Lots of replies since my last time here. I am lazy enough that I don't want to click that +Quote button a couple of dozen times so let's just do this usenet style:
> If that's all a reasonable description of your wants and needs,
Not in the least.
> But perhaps I'm mis-characterizing your viewpoint.
Very much so.
> Nothing of this has anything to do with code.
Yes, it does. I'm asking about compatibility, especially the compability of newer OS releases with old binaries and vice-versa. (That was absolutely all I wanted, but it got lost in the hate storm.) And multiple replies (until the thread was clearly no longer taken seriously) refer to ports. Ports are source code. What am I supposed to do when something doesn't build? Fixing code is way beyond all my capabilities unless any of those applications is written in shell script which a seriously doubt is ever going to be the case. I'm sure that some maintainer is likely to want to have a look at the problem if I'm building a recent app version on a recent FreeBSD release, but just as sure I will be told to go kick rocks in any other case.
> and while configuring you will gain valuable insights that often apply
> to other Unix-like systems as well, including Linux.
> Insights that will help you solve problems
I most definitely don't want to solve problems. The mere suggestion that there will be problems is off-putting enough.
> I do get the impression that LucNix and teo were just trolling.
Trolling is very absent from my list of potential hobbies. Then again, I can't seem to appreciate any of your replies. I find you one of the most unpleasant people here.
> We spend far too much time, here, worrying about people bitching about their own shortcomings
> in implementing FreeBSD or why it doesn't work just like some other OS.
No "other OS" works the way I want. I thought that maybe FreeBSD could be it, but now I see it isn't. That's OK. I checked, it isn't, mission accomplished.
> Spent more time researching "help vampires" than on the original issue
That only tells me more about what kind of person you are. I suspected it already. Don't worry. I do not intend to keep coming here.
> They were trolling for decades to have a GUI. As soon as one came along,
> they got bored and disappeared
I suspect they "disappeared" because the problem was solved and they just got busy using the thing the way they wanted. But it's just a wild guess.
Wait. No. They very probably just wanted to royally piss people off. Yes. That is a lot more likely. See? I'm learning!
> Theo de Raadt was probably correct in his statement...
Whoa. There should be something similar to Godwin's Law about bringing up Theo de Raadt in any conversation.
> ... It means you can keep the software clean and correct
Too bad Terry Davies is no longer around to witness the exploding popularity of his TempleOS.
> Because they cannot get themselves to work with a CLI.
I have a screen session with four or five terminals open every day. Sorry to burst your ego-stroking delusion that I am this very specific kind of stupid.
> imo it's one of the reasons Ubuntu came up so fast.
That IS true. I mentioned Ubuntu myself in one of my posts. In a very positive sense.
> both are good examples of absolutely lobotomizing functionality
Wow. Just wow.
> Qemu's GUI doesn't expose any actual features, other than perhaps turning the VM off and on.
That really sounds beautiful. I never realized Qemu was so awesome.
> Many years ago, a colleague gave a presentation. It was about an extremely
> complicated system (also an extremely powerful and efficient and fast system),
Oh, look! Suddenly KISS is not so cool anymore? Huh!
> The single largest cause of usage problems was human misconfiguring it
Yes. It's imperative that the underlying design never be blamed for anything.
> We had extremely good documentation (man pages, install guides, even books),
> and dedicated training classes, both for users, and for the vendor's support staff.
> In spite of that, bad things happened
Noooo... Bad things happened in a complicated design??? Who could ever see that coming?
> an empty piece of PC board, and on the left a big unsorted pile of resistors,
> capacitors and transistors. This was the traditional way of managing the system.
What, no valves? That's impressive.
> Now, if you have an appliance (like a refrigerator), you just plug it
> into a wall outlet, and it starts working.
Now, that's the kind of KISS I can appreciate.
> These days, you need a manual bigger than a 17-inch gaming laptop
> just to be able to use the the damn refrigerator
But I bet it has WiFi!
> The Hercules emulator is a really interesting challenge for this
What, Hercules? Those are some of the easiest computers in the world! You just feed it some data in printed form into a slot and it will give you answers to anything. I saw that on Batman.
> And the enjoyable attempt at a GUI here:
http://ollydbg.de/Jason/index.htm
That is a VERY nice GUI! Seriously. Stellar job. I am absolutely bookmarking that page.
> Windows provides perfectly here.
It absolutely did in 1995. Sadly, never again. Rather the opposite.
Relax, people. I know you hate me. I can take a hint. Thank you to those who helped me. That will be useful. Ta-ta.