Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??

[Polytropon]

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 05:51:42 -0500, Jerry <freebsd.user at seibercom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:43:12 +0100
> Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> articulated:
> 
> > On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:54:46 -0700, Chip Camden
> > <sterling at camdensoftware.com> wrote:
> > > What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway?  Besides overhead.
> > 
> > Bloat. :-)

I was just kidding, but maybe you want a serious discussion
about terminology, well, no problem. :-)



> Bloat can easily be defined as something one user does not
> need/require.

As my understanding, bloat refers to the tradition, mainly
driven by "rapid application development", to stack tons of
dependencies and abstraction layers in order to re-implement
existing functionality in programs that ugraded some of their
main libraries. This usually goes along with a reduction of
accessibility or ease of use. Furthermore, resource requirements
increase, and overall usage speed goes down. Often this is
caused by stuff that nobody needs, because it is totally
UNUSABLE. This is bloat.



> Essential can conversely be defined as something a user needs/desires.

Agreed.



> In other works, your bloat can easily be another user's requirements.

At least I'm willing to admit that it *might* be that there are
users who require software that justifies buying a new computer
twice a year to keep them doing the same things. In conclusion,
it might also be possible that some users enjoy waiting times.



> If you are happy wiping your ass with your bare hand, then fine. Many
> of use prefer to use toilet paper which perhaps you might define as
> "toiletry bloat."

Don't they own a toilet brush? :-)

Okay, I'm getting serious again: The basic idea is having certain
requirements. Those requirements emerge from personal opinions,
experiences, and needs, and also from a growing amount of
expectations. That whatever fits those requirements is the ideal
solution. In one case, this can be KDE, in another case, this
is Windowmaker, and in a third case, this is SSH. There is no
way of saying "one KDE fits all" or similar.



> To answer the question, "What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway?", the
> answer is nothing. They have never even brought me a cup of coffee.

You need to install Kaffeine. :-)



> Now,
> if the user were to inquire as to what these two competing applications
> have to offer, I might suggest that he/she start by visiting the
> applications respective web sites for further details.

Even more imporant, it's worth TRYING them. In use - and see how
well they work. For example, I've been using KDE and Gnome in the
past, and even try them from time to time to see how they did
develop and if those requirements *I* have are already met.
There are also many alternatives in the GUI sector, and even
"split mode" is possible, e. g. use Blackbox as window manager,
but use some of the KDE and Gnome programs side by side.

THIS IS THE STRENGTH OF CHOICE.

Especially novice users do not want choice. They primarily want
something preinstalled and preconfigured. This is okay. The
PC-BSD system fits this requirement well. Still, you have to
make sure that certain requirement OF THE SOFTWARE are met,
e. g. recent hardware that is supported (not too old, not too
new). If hardware dictates what you can use (not just install
and run, but ACTUALLY use), then KDE and Gnome are often a
total no-go. Bloat, to come back to my initial statement, is
the main cause of no-go.




-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...