Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:45:34 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: FreeBSD Advocacy <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD on the desktop (was: TheRegister article on Hotmail) Message-ID: <20021123071534.GC39240@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <014201c29296$f9cc4a20$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20021121161453.GA69019_submonkey.net@ns.sol.net> <008501c2917a$ac643080$0a00000a_atkielski.com@ns.sol.net> <200211221502.gAMF2a6a089963@catflap.bishopston.net> <20021122234047.GB60785@wantadilla.lemis.com> <014201c29296$f9cc4a20$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[reformatted to a standard line length] On Saturday, 23 November 2002 at 3:21:04 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Greg writes: > >> Agreed 100%. I've had to use Microsoft from time to time, but for >> my purposes it's a toy compared to FreeBSD. It would take me >> several times as long to get things done if I had to use Microsoft. > > I'd hardly expect to hear anything different on a FreeBSD advocacy > list. You don't read your own messages? > There are lots of people at Microsoft who say _exactly_ the same > thing about UNIX as a server ("it would take me several times as > long to get things done if I had to use UNIX" or "UNIX is a toy > compared to Windows 2000"). We were talking about desktops. > Part of rational advocacy is recognizing the strengths AND the > weaknesses of one's favored OS. Or others. But yes, agreed. > UNIX is a usually a poor choice for the desktop, and Windows is > often a poor choice for a server. It's important for objective > parties to remain wary of anyone who claims that a single operating > system can do everything better than any other OS. I think you've either misunderstood or misrepresented me. Since I've (rather unwisely) come back into this discussion, I'd like to make a few points: 1. I am most definitely not a fanatic user of FreeBSD. I've used many operating systems in my time, including Microsoft. 2. You seem to have overlooked the "for my purposes" in the message you replied to. 3. There's a tradeoff between "ease of learning" and "ease of use". It's quite possible that Microsoft is easier for beginners, though I'm getting the feeling lately that it has become much more complicated. When I was forced to use Microsoft, I was continually calling the help desk, because I couldn't understand how to do things. The reason for this is that "intuitive" is very subjective. If you've used Microsoft all the time, you'll get the idea of the look and feel. If, like me, you've never used "Windows" in anger, you'll find it completely bizarre. OK, so you can say "yes, but it's easy when you know it". You can say that about FreeBSD as well. I don't believe it's true with Microsoft. The reasons have less to do with Microsoft itself than with the user interface; that's why I think things like OpenOffice are the wrong thing to do. A couple of examples (as I say, for my purposes): 1. I get about 1500 mail messages a day. They're usually in threads, like this one. It's possible that Outlook can arrange things hierarchically, but I haven't been able to find out how to do it. mutt does this out of the box. I can delete whole threads with a single keystroke. I won't even get started on the contortions you need to get Outlook not to break correct text. 2. I suppose it's possible to use Microsoft without the mouse, but I'd guess it's not easy. Every mouse click takes as long at 20 keystrokes, so using the mouse is inefficient where a keystroke can do the same thing. In addition, the screen on which I'm writing this has a resolution of 2048x1536. The window into which I'm typing right now has a size of 110x110 characters, which enables me to see the entire message on a single screen. Just positioning the mouse on the correct place is quite difficult. That's not to say that mice are bad; I use one all the time, but for things where mice are better. Microsoft overdoes it. 3. I recently watched somebody prepare some slides for a presentation with OpenOffice. He had to make a large number of tradeoffs in order to get what he wanted. There seems to be no way to automate things. By contrast, I make my slides with groff, and I have a complete programming language behind it to help me do exactly what I want. I suppose I make some tradeoffs too, since I don't have all these silly themes (or whatever they're called) which things like PowerPoint offer. But that's OK by me. Too often, Microsoft comes across like a child's toy: brightly coloured and weak on functionality. IMO the real reason why Microsoft is still used so much is because computer users are (still) mainly newbies. When it becomes important for them to be able to use computers effectively, more and more of them will move on to something more powerful. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021123071534.GC39240>