freebsd as a desktop ?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Bara Zani

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 9:04:00 AM11/28/01
to
Ok , I am not starting a flame/holy war here !!!
this is purely out of curiosity , so a reasonable answer is required please
, if you feel this is bul... than
I apologize and ask you to ignore .
for the sake of others please respond to my email address and not the list
and I will summarize .
and now for the question :
I use both Linux and freebsd as servers and am happy with it ( I'd take nix
over m$ any day ) .
I work for a primarily nt shop now and of course sometimes the nix vs. nt
question arises .
I figured that I'm all talk cause I use freebsd for servers but win2k as my
desktop .
so I decided to install freebsd and use it as my desktop client
now here is where I need your help :
I use my desktop for - email , web , mp3 and downloads ...
as for email - I figured I can use fetchmail for multiple accounts and pine
to read/sort in folders - but what happens with attachments ?
as for web - I have tried in vain to enable the java plugin on mozilla can
someone help with that ?
as for mp3 - what do I use ? I know xmms for Linux but for fbsd ?
as for other stuff - image viewers ( xv ? ) video files ( mpg, divx , avi )
also can I use star office with freebsd ?
any other personal experience for using freebsd as a desktop and server are
welcomed .
please email me and not the list and I will summarize ,
thanks
barazani

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message

Wayne Pascoe

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 9:12:29 AM11/28/01
to
"Bara Zani" <bara...@yahoo.com> writes:

> so I decided to install freebsd and use it as my desktop client
> now here is where I need your help :
> I use my desktop for - email , web , mp3 and downloads ...
> as for email - I figured I can use fetchmail for multiple accounts and pine
> to read/sort in folders - but what happens with attachments ?

Pine works fine for incoming attachments. Fetchmail basically fetches
mail from a mail account (pop3, etc.) and delivers it to an MTA
running locally on your machine. This MTA normally delivers to
/var/mail/$local-part or /var/spool/mail/$local-part

Pine, gnus, etc, fetch the mail from there. I've never had a problem
with attachments.

> as for web - I have tried in vain to enable the java plugin on mozilla can
> someone help with that ?

Fraid I can't help here: (

> as for mp3 - what do I use ? I know xmms for Linux but for fbsd ?
> as for other stuff - image viewers ( xv ? ) video files ( mpg, divx
> , avi )

Um, for mp3's just build xmms from ports. For other things try xanim
or xine, also from ports. You can also install the win32 codecs, but
I've not got those working.

> also can I use star office with freebsd ?

Yep. /usr/ports/editors/staroffice52

> any other personal experience for using freebsd as a desktop and
> server are welcomed . please email me and not the list and I will

The biggest problem I have is sharing office documents. Good as
staroffice is, on large documents it often breaks formatting. This is
not such a problem when reading files that people have sent me, but
when working on a document with other people, staroffice's output
filters often wreak havoc with the document for everyone else :(

The second biggest problem I have is web browsing. Be sure to install
some decent truetype fonts for your browser. Even with that, a lot of
sites don't work properly with various browsers on FreeBSD. Especially
banking sites for some reason.

I've been using FreeBSD exclusively as a desktop for about 8 months
now. Before that I used Linux. While there are things I miss, there
are more things I miss about FreeBSD when using a Windows box. The
only move I can see myself making on the desktop front would be to
Mac OS X.1

I post all replies to the list as well in case someone searching the
archives find them useful.

--
- Wayne Pascoe
| If you hurt her, I'll hunt you down
fre...@molemanarmy.com | and kill you with a shovel... A vague
http://www.molemanarmy.com | disclaimer is no-one's friend.

Ernst de Haan

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 9:17:57 AM11/28/01
to
Hey,

If you use KDE 2 as your window manager, in combination with StarOffice 6
(from ports), and both Konqueror and Mozilla 0.9.6 as browsers, xmms to play
MP3's, I'd say you have a fine desktop environment :-) I use this at the
office myself. If you want a few screenshots lemme know B-)~

Konqueror does support Java applets, but Mozilla does not yet on FreeBSD.
Keep up with the ja...@freebsd.org mailing list for the progress (if any).

