Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 20:24:35 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <charon@labs.gr> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <20011201182435.GC936@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <02b101c1790e$e802df90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011129115922.GA75539@hades.hell.gr> <02b101c1790e$e802df90$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2001-11-29 20:49:02, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Giorgos writes: > > > Why? > > Because a single-user system does not have the overhead of a multiuser system, > and it is more ergonomic as well. A properly designed multiuser system, should not involve much more overhead than a simple "login" step. I don't think that this is too much to ask, and that it is terribly less 'ergonomic' to use. From a user's point of view, a multiuser system should be identical to a single-user system, except that you are required to 'log into' the system and 'log out of it' when you're done. I think I'm missing your point, or that you did not clearly state it. > > "More applications" for what definition of "more" > > and "applications" ? > > More = larger number, applications = anything that runs under the OS but is not > part of it. The sheer number of applications is not a very important criterion. The level of productivity these applications allow, and how well they get the job done is more important to me. But you are right that there are tons of applications for Windows, so I'll pass this one. Yes, I see your point. > > For what definition of "secure"? > > Not crashing the system. Crashing is relatively unimportant for a single-user system, if it does not result in data loss. And a program may crash in a `secure' way (i.e. without leaving traces of it's running process image, when it crashes, that could probably be used for post-mortem analysis of the crash and reveal sensitive information). You most likely mean 'stable' as someone else has pointed in this thread. > > It needs to do stuff to the system console, that > > the kernel of the OS does not know (or does not > > care about). > > It should not be bypassing the OS. It's probably a fault of the OS that can not 'save the state' of the console, and allow raw access to it, 'restoring its state' when the program that malfunctions crashes. But this 'bypassing' is sometimes advertized as a technological advance in the Windows world too. I'm thinking of DirectX and Direct3D now. The way that X servers 'grab the console' and do nasty things to it has always annoyed me too. But I can't suggest an alternative, and I can't implement something that will allow X to run without doing dirty console hacks, so I tend to avoid using X on my machines :-/ You do have a point here... -giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011201182435.GC936>