Easiest desktop BSD distro

[Jerry]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:07 +0200
Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> articulated:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:39:36 -0400, Jerry McAllister
> <jerrymc at msu.edu> wrote:
> > Just a nit here -- I would think of BSD as less cluttered 
> > rather than simpler.   
> 
> The definition of "simple" is individual, it depends on
> present knowledge and the ability of thinking (concluding,
> deriving, understanding).
> 
> Simple things SIMPLE, complex things POSSIBLE. FreeBSD
> utilizes this approach by providing small "units" that
> fulfill a certain purpose and that can be combined to
> do something more complex, instead of trying to build
> a "one size fits all" complex that denies the simplest
> choices. Sadly, such things are more common in software
> than you want them to be...
> 
> 
> 
> > Those that have all the extra built-ins with no thinking required
> > tend to be more complicated, not simpler.  They just cover it up
> > by allowing fewer choices -- as you imply above.  
> 
> A good preconfiguration does help. If common tasks are
> already well prepared, built-ins can be very helpful.
> Instead, you often find a "pile of garbage" in software
> that you're forced to pick what you intend to use, always
> hoping it will work as intended. If problems occur and
> you want to diagnose what's wrong - well, big problem.
> As nobody thought of doing so, you don't have the option
> to diagnose anything.
> 
> Is THAT simple? I don't think so.
> 
> 		+----------------------------+
> 		|                            |
> 		|      An error occured!     |
> 		|                            |
> 		|     (Yes)   (No)   (All)   |
> 		|                            |
> 		+----------------------------+
> 
> :-)
> 
> The often called attribute "simple" does take the opportunity
> to LEARN. As it has been initially mentioned, the OP wants
> to learn BSD. So how can anybody learn if there is no way to
> do so, because the "simple" concept states: You'll do it THAT
> way. You can't do it differently. If it doesn't work, it doesn't
> work. Period. Reboot and try again.
> 
> There's also the belief (as in church) that certain systems
> or programs are simple because WHEN problems occur, they are
> ignored, or solving them is delegated to somebody else who
> has the knowledge and experience to do so. For the user, the
> mystic "It's so simple, it does anything on its own!" prevails
> and gets communicated to others, although it's just wrong.
> Aggressive advertising also uses this approach. After all,
> I'll repeat my statement: PCs are not simple. Face it, it's
> a fact. :-)

Your approach to the problem neglects to factor in each individual's own
level of expertise and desires.

Example: there are millions of cars and drivers in the world. Now, how
many of those drivers truly want to do more than drive their vehicle
from point A to point B unencumbered by the nuances of their vehicle?
Now, if an individual wants to learn to be a class 1 mechanic, that is
fine; however, requiring it to just operate a vehicle is absurd.

When I was a kid, I use to tear down motors and rebuild them for
competition racing. Today, I won't even waste my time changing the oil
on my own car. I don't have the time to waste and I can easily afford
to have others who want to do that for a living attend to it.

-- 
Jerry ✌
FreeBSD.user at seibercom.net

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________