Ernst

--
Ernst de Haan
EuroNet Internet B.V.

"Come to me all who are weary and burdened
and I will give you rest" -- Jesus Christ

Anthony Atkielski

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 9:47:58 AM11/28/01
to
Bara writes:

> I figured that I'm all talk cause I use freebsd
> for servers but win2k as my desktop .

There is no reason for you to feel that way. UNIX is a server operating system;
Windows 2K is a desktop operating system. You are simply using the appropriate
OS for each purpose. If this makes you feel guilty, it may be that you have
developed an emotional attachment to one or both of the two operating systems;
on that path lies danger.

> so I decided to install freebsd and use it
> as my desktop client

That was your first mistake. If Windows 2000 does what you require on the
desktop, there is no reason to replace it with FreeBSD. If you feel
"unfaithful" because you dare to use Windows on the desktop instead of using
FreeBSD on every machine for every purpose, you are replacing reason with
emotion, and as I've said, on that path lies danger. Of course, if these are
your own systems, it doesn't matter ... but if you are managing systems for your
employer or for others, installing one OS in preference to another just because
you feel emotionally attached to it is a very bad decision.

I'm sure there are probably lots of people out there trying to replace FreeBSD
(or some other flavor of UNIX) with Windows 2000 as well, and for the same
emotional or religious reasons. But Windows 2000 usually doesn't work quite as
well as UNIX for pure, generalized server applications, just as UNIX doesn't
work as well as Windows on the desktop. Understanding this reality is an
important step towards the attainment of perpetual IT bliss.

I use Windows NT as my desktop OS, and FreeBSD on my server. I see no reason to
change this, as both operating systems are now doing what they do best. Even
after using FreeBSD for only a few weeks, it is very clear to me that FreeBSD
whips the pants off NT as a server (although that didn't really surprise me),
and Windows whips the pants off FreeBSD on the desktop (no surprise there,
either). And note that I run Windows NT, not Windows 2000; since NT has always
done everything I require, I've never had any reason to "upgrade" to Windows
2000--and since I have no emotional attachment to any of these operating
systems, upgrading just to remain faithful to a religion is not a problem.

Anthony Atkielski

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 9:48:00 AM11/28/01
to
Wayne writes:

> I've been using FreeBSD exclusively as a desktop
> for about 8 months now. Before that I used Linux.

What motivated your switch from Linux to FreeBSD, and how would you compare the
two?

Do you also run a server? If so, which OS did you install for that?

Wayne Pascoe

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 10:09:03 AM11/28/01
to
"Anthony Atkielski" <ant...@freebie.atkielski.com> writes:


> What motivated your switch from Linux to FreeBSD, and how would you
> compare the two?

I moved my desktop because I was moving the server farm. I moved the
desktop to get familiar with the OS before we started server deploys.

> Do you also run a server? If so, which OS did you install for that?

I manage a farm of somewhere around 20 servers :) We used to use Linux
for all of them but we moved to FreeBSD.

There are quite a few reasons. Many of the cost savings, I detailed in
my speech A Business Case for FreeBSD at BSDCon 2001. You can download
the slides from http://www.molemanarmy.com/bsdcon/

Mainly it comes down to maturity. FreeBSD works for me in the
production world. We had _A LOT_ of problems with Linux systems from
2.2.15 onwards due to broken VM subsystems. The 2.4 kernel had been
very problematic for us due to things like software raid problems in
2.4.0.

On the whole, Linux still strikes me as more of a hobbyist OS. Look at
2.2.14 for a fun time :) FreeBSD seems to be more aimed at 'Make it
solid'.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I'm biased, I attained my RHCE as
an exam only candidate. So my first loyalty was to Linux. But I'm too
lazy to work as hard as I needed to, to keep Linux behaving. FreeBSD
has made my life a lot easier.

--
- Wayne Pascoe
| If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,
fre...@molemanarmy.com | riddle them with bullets.
http://www.molemanarmy.com |

Doug Poland

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 10:33:48 AM11/28/01
to
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 09:06:15AM -0500, Bara Zani wrote:
>
> so I decided to install freebsd and use it as my desktop client
>
I've been using FreeBSD for about a year in a Windows shop and you can
co-exist. I use windowmaker.

