Re: GoBSD.com

["Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
<cut>
> 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.
<cut>

--
mph