Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 18:35 UTC, submitted by troy.unrau
PC-BSD "PC-BSD is not a Linux distribution, but rather it could be considered among the first major FreeBSD-based distributions to live outside of the official FreeBSD. Like most distributions, it has implemented certain features in a way that attempts to distinguish it from the competition, and I will focus mostly on these differences. This test drive is intended to give an overview of what PC-BSD is and why one would consider using it."
Permalink for comment 249638
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: More things to think about.
by Bjorg on Thu 21st Jun 2007 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: More things to think about."
Bjorg
Member since:
2005-07-06

I may give you a car analogy that relatives your pill analogy:

I want to get from A to B, and I don't want to walk. I want to drive because my neightbor drives, too. I don't have a car. I expect my neightbor to give me his car for free. ...


No, my analogy is more like this: I know how to drive current cars, so it MAY BE cofusing having to learn a new way of driving. Yes, the pills one is funny, agreed.


"Install a program: 3 or 4 clicks, in every computer, not need to know more."

Yes, but only if you're lucky. Know that "Windows" does not offer accaptable diagnostic tools if something is not that easy and does not work by itself. Reality may teach you.

"(In Debian: Apt-get inst..? What?!! Do I need to type to do something? or WORST, Do I have to learn something? Look for repositories???!! What is that?)"

In PC-BSD: Browse though the PBI directory, download the package, doubleclick the icon - done.

In FreeBSD: pkg_add -r xmms - done.


That's way I say the PC-BSD approach is better for the common user .. .than the FreeBSD one.

No, you cannot tell for sure except you are educated enough to do network diagnostics (packet monitor etc.); in "Windows" you cannot tell what the machine is doing exactly. Furthermore, you cannot know about software's quality just from the shiny package it came in.


That's why I would like a better OS (Linux,BSD..) with the simplicity-in-mind approach of windows. Simplicity in mind because, as you also say, people don't care anyway. And I agree.

People don't care about the danger they are to theirselves and to others that comes from their lack of knowledge and - mainly - interest. They don't care if their PC is infected, if it serves as a sharing point for child pornography or if it's sending spam along the Internet. More than 90% of the Internet's mail traffic - mind the percentage! - are spam today. Any idea why?


Same as earlier, people don't care, so let's give it already done, but don't make them take the effort to learn somethign, because they don't care.


PC-BSD's firewall is preconfigured well. OpenBSD comes with all ports closed by default. If I need to open a service, I need to know how I do it. Why? Because it's my responsibility, not anybody else's.


That's why I consider both good OSs. Being PC-BSD ready for people who don't care.

"Wifi: Already running, or plug the USB device. (No need to find the drivers four your distro)"

Same on BSD or Linux. The drivers are included, you don't need to install something.


That's is only starting to happen now, and still needs polishing. But I wellcome the improvements, of course.


Just imagine how things change in "Windows" world: Location of settings, ways of doing things.


Yes, and I think that is happening with Vista, people will have to relearn something. That's one of the reasons Vista has got bad reviews, isn't it? But keep in mind I am not against innovation or the right to improve things. I just say the less you make think the people, the better.

And please: If you use the term "standard", be sure to use it wisely. "Windows" is the most used PC OS today, that's a statistical value (i. e. modal value), but it's no standards. It even does not support the usual standards for GUIs, printing, storing files etc.

There are many Linux distros around that try to reproduce "Windows's" look and feel. But why abandon the advantages window managers and UIs give you in UNIX and Linux? You know: Choice is good. PC-BSD defaults to KDE, a mainstream desktop system, but you can anything else you want to use.


I agree.

"If you want an average user changing OS you must achieve him/her having to read ZERO words, no manual, no instructions, a familiar interface."

Familiar interface? Which one? :-) People know "Windows" from their work. They want to have at home what they have at work. If the commercial use changes (maybe to a Linux + KDE combination), home users want to have this at home, even if they don't know what it is in fact.


The familiar interface is the most used interface, today is Windows. Not many people use an UNIX interface at work, statistically. Hopefully one day what you say will be more frecuent, good!!.

"Because the interfaces are there for that, and if you give me a headache I will hate your OS and will go back to windows, where I feel confortable and safe, with my dear viruses (recommending my friends that Nod32, is cheap and good, better that yours, and by the way I prove that I know that little about computers)."

NB the difference: to feel save vs. to be safe. "Windows" makes the average user feel safe, that may be true, but reality shows you that this is just a paresthesia.


Yes, FEEL safe, because as we know they (many, less and less each day, I want to believe) don't care, and don't want (have time) to care.

"Don't make me think, do make me think about the tool, becase the tool is there to help solve a problem, not to become the problem."

Know the problem, know the tool. See car analogy above. Add: Don't let my brain work, I don't want to get it dirty. :-)


That spirit you use is good. The spirit of improving each day, to learn something new each day, to be more productive.... now think in a lawyer, my other sister. Working hard each day about her work, trying to improve as a lawyer, updating the everyday changing laws, being competitive inside her workplace and of course at the judge. Tell her to learn how to use a new database of laws, that's ok. But don't tell her about learning Bash or how to set up a firewall. Understand what I mean. She is simply not interested in computers. She just likes that the computers allows her to work more productively, the computer is being a good tool. She doesn't enjoy the computer itself. (I enjoy computers, for me computers are also the goal, and inside my work, the tool too)

But please note that the average home user's expectations are different. He does not write memos, he wants to download movies from the Internet and burn them onto DVDs - and some more stuff you surely know. Some problems are easy to solve, but some simply are not. Complex problems tend to need complex solutions. This is where PC-BSD offers you the opportunity to solve them instead of delegating them to someone else as it would be the case in "Windows". "My sound card does not work, come here and make it work!"


I agree about the activities of the home user. The fact is that with windows (and Ubuntu) is not that difficult to burn a DVD, you don't have to open a terminal an "mount" any drive. So, again, we agree that the PC-BSD and Ubuntu style are better for the home user and the average user. The 90% of the users, so if we are talking about being mainstream, let's make things easy, and leave the command-shell for the hackers or lovers of computers, statistically, less people.


Too much beer is unhealthy, while 4% speed gain is not. :-) You've stopped talking about the work done with a computer, you're talking about what comes then. An interesting point of view. I hope the manufacturers of intensive care units do not follow this approach. "A routine to check the blood pressure? No, too complicated. Hey Bob, let's go drink some beer instead?"


lol, Did you know that a glass (only one a day) of beer or wine a day is better than not having beer or wine at all?

Edited 2007-06-21 19:57

Reply Parent Score: 1