> I use my desktop for - email , web , mp3 and downloads ...
> as for email - I figured I can use fetchmail for multiple accounts and pine
> to read/sort in folders - but what happens with attachments ?
>

I use fetchmail to get email from my personal ISP and mutt to speak to
our exchange server configured to do IMAP. Mutt (v 1.3.20i) works fine
with IMAP. Mutt handles attachments and if you fill your .mailcap with
useful entries, then you can view word docs, HTML formatted email, images,
etc.

> as for web - I have tried in vain to enable the Java plugin on mozilla can


> someone help with that ?
>

I too, am waiting for latest Mozilla to handle Java applets. Until
that time, I keep an old copy of Netscape 4.76 installed.

> as for mp3 - what do I use ? I know xmms for Linux but for fbsd ?
> as for other stuff -
>

I'm a console guy that uses a GUI so I can have many rxvt terms going
at once. Anyway, I use mpg123 for mp3. Many of your X mp3 players
are simply front ends to mpg123.

> image viewers ( xv ? ) video files ( mpg, divx , avi )
>

xv is a good viewer, use gimp for editing. I use linux RealPlayer 8
for streaming audio/video

> also can I use star office with freebsd ?
>

Can't help with this but I'm *really* looking forward to openoffice.

Other tips:

Mounting MS filesystems: Install the smbfs-1.4.1 port. If you need
files that are being held hostage on an MS file systems you'll need
an SMB client. Note, needs kernel config and re-build. I've heard
you can do the same thing with some samba client utility but never
tried.

Printing: I'm not a printing guru so I installed the apsfilter-6.1.1
port. All our network printers speak lpr and have IP addresses so
printing (black and white) works. I don't know how to print to MS
shared printers. I recommend Ted's book to cover that.

Document sharing: Anytime someone sends me a proprietary MS document
(.doc, .xls for the most part) I tell them I don't have MS Office and
could they please send it as a text file. This works with most
people. If I have to run MS Office, I have VNC server running on an
old MS box and VNC client running on FreeBSD. I take over the MS
box and do my stuff and get out. I own vmware 2 but have not had
success getting the guest OS networking to work (because of my own
inability, not vmware/FreeBSD).

Programming in Visual Basic: See above paragraph on vmware. Now
I dual boot to Win2k.

Corporate address books and shared exchange folders: Haven't solved
this but we run Outlook Web on our exchange/IIS box so I can view
these with web browser (needs java).

Group calendar: see above (clunky, but it works)

Other thoughts: we're a very email/web-centric company so I simply
need an OS that can do these things. The single biggest irritation
is dealing with MS Office files. If your company revolves around
it's MS Office documents, your challenges will be much greater.

HTH,

--
Regards,
Doug

ja...@sage-american.com

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 10:45:34 AM11/28/01
to
Not that my stamp of approval matters, but that is a VERY opened-minded and
logical way of stating it. As a Windoze user since 1988, I truly love the
superior power of the Unix server. However, I also still dual boot several
machines with Win98 and Win2K because they still do their job... I wouldn't
use Win98 at all if it weren't for the older hardware it still supports and
Win2K doesn't. There is still one Win2K server in the bunch.

When the hardware wears out and upgraded, I will never load the Win98 again
as it is incredibly unstable crashing/locking constantly with very few apps
running. Win2K is very stable, but not nearly as stable as FreeBSD.... but,
Win2K can really run the desktop well all the many heavy apps that this
publishing business needs.

All of the hype for linux had some associates swearing that it was the way
to go even before trying it... that's what hype can do. I see absolutely no
reason to use Linux, but that may change later when it can run the destop
better than Windoze. Yes, indeed an open mind is essential to maximize the
use of the wonderful tools available to us in the most productive manner.
We are lucky to have a choice!

Best regards,
Jack L. Stone,
Server Admin

Sage-American
http://www.sage-american.com
ja...@sage-american.com

Christopher Farley

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 11:31:19 AM11/28/01
to
Doug Poland (do...@polands.org) wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 09:06:15AM -0500, Bara Zani wrote:
> >
> > so I decided to install freebsd and use it as my desktop client
> >
> I've been using FreeBSD for about a year in a Windows shop and you can
> co-exist. I use windowmaker.

