networking that's already weird enough (with traditional em(4) and iwm(4)).
May be /etc/rc.d/* scripts need suspend/resume sub-commands....– an em(4) wired networking example. Sleep the computer at home, un-dock, dock it at work: wrong DHCP address. Basic stuff.
May be /etc/rc.d/* scripts need suspend/resume sub-commands....
(Above, I added a link to a related topic.)
I doubt a new user who is unable to read the handbook would be able download the install image to an installation media and begin the install in the first place.I disagree. We need a few desktop style #1 meta-port, desktop style #2 meta-port, and so on. Then simply pkg install one or the other. Someone with a good idea of what a simple desktop might look like should be able to cobble something together. The problem is that there are way too many options and way too many desktops available. Everyone will want to set it up their way and I doubt there will be any consensus of what the perfect one or two desktops might be. I'm hardly a good judge of that because I, an old fart who's been doing this way too long, am stuck in my old ways using CDE or other legacy desktops. And most people don't want to see or use that, though a few do.
I think something light such as xfce or lxde might be the best. The desktop installer port/package IMO tries to be all things to all people. It's too complicated for a brand new user with no previous computer experience. We need to keep it simple. The fewer the options the better, there's less to break or go wrong for new users.
The bigger problem is that a growing number of people seem to claim that they have a right on convenience. It's not that they cannot read or aren't able to understand. They just avoid any efforts.I doubt a new user who is unable to read the handbook would be able ...
I doubt a new user who is unable to read the handbook would be able download the install image to an installation media and begin the install in the first place.
Yeah! Shit life, shit job, shit tasks and shit attitude.They want to use applications to get sh*t done.
"The year of desktop FreeBSD" was 2015 for me. ?![]()
… PC-BSD addressed the problem. …
The mechanism exists but only /etc/rc.d/ntpd seems to have an entry for resume.Nonetheless, thanks for info about the new suspend and resume KEYWORDs in rc.d/ scripts to accomplish what bakul suggested and I blithely speculated about above.
What do you call a 17-inch, 6 Kg (12 lb) 'laptop'
Yes, these folks get paid for the sh*t. They make money.The thing is, people don’t have time for that; especially in production environments (ie. corporate offices, SMEs, production studios, etc.). They want something tangible and readily available to install and go. This is why macOS, and to lesser extent RHEL are sought after. They don’t to waste time and energy reading a handbook and mucking with a shell. They want to use applications to get sh*t done.
I question if the entire premise is relevant. If the development is being used in a corporate use case these developments can be handled internally. Or the above named alternative systems can be used if they are a better fit for the desired work flow. I don't believe there is a real need here for this type of installer. If so it can certainly be developed as needed. Otherwise it cannot be considered a priority.Yes, these folks get paid for the sh*t. They make money.
So you say, somebody else should sit down and make the install more convenient, for nothing, so that these can make more money?? Are you kiddin' me?!?!?
No, it's actually an old stance, probably from the times of BOfH: "What do you mean? Do you think we have time to read what's written on the screen?"I question if the entire premise is relevant. If the development is being used in a corporate use case these developments can be handled internally. Or the above named alternative systems can be used if they are a better fit for the desired work flow. I don't believe there is a real need here for this type of installer. If so it can certainly be developed as needed. Otherwise it cannot be considered a priority.
It is possible for some users the prerequisite of literacy is too much to ask. In this case a simpler pre-installed solution should be used. I do find the idea that a user would download an image and burn or write that image to an installation media yet be unable to follow a written guide regarding additional system changes hard to believe.No, it's actually an old stance, probably from the times of BOfH: "What do you mean? Do you think we have time to read what's written on the screen?"
Yes, these folks get paid for the sh*t. They make money.
So you say, somebody else should sit down and make the install more convenient, for nothing, so that these can make more money?? Are you kiddin' me?!?!?
No, it's actually an old stance, probably from the times of BOfH: "What do you mean? Do you think we have time to read what's written on the screen?"
Perhaps it's not practical that you use FreeBSD for your "desktop" tasks. I have found the setup of a FreeBSD system to take very little time even when using it as a "desktop" or workstation system. It does sound like you have a design in mind but you expect others to do the work for you. I would recommend you consider contributing your ideas to the GhostBSD efforts if possible. They do have a default desktop and a live system as well. You may have some input that could be valuable in their operating system.The point is for people to use it and get work done. That's the entire point of FreeBSD existing. Whether they make money or not is irrelevant. It's a utility, not some uber-nerd-shell wrangling cult. You do realize BSD was birthed from a University? People need to get sh*t done. Shipping a default desktop is not as ridiculous as you may think.
Expecting mere mortals to waste time engaging in basic desktop administration is crazy and dismissive... much like a BOfH. It's obvious you've never administered desktops in these kinds of environments. In retrospect, macOS may be over-simplified but I've had a way easier time fixing crap and receiving less complaints in comparison to Windows. I can only imagine the stress/pain involved if you were to put someone in front of a shell and asked them to do post-mortem configuration to get a desktop up. They'd look at you sideways.
Even in the 80s people were using NeXT and SUN workstations with default desktops. The stance will always be legitimate. The point of a desktop is to use applications, not to feel superior with pointless mucking with a shell. It's not practical.
Yes, exactly. Science. Increasing the realm of knowledge. The greater good for mankind. That's quite different from unpaid work for shops.You do realize BSD was birthed from a University?
No, macOS is perfect for these usecases. They did absolutely the right thing: start with a qualified OS, put all the demanded convenience on top of it, and then attach an appropriate price tag.Expecting mere mortals to waste time engaging in basic desktop administration is crazy and dismissive... much like a BOfH. It's obvious you've never administered desktops in these kinds of environments. In retrospect, macOS may be over-simplified but I've had a way easier time fixing crap and receiving less complaints in comparison to Windows.
As you say, people need to get sh*t done - but: why should I care?I can only imagine the stress/pain involved if you were to put someone in front of a shell and asked them to do post-mortem configuration to get a desktop up. They'd look at you sideways.