DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2004-12
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GoBSD.com

From: "Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:14:40 +0100

Jonas Sundström wrote:
"Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I never understood, and I will probably never will understand why my server in my server room 40 clicks away needs a GUI.

Webserving, instant messaging, voice-over-ip, or multi-track recording, while they have different expectations on the OS, they're not -that- different. A well built OS should be equally capable as either server or workstation. The lines are blurred.

I really hate it when I have a root exploit in a piece of software which didn't do anything useful in the first place.
But there are more reasons then security for keeping things simple, responsibility for example. Time is another, all things which are implemented should be documented and the way it is implemented should be documented too. It's a very sick situation if you have to install software with the sole reasons that it has always has been installed.

Sure the source of all could be the same, but at my site there _is_ a difference between workstation ,webservers and all other machines defined by there purpose. My workstations don't serve and my webservers don't work... eeeh I mean can't browse :-)

A server will always benefit from a fine-grained management tool such as the command-line, but if you're afforded a GUI (by hardware), why not use it too, or just leave it in? It's a good complement. It's not like a GUI is eating up a large amount precious CPU cycles, unless you have really old (or bad Intel) hardware.

Sure , I use Windows 2003 in a couple of places, can't beat the management tools of it, still I connect via remote desktop to the terminal service, after the thing is in the rack no monitor will be attached to it.
And this is the key to my writing, I have no need for a local keyboard and monitor except while installing the box, the rest should be remote manageable.

The OS should accept a video-card less environment. (which the BSDs and Linux, do) I would would also prefer the OS to use the available video resources to the fullest if they're available, if my desktop environment (or management panel, kiosk, etc) can benefit from it (ie, usability, not necessarily eye-candy).

Exactly my thought when it's in there use it when possible but don't depend on it.

Of course it's nice to have a GUI on my laptop, but IMHO a server doesn't need to be a laptop/desktop and visa versa.

Although it is possible and functional to use DF or any other BSD as a desktop system I always realize that it does not _yet_ excel in that position, where other systems like MacOsX and XP already do.

At least we're on equal terms with Linux, which, while not perfect, appears to be doing ok.

I tried a couple of them, but they don't "feel" like unix, all the bsd's in a strange way do. If I feel the sudden urge to do windows I'll boot into my XP partition or go get met a nice iBook.

MacOS X.. <cough> BSD </cough> .. well, sort of anyway.
I want a stable, secure desktop that can interface well with my server(s).

XP does this quite nice with Windows 2003.

I want a good, single API to code for.

Perhaps one day I grow wise enough to code my own stuff but in the mean time my interest are mostly in keeping my sites up and floating while supporting my users the best I can.

That's what I expect from BSD.

That's what I get from BSD <cut>

To put it down, I would like to see a GoBSD add-on package ,complete with all the blim-blim which is necessary to not scare away possible converts even before the install is done.

GUIs are not about eye-candy.. (bling bling?)

Yes indeed, bling bling is the right grammar. But I don't agree on the rest, white text on a black ground asking friendly:

Would you like to:
1) Read E-mail & browse the Internet
2) Use productivity programs
3) Use that special just written for this sector program
4) Go to lunch, brake, toilet, home (logoff) or insane (quit)

I just as or even more userfriendly then placing a bunch off icons on the desktop. Interaction Design has nothing to do with graphics but all with userbility. The emotional factor (this looks good) and the practical factor (hey this works) are all to often mixed by end-users.
That is the sole reason why many users have a workstation but seemed not to get any work out of it.


[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]