Kudos on your decision. I install a different window manager on
each desktop to heighten the emotional experience of running FreeBSD.

> > as for web - I have tried in vain to enable the Java plugin on mozilla can
> > someone help with that ?
> >
> I too, am waiting for latest Mozilla to handle Java applets. Until
> that time, I keep an old copy of Netscape 4.76 installed.

If Java, Flash, inline RealAudio, etc. are really important to you,
you can always install the Linux Mozilla. The only requirement is
installing a linux-gtk, and there's even a port for that.

Although the FreeBSD Java team is working on a native Java plug-in, it
is likely that FreeBSD will always lack Flash and other proprietary
plug-ins.

This is probably emotional of me, but I prefer to run a native
Mozilla. It's so incredibly rare that I find a page that is
absolutely usless without Flash or Java that you can't use it.
Plus, it's interesting and sometimes valuable to view the web with
non-proprietary goggles on.

> > image viewers ( xv ? ) video files ( mpg, divx , avi )
> >
> xv is a good viewer, use gimp for editing. I use linux RealPlayer 8
> for streaming audio/video

mplayer is getting a great repuatation as an mpg/divx/avi player.

> Printing: I'm not a printing guru so I installed the apsfilter-6.1.1
> port. All our network printers speak lpr and have IP addresses so
> printing (black and white) works. I don't know how to print to MS
> shared printers. I recommend Ted's book to cover that.

You can install the Unix Line Printing Daemon on the NT Server and it
will 'speak lpr'.

--
Christopher Farley
www.northernbrewer.com

Anthony Atkielski

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 11:51:13 AM11/28/01
to
Jack writes:

> Not that my stamp of approval matters, but that
> is a VERY opened-minded and logical way of stating
> it.

Thanks.

> When the hardware wears out and upgraded, I will
> never load the Win98 again as it is incredibly
> unstable crashing/locking constantly with very

> few apps running. Win2K is very stable ...

It's important to understand that Windows 98 and its toy brethren have _nothing_
in common with Windows NT/2K and its ilk except the name and the GUI. Under the
hood, these operating systems are dramatically different--as different as
Windows and the Mac. The Windows 98 tribe is junk, essentially; fine for
occasional and non-critical home use, but not stable or solid enough (IMO) for
business and critical use. Windows NT/2K, in contrast, is a heavy-duty OS that
can take a beating and run under heavy loads on lots of hardware and still work.

It's unfortunate that Microsoft has developed these two different operating
systems and marketed them in ways that obfuscate the dramatic differences
between them in system architecture.

> ... but not nearly as stable as FreeBSD...

FreeBSD is UNIX, a multiuser, timesharing operating system that was mature and
stable before most Windows users were born. Any operating system that has been
around that long tends to be very stable indeed. Additionally, UNIX was
developed in the days when buying ever-increasing amounts of hardware to
compensate for really bad software was simply not economically feasible or even
technically possible, not even for the most fortunate users--so UNIX is a system
that runs lean and mean, even today.

> ... but, Win2K can really run the desktop well
> all the many heavy apps that this publishing
> business needs.

I've run NT since it first came out, and I've never looked back.

It is interesting to note that NT is more stable than 9x, and it also happens to
look a lot more like UNIX. This is not a coincidence; it's a consequence of the
fact that certain system architectures are more stable than others, and NT and
UNIX follow the best OS design practices much more closely than Windows 9x and
its predecessors, which were essentially thrown together out of spit and baling
wire.

I've seen the code for NT and 9x, and just looking at it you can tell that two
different categories of engineers wrote it. The 9x code is written by
high-school students, it seems; the NT code is written by people who have
clearly been bitten by bad coding practices in the past.

UNIX, of course, resembles this latter model, since it has been around for so
long.

> I see absolutely no reason to use Linux, but that
> may change later when it can run the destop
> better than Windoze.

