Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:52:55 -0800 From: "Freddie Cash" <fcash@bigfoot.com> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <3C0578D7.3474.29B2F4E@localhost> In-Reply-To: <15365.58639.39658.89837@guru.mired.org> References: <01fe01c178a1$001d1be0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types: > > Mike writes: > > > Note that Apple examined an OS that didn't have > > > all the multi-user complexity that Unix has, ran > > > - like a bat out of hell - on Apple hardware, and > > > on MP boxes with those processors. They decided > > > against adopting it. > > What operating system was that, and what was their reason for > > rejecting it? > > BeOS, and I don't know. Jean-Louie Gasse wanted too much money. Apple wasn't willing to spend the (IIRC) $100 million + for BeOS at the time. "My 500 Days at Apple" has a very in-depth look at the whole mess surrounding Pink, Copland, BeOS, and NeXT. > > > > Not to mention VMS. > > I'm not familiar with VMS. What elements of NT are inherited from > > it or influenced by it? > Most of the internals. The lead designer for WNT had previously been > the lead designer for VMS. Which is why WNT has the same relation to > VMS that HAL has to IBM. "Showstopper" gives a great run-down on all the features that NT pulled from VMS. And all the things they did wrong with version 4 (like pull the graphics into the Kernel, thus breaking the whole concept of the HAL). > > > Sun, Apple and DEC have all done OS development > > > projects that they abandoned. > > Why did they abandon them? > Well, for Sun and Apple because they decided that their wasn't a > viable market for the product. Not to mention that the Apple products were way behind schedule and nowhere near capable of doing what they had promised. By the end of the whole debacle, it was easier to graft a UI on an existing OS than to continue develping their own OS. > > > Come on - what do you want to do on your > > > desktop that you can't do on FreeBSD? > > I have a hundred or so applications on my desktop that will not run > > under UNIX. Are you beholden to the application, or the task the application performs? There is a *very* big difference. > That means Unix is an inferior processor for those applications, not > that it's an inferior desktop. Which ones can you not find an > acceptable alternative for on Unix? But I think I already answered > that question. Precisely. > > Additionally, I can assign permissions via ACLs in NT, to both files > > and objects. I don't have to run anything special to get a GUI, > > since that is the native environment. > Wait a minute, I thought all that multi-user protection stuff was > *bad* for a desktop. [aside, this has happened many times throughout this thread. i no longer know which side Anthony is arguing, each message is different] > > > I have as yet to see you list a single thing you > > > wanted FreeBSD to do as a desktop that it couldn't. > > How do I start Adobe Illustrator on FreeBSD? > With the command "gimp". They changed the commands and UI, though. :) > > > The same was true of OS/2. > > Yes, but OS/2 was designed around the MS-DOS paradigm, which was > > already dying. NT was designed around the Windows paradigm. IBM > > wanted the MS-DOS look and feel, and Microsoft wanted the Windows > > look and feel, and that's why they parted ways. The rest is > > history. OS/2 1.x and 2.x were designed to be CLI OSes and were to be the successor for MS-DOS. OS/2 3.x was to be the graphical "next step". However, Billy-boy doesn't play nice with others (and was secretly trying to make Windows work), Big Blue got miffed, and they split. Note that during the development of NT, the *primary* UI was supposed to be the OS/2 shell (NT was originally designed to have multiple UIs -- just like Unix -- but Billy-boy wanted to promote his Windows toy and that became the primary shell). It wasn't until the last quarter or so of development that this was changed to the Windows UI. IOW, virtually everything you way in the above paragraph is irrelevant. As an aside, Microsoft was originally spelt Micro-Soft, then MicroSoft, and it can be found that one on some of their literature still. It wasn't until a few years ago that they changed it to Microsoft. Thus, it is not incorrect to capitalise the middle S. Cheers, Freddie PhoenixTek Consulting fcash@bigfoot.com Unix / Networking Services (250) 314-4029 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C0578D7.3474.29B2F4E>