pages in general are still written > in martian / venusian / whatever & following the time honored > tradition of emulating "books with blank pages apart from chapter > headings". > To me, man pages like BSD has are wonderful. They tell me what I need to know without wading through a ton of garbage. But I use them as a "'ready-reference." > FWIW, my thoughts are that "task based" documentation would help both > newbies & "real world" sysadmins. People who are unfamiliar with the You're right in that task-based docs are valuable. They're just not _universally valuable_. Choice is good. There are times when I want one, and times when I want the other. > It may be that the present arrangement is the best overall .... the > experts have their preferred docs format in the man pages & everyone > else has the handbook / user-friendly resource sites. > Choice - what a concept! :-) Mac OS X is probably ideal in many ways because it gives you abstraction when you just want to accomplish a task without becoming an expert. But it also allows you to delve in and run things the way you want when you need that. --Apple-Mail-125296086-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 21, 2001, at 07:00 PM, Doug Young wrote: <excerpt><excerpt>From my point of view (having done a few hundred FreeBSD installs) </excerpt>there isn't much to pick from between Windows & FreeBSD installation. The difficulty comes trying to configure X / sound / printers / ppp / etc. There are two factors here ... firstly, the original use of unix appears to have been as a research / development tool rather than as a mass market desktop / gameplaying platform. Developers & other assorted geeks will accept horribly user hostile things like vi, lpr, X, ppp, etc, that certainly couldn't be described as "user friendly" to non-experienced users. I'm not suggesting FreeBSD can be (or </excerpt> I find vi and lpr to be user-friendly. They do just what I tell them to, without having to wade through 6 levels of pointy-clicky things. There are far less surprises with unix than with some mass-market OSs. <color><param>0000,0000,DEB7</param> </color><excerpt>should be) suitable for everyone ... there are even countless "levels of enlightenment" within the faithful. I'm quite impressed by its performance for webservers etc, but I couldn't imagine using FreeBSD in its current form as a workstation. For those of us wanting relatively basic functionality, X is a useless poxridden waste of space, vi is an exercise in needless complexity, lpr is an extremely messy abortion etc etc. </excerpt> Whenever I have to use Windows, I miss X. But I am generally manipulating plain-text, so unix suits me well. vi is far simpler than almost anything else I can think of. lp(r)(d) itself is fine. The only trouble comes from the underlying setup. There are various solutions to that. It really isn't any worse than trying to get Windows or MacOS to print in many instances. Windows still wants to see local printers or else a printer attached to a Windows machine on the network. Getting it to print to any number of models of printers via IP is a hassle. Also, any printer that needs extra drivers or software leaves you at the mercy of the printer manufacturer. MacOS can be very easy, but I have watched Mac users struggle to get it to find the right printer out of several of the same model on the same network. It doesn't label them in the way you might expect. <color><param>0000,0000,DEB7</param> </color><excerpt>Secondly, the traditional documentation was written by extremely experienced users who had long forgotten to mention the countless minor but critical points essential to someone less knowledgeable. </excerpt> Points like plugging in the power cord? Connecting the modem to the phone jack on the wall? I've run across a number of users who have been bitten by these problems. Where do you start? What level of complexity (simplicity) is useful for a given user? At what point does "user-friendly" become annoying and bothersome? Every person is going to have different needs. Some may not be served well by a system as flexible as unix. It's good that we have choice. I'd say that unix is best used by the "average"' person in an environment where there is at least one person who knows unix well. Hmmm... that's true of Windows and MacOS also. So much for the user-friendly approach. <excerpt> Man pages may have relevance to the former but are utterly useless to the latter. Thankfully things have improved recently, at least the handbook has & various other books / resource sites have appeared to help fill the gap .... however man pages in general are still written in martian / venusian / whatever & following the time honored tradition of emulating "books with blank pages apart from chapter headings". </excerpt> To me, man pages like BSD has are wonderful. They tell me what I need to know without wading through a ton of garbage. But I use them as a "'ready-reference." <color><param>0000,0000,DEB7</param> </color><excerpt>FWIW, my thoughts are that "task based" documentation would help both newbies & "real world" sysadmins. People who are unfamiliar with the </excerpt> You're right in that task-based docs are valuable. They're just not _universally valuable_. Choice is good. There are times when I want one, and times when I want the other. <color><param>0000,0000,DEB7</param> </color><excerpt>It may be that the present arrangement is the best overall .... the experts have their preferred docs format in the man pages & everyone else has the handbook / user-friendly resource sites. </excerpt> Choice - what a concept! :-) Mac OS X is probably ideal in many ways because it gives you abstraction when you just want to accomplish a task without becoming an expert. But it also allows you to delve in and run things the way you want when you need that. --Apple-Mail-125296086-1-- 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?200105231124.f4NBOdT25968>