That isn't going to happen. Linux is a flavor of UNIX, and the architecture of
UNIX is incompatible with heavy desktop use, just as the bloated GUI of Windows
is incompatible with high-performance use as a server. Short of completely
rewriting Linux so that it no longer looks like UNIX, this isn't going to
change.

I have similar reservations about the Mac OS X, although I suspect that it has
already been very heavily rewritten to get around this problem, and it will be
ever more extensively rewritten in the future.

There's no getting around it: You cannot be everything to everyone, and a good
server is inevitably a poor desktop, and vice versa. People who fall in love
with one OS and then try to make it do everything are hilariously entertaining,
though.

Anthony Atkielski

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 11:34:26 AM11/28/01
to
Your overall impressions of FreeBSD vs. Linux match mine, even though I have not
bothered with Linux. Linux has been the target of enormous marketing and media
hype, but even a casual glance at the OS from a technical standpoint makes one
wonder why anyone would choose it over the other free versions of UNIX that are
available. The hype is the one and only reason for the success of the OS, IMO,
and I wonder whether it will survive over the long term.

> I manage a farm of somewhere around 20 servers :)
> We used to use Linux for all of them but we moved
> to FreeBSD.

And what was the reason for the original choice of Linux?

> Many of the cost savings, I detailed in my speech
> A Business Case for FreeBSD at BSDCon 2001. You
> can download the slides from http://www.molemanarmy.com/bsdcon/

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be in a format that I can open. PDF would be
nice.

> Mainly it comes down to maturity. FreeBSD works
> for me in the production world. We had _A LOT_ of
> problems with Linux systems from 2.2.15 onwards
> due to broken VM subsystems. The 2.4 kernel had
> been very problematic for us due to things like
> software raid problems in 2.4.0.

This confirms my own intuition with respect to Linux.

> On the whole, Linux still strikes me as more of
> a hobbyist OS.

That has been exactly my impression since the beginning. It's ideal for people
who like to tinker with the OS without ever doing any productive work, and
certainly without ever having a need for high-uptime production use. It also
appeals to people who had never heard the word "UNIX" prior to encountering some
of the hype around Linux.

Since I don't like to tinker with an OS (particularly just to get it to work),
and since I knew what UNIX was several decades ago, Linux seems to me like a
useless toy that appeals to the clueless.

> FreeBSD seems to be more aimed at 'Make it solid'.

I agree. My production Web site has been running on FreeBSD for several years
with no problems. When I decided to set up my own UNIX server at home, FreeBSD
seemed like a logical choice, because (1) it was clearly aimed at serious
production users, not hobbyists or tinkerers or newbies; and (2) it provides
essentially a complete UNIX operating system except for the name (which is
trademarked); and (3) it was free (or almost free--I paid about $20 for a boxed
set of CDs), which is a refreshing change from proprietary software. Having the
source readily available is nice, too--when you run critical systems with
proprietary operating systems, you are at the mercy of the vendor, particularly
if he wants to force you to "upgrade" (i.e., spend thousands of dollars and
hundreds of hours to achieve less than parity with the system you already have).

> Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I'm biased,
> I attained my RHCE as an exam only candidate.

Certifications are just a gravy train for vendors, IMO and IMX. It seems
particularly odd to award certifications on an operating system that doesn't
seem to be stable for more than a few days at a time.

> But I'm too lazy to work as hard as I needed to,
> to keep Linux behaving.

It's not laziness to be unwilling to compensate for the defects in a software
product. If Linux can't behave right out of the box, use a different OS.

John Ekins

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 11:56:30 AM11/28/01
to
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> Your overall impressions of FreeBSD vs. Linux match mine, even though I have not
> bothered with Linux.

So your opinion, technical or otherwise on comparisons between FreeBSD and
Linux is not worth anything.

> Linux has been the target of enormous marketing and media
> hype,

Yes it has.

> but even a casual glance at the OS from a technical standpoint

Happily I don't tend to make decisions based on casual glances.

> makes one
> wonder why anyone would choose it over the other free versions of UNIX that are
> available.
> The hype is the one and only reason for the success of the OS, IMO,
> and I wonder whether it will survive over the long term.

