Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??
perrin at apotheon.com
Sat Nov 13 21:59:56 UTC 2010
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:37:18PM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:48, Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> > Said employee _demanded_ a GUI-based application. The 'obselete' tool
> > in effective production use did not exist in a windows version.
> > Since said employee bundled all the formerly separate worksheets into a
> > _single_ workbook, *his* action, combined with Windows enforcement of
> > only _single-user_access_ to a given file, precluded multiple people
> > working on _anything_ in the workbook at the same time.
> Right, and this isn't a GUI problem - its a problem with combining the
> documents. What software allows multiple people to open and write to
> the same file simultaneously without trashing the file or losing data?
Git and Mercurial come to mind.
> > That wasn't the fault of the GUI environment, per se, it merely "facilitated"
> > the self-centered intrests of the above-mentioned employee.
> > "Top Management" was a bunch of idiots. they let him get away with this,
> > and more -- he moved 'his' workhook _off_ the company servers, and kept
> > it _exclusively_ on his personal laptop. His excuse -- that way he could
> > work on it 'at home', too. But the company no longer had a copy of _their_
> > production data.
> Indeed, so why do you include it as an anti-GUI argument?
I think it was more of an anti-anti-CLI argument.
> > If the program _itself_ isn't on a button or a menu item, you can't use
> > it from *within* the GUI. You have to go to a command-line to invoke it.
> > Got any idea how many executables there are on a MS-Windows system? and
> > how _few_ of the are accessible from the CUI interface? OH, ecuse me,
> > you *can't* tell can you, there's no GUI tool that would give you that
> > information. On my Windows XP box -- admittedly loaded with software
> > development tools -- the answer to the first question is that there are
> > over NINE THOUSAND executables that can be invoked by name. I estimate
> > that _less_ _than_ 10% of that number are _directly_ accessible through
> > the Windows GUI.
> Many of those are used internally by other programs - like libexec on
> FreeBSD. Also, many have been dropped from the Start Menu as a way of
> deprecating them or because exposing them would simply encourage
> people who don't know what they are doing to break their system (Group
> Policy editor, registry editor, ...).
> And my FreeBSD system has over 30,000 items in/under /usr/local/lib,
> all for a rather minimal set of software (Gnome, Firefox, a couple
> small ports). So Windows hardly loses this "game."
I think the point was that only a small fraction of the tools available
from the CLI can reasonably be made available from the GUI, because of
the incredibly complexity that would be added to the interface if the GUI
could directly access all of that stuff. I don't think the point was
that MS Windows has lots of executables.
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20101113/8d4ff3f6/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions