On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:56:59 +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> PC-BSD is FreeBSD, pre-packaged with a usable desktop and its own simplified
> package manager.
If you're talking about PBI, that's what the "average user" expects:
You open a web browser (d'oh), search for what you think will be the
s
[snip]
> In light of this, I would really enjoy seeing a "Ubuntu" like movement
> in the FreeBSD corner.
> What I mean is that it would be nice for my mother to install and use
> FreeBSD.
> I am not saying that a Windows user should be able to feel right at home
> on a box running FreeBSD, but a co
> In light of this, I would really enjoy seeing a "Ubuntu" like movement
> in the FreeBSD corner.
> What I mean is that it would be nice for my mother to install and use
> FreeBSD.
> I am not saying that a Windows user should be able to feel right at home
> on a box running FreeBSD, but a computer
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> On Thursday 06 August 2009 09:43:47 Mark Stapper wrote:
>>
>> In light of this, I would really enjoy seeing a "Ubuntu" like movement
>> in the FreeBSD corner.
>> What I mean is that it would be nice for my mother to install and use
>> FreeBS
On Thursday 06 August 2009 09:43:47 Mark Stapper wrote:
>
> In light of this, I would really enjoy seeing a "Ubuntu" like movement
> in the FreeBSD corner.
> What I mean is that it would be nice for my mother to install and use
> FreeBSD.
[snip]
> To achieve this, there are two things that should b
>
>
> Many people's only familiarity with computers in general will be from a
> Windows centric perspective. Somehow there is a tendency to believe that
> inserting a CD, booting, and then proceeding to click "OK" in a dialog box a
> few dozen times makes them some kind of expert when they succe
Polytropon wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Personally, I do think it's a pity, because FreeBSD (in my experience,
>> since FreeBSD 4.5) is stable, easy to use (once you have the basic Unix
>> concepts on board), and astonishingly well-documented. It's also
>> supported by one of the friendliest and most knowl
Jonathan,
I'd like to thank you for your polite words. I'm not sure I could
have been able to express in the same way. Allow me a few comments:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:51:53 +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 August 2009 15:49:38 PJ wrote:
> > Well, whatever it was it sure screwed up
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 15:49:38 PJ wrote:
> Polytropon wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:58:58 -0400, PJ wrote:
> >> Could somone explain to me why an upgrade from sysinstall would
> >> overwrite partitions; especially when the instructions indicate that
> >> files will not be overwritten?
>
Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:58:58 -0400, PJ wrote:
>
>> Could somone explain to me why an upgrade from sysinstall would
>> overwrite partitions; especially when the instructions indicate that
>> files will not be overwritten?
>>
>
> I'm not sure how to explain. It's possible
PJ wrote:
> Could somone explain to me why an upgrade from sysinstall would
> overwrite partitions; especially when the instructions indicate that
> files will not be overwritten?
>
>
Dear Phil,
Ofcourse if you upgrade, files will be overwritten. Could you please be
more specific?
Greetz,
Mark
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:58:58 -0400, PJ wrote:
> Could somone explain to me why an upgrade from sysinstall would
> overwrite partitions; especially when the instructions indicate that
> files will not be overwritten?
I'm not sure how to explain. It's possible that sysinstall recreated
the slices a
Could somone explain to me why an upgrade from sysinstall would
overwrite partitions; especially when the instructions indicate that
files will not be overwritten?
--
Hervé Kempf: "Pour sauver la planète, sortez du capitalisme."
-
Phil J
13 matches
Mail list logo