We've been using it here for several years, well before it was being
hyped.

> > Mainly it comes down to maturity. FreeBSD works
> > for me in the production world. We had _A LOT_ of
> > problems with Linux systems from 2.2.15 onwards
> > due to broken VM subsystems. The 2.4 kernel had
> > been very problematic for us due to things like
> > software raid problems in 2.4.0.

This suggests sticking to reliable versions unless you need to upgrade,
and if you do to test thoroughly.



> This confirms my own intuition with respect to Linux.

Intuition counts for nothing.


> That has been exactly my impression since the beginning.

Yes, lots more impression but no experience.

> It's ideal for people
> who like to tinker with the OS without ever doing any productive work,

Hmm, we have nearly two hundred Linux machines in service. We're a
commercial company so I guess they're not toy boxes.

> and
> certainly without ever having a need for high-uptime production use.

Some of our uptimes have wrapped past 497 days...

> It also
> appeals to people who had never heard the word "UNIX" prior to encountering some
> of the hype around Linux.

Well it's a good introduction to "Unix" in general if you can't get a real
"Unix".

> Since I don't like to tinker with an OS (particularly just to get it to work),
> and since I knew what UNIX was several decades ago, Linux seems to me like a
> useless toy that appeals to the clueless.

More of the words "seems"... Why don't you go and get some experience?



> > Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I'm biased,
> > I attained my RHCE as an exam only candidate.
>
> Certifications are just a gravy train for vendors, IMO and IMX. It seems
> particularly odd to award certifications on an operating system that doesn't
> seem to be stable for more than a few days at a time.

You have no experience of this, Anthony, as you keep telling us... It just
"seems" like that to you.

Cheers,
John.

Anthony Atkielski

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 12:31:40 PM11/28/01
to
Ah, a true believer! That certainly didn't take long, did it?

Mike Meyer

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 1:18:59 PM11/28/01
to
Ok, I can't resist sticking my 2 cents in.

Bara Zani <bara...@yahoo.com> types:


> Ok , I am not starting a flame/holy war here !!!

You did, but not here.

> this is purely out of curiosity , so a reasonable answer is required please

FWIW, I've been using Unix systems for desktop work since 1985. They
do the job very nicely, but do require the user to think about what
they're doing.

> so I decided to install freebsd and use it as my desktop client

> now here is where I need your help :

> I use my desktop for - email , web , mp3 and downloads ...

Not hard, with a few caveats.

> as for email - I figured I can use fetchmail for multiple accounts and pine
> to read/sort in folders - but what happens with attachments ?

They get transfered with the mail. If pine can deal with them, it
will. If not - well, maybe you should look at a different browser.

> as for web - I have tried in vain to enable the java plugin on mozilla can


> someone help with that ?

If you want proprietary facilities, you'll have to go to the releases
from Netscape for Linux, and enable linux compatability.

> as for mp3 - what do I use ? I know xmms for Linux but for fbsd ?

xmms runs native. Personally, I just use plaympeg, which is one of the
ports.

> as for other stuff - image viewers ( xv ? ) video files ( mpg, divx , avi )

Xv is available, but there are others that have simpler
interfaces. There are also some that are trying to

> also can I use star office with freebsd ?

The linux binary runs in linux compatability mode. Personally, I
prefer the Applix Office package. It feels more like a Unix desktop
tool than a transplanted Windows desktop tool. The downside is that it
doesn't read MS-proprietary formats as well as star office.

> any other personal experience for using freebsd as a desktop and server are
> welcomed .

Unix is about choice - particularly choices that aren't available on
Windows. So you wind up wasting lots of time playing with window
managers and etc., instead of configuring screen savers :-).

> please email me and not the list and I will summarize ,
> thanks

That's not SOP for this list. Answers should go to both you and the
list.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans.

weyg...@paganlibrary.com

unread,
Nov 28, 2001, 11:23:12 PM11/28/01
to
Early next year - iBook here I come. Check out Apple's Mac OS X download
section, almost the entire FreeBSD ports tree is represented.

--

When Cthulhu calls, he calls collect.

Gunnar H Reichert-Weygold
http://www.paganlibrary.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages