installing freebsd on windows
frank at shute.org.uk
Fri Mar 27 11:22:22 PDT 2009
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:09:52AM -0600, Tim Judd wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frank Shute <frank at shute.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:31:31AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:50:40 +0000
> > > Frank Shute <frank at shute.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 01:03:59AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >It's certainly not slow and messy here. I installed PCBSD a couple
> > > >> >of months ago after a few years of rolling my own desktop and I
> > > >> >love it. On reasonable spec hardware it runs very well, the
> > > >> >developers have done an excellent job
> > > >>
> > > >> of course. windows vista runs well too on overmuscled hardware.
> > > >
> > > >No it doesn't. It doesn't run well on any hardware because it's got
> > > >things like a file manager that is broken for all intents and
> > > >purposes. No virtual desktops, undocumented shell etc.
> > >
> > > Actually, it supports at least four that I know of. You can Google for
> > > the information.
> > Four of what?
> > Why do I have to Google the info? Shouldn't there be a copy of the
> > info locally?
> Want to download the Internet? Ok, as soon as 5 minutes pass from the
> download, your copy is old.
So you're trying to say that all local documentation is useless
because it's out of date after 5 minutes?
Sit back and work out why your statement is retarded.
> > I can google for unbroken filemanagers, documented shells, install
> > cygwin etc. but the software as it stands is horribly inadequate and
> > undocumented.
> > > MS Windows is probably the best documented piece of software around.
> I can see that perception.
That's right it's a perception - a wrong one.
> Depends on where you look though. Limiting
> yourself to one source (google) or another (MSDN) isn't wise, because google
> will give you real-world experience and help, whereas MSDN is documented as
> it SHOULD operate and RECOMMENDED practices.
MSDN cost money last time I looked.
> > Are you being sarcastic?
> I'm not.
I didn't ask you.
> > Where's the Handbook like FreeBSDs?
> Write one, publish it.
You're being bloody silly now.
> > You can read the source can you? I can't.
> > Maybe I'm just getting old but Vista documentation seems to be
> > scattered to hell and west over the 'net - if you can find what you're
> > looking for at all.
> Because not a single admin works the same as the next. People with Windows
> mindset will work in one way, people with Linux mindset will work another,
> and people with OS X mindset will work in a 3rd way, all unique.so
There's one recommended and widely respected way of working with
anything vaguely technical: read & grok it's documentation.
> > > What is it you are looking for?
> > Where are the documents for using their crappy filemanager? There are
> > some with what they call, exaggeratingly, their help system but they
> > are useless compared to any unix documentation. Probably there are a
> > limited number of ways you can describe such an excrescance as the
> > Vista Explorer replacement.
> Useless insults aside, there is a difference in the help systems for the
> desktop systems, versus the server systems. 2008 is a good mix, although
> it's not unix.
So you're saying you get decent docs with 2008 and not with the
desktop systems? If not what exactly are you trying to say?
> OS X 10.5, Leopard is certified unix, and still doesn't feel as natural (or
> useful) as BSD or Linux does. If you want to know why, let me know.
I don't want to know and with all due respect if I wanted to know I
wouldn't ask you.
> > Where are the manpages for their shell? They should at least have some
> > documentation that comes with the OS that lists and describes the
> > commands it supports. It doesn't.
> manpages aren't an Internet thing. It's not an RFC standard.
No shit, Sherlock. Did I say that manpages are an "Internet thing"?
> MS Windows has command line help, you use /? that works for most apps.
> cmd /?
So I want to know how the file manager on Vista works. Since I don't
even know what it's called, how does your nugget of information help
> > I'm looking for an OS with a sane file hierarchy and a shell I can use
> > to manage the files therein. An editor better than Notepad would be a
> > bonus too.
> I see the sense in C:\Users
> I see the sense in C:\Documents and Settings
> I see the sense in C:\WINDOWS
Tell me where the hosts file is? And then tell me how much sense that
> I see the sense in using CMD.exe -- after all, the dos box has been around
and it wasn't called cmd.exe then. Fail.
> An editor better than Notepad? MS Write. And then MS Office/Word, then
> OpenOffice. Somewhere there's Abiwrite. Of all these 5, only one is
> commercial software.
Those are wordprocessors not editors. None ship with the OS. Fail.
> > Extensive documentation on the machine is a must.
> Nope. That's a personal belief, one that isn't a "must". You're imagining
> things on that.
No, I'm not. Software without documentation is useless.
> > I've searched on google for documentation on the powershell to no
> > avail. All the docs as such seem to be available if you are a member
> > of MSDN - I presume so anyway, but for the general public they don't
> > seem to be readily available.
> PowerShell is still "new".. If you want documentation, MS Press makes a
> windows 2008 resource kit including a book called 'Windows PowerShell
> Scripting Guide' that's over 600 pages.
> Not all resources have to be google-able. Spend a few bucks and buy
> something that'll help you... it'll benefit you too.
When I bought NT4, I was recommended to buy a book called something
like "Windows NT Power Tools" published by Microsoft Press which came
with an additional CD of tools amongst other things.
That book cost me 65 quid and was the worst documentation I have ever
seen. Complete and utter garbage all 2000+ pages of it.
MS Press are a bunch of money grabbing charlatans and you are
recommending that I do business with them again? You're deluded.
> > In short, I gave Vista a decent shot (I quite like XP) but it was like
> > wading through treacle and I thought that if I am to get the best out
> > of it, I'm probably going to have to sign up for MSDN and download
> > vast amounts of "missing" software and spend inordinate amounts of
> > time on google.
> Books. Or get something like a Safari Books Online subscription and then
> start reading the info online... same books, online. Save a tree.
All your recommendations seem to involve spending (wasting) money.
Unfortunately, I'm not made of money and don't waste it needlessly
when I've got a choice of systems where the software and docs cost me
> > The cost and time benefits didn't seem worth it since I'm quite happy
> > with FreeBSD and there's only one Windows only application that I use:
> > AutoCAD; for that I maintain an XP installation.
> > Staying on topic, my advice to the original poster is to dump Windows
> > and use FreeBSD - it's better documented and you can either use WINE
> > to run your "must have" Windows programs or have a separate Windows
> > partition. With a bit of luck your Windows "must haves" will eventually
> > have unix replacements.
> On-topic? HAH! You went off the deep end. And Wine doesn't work for when
> you need NT Services and/or dependencies (such as .NET) -- at least, didn't
> for me.
And a guy in a nursing home is going to be using that garbage?
> And I am flaming you, personally. I understood lots of this was personal
> views and I offered my personal views as well.
> So fan the flame if you want. I've said my peice and now you can ignore me
> if you'd like.
You are what is known as a retarded troll. Now bugger off and spout
off your nonsense elsewhere until you grow up and learn to spell.
Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
More information about the freebsd-questions