Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:49:34 -0800 From: "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu> To: "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@sherline.com> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <001001c1893b$a164d420$69cab8d0@blah.com> References: <003701c18819$a9941a20$6600000a@ach.domain> <3C1FF8DA.2DBC501C@mindspring.com> <013b01c18844$b2ff8b50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C202951.D39F0144@mindspring.com> <005201c188b4$9bd4cd30$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey> <013b01c188f1$b3788340$1400a8c0@blah.com> <000901c18931$b11daf40$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremiah, I am glad that at least your email has a much more calm tone than Anthony's does. I think it will take me a while to figure out the best way to respond to his email. My goal is totally not to make anyone upset. Though I think I have made a mistake towards that goal. Conversely, I want to get us on the same page in certain areas, and be able to dialogue appropriately about those areas that we disagree in, in a calm non-inflammatory manner. To this end, I am going to take some pains to clarify specific terms. Miscommunications is such a cause of useless anger. > I disagree completely. FreeBSD is not a desktop. If progress is to be made > in the desktop market it shall be made by XFree86, Gnome, and KDE. I'm not precisely sure what you mean by "FreeBSD is not a desktop," but I take that to mean that you are saying it is an operating system as opposed to software generally billed as a "desktop environment" (what KDE and Gnome both bill themselves as). If that is what you mean, then of course you are correct, FreeBSD is not a desktop (or perhaps more accurately, FreeBSD is not desktop environment software), it is an operating system. And yes, the strongest open source projects towards making Unix more acceptable to the main stream as a desktop operating system are ones such as KDE and Gnome. However, FreeBSD as an operating system is a great system on which to run KDE and Gnome, arguably the second best (I would agree linux is probably the best, since most of those projects use linux as their primary development platform). Of course, if we talk about non-open source projects as well, then Apple's OS X system is also a big progress maker as far as unix-as-a-desktop-being-acceptable-by-the-main-stream goes. > Stating > that FreeBSD has no place on the desktop isn't slamming FreeBSD, since > FreeBSD is first and foremost a server operating system. I would definitely agree that FreeBSD has it's strength in use as a server operating system. Now we may be getting down to hairs here, but there is a difference between statements such as: "FreeBSD is not the best desktop operating system." "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop." "FreeBSD has value in certain desktop operating system applications." or as the web page (at www.freebsd.org) says: "It is well-suited for a great number of both desktop and server applications." Which would you say is the best for a FreeBSD advocate to use? > To say that Unix > has no place on the desktop is a completely valid opinion, and does not > detract from FreeBSD, ***until such time as FreeBSD claims to be a desktop > OS*** > How would you define "claims to be a desktop OS?" Would that quote from the web page be considered a claim, or would it be considered not a claim? At the very least, a statement such as "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop" should have certain qualifiers. For example, I know many people that run FreeBSD as a desktop operating system. Many people that work at ISPs do. When I worked at an ISP I used FreeBSD as an operating system. The main thing is what the majority of one's work involves. At the ISP, the majority of my time was spent logged into routers. I found a Unix operating system to facilitate that much better than Windows. There are many engineering CAD users that use Unix as a desktop operating system (perhaps not the majority, but a significant number, I believe). In that environment, FreeBSD might be a valid option. There are many Unix software engineers/programmers that use Unix as a desktop enviroment. Here again, FreeBSD would be a valid option (more so than the CAD/CAM users, who probably need high end accelerated video card support, which isn't a FreeBSD strength, though with a commercial accelerated X server it may do better, I do not know for sure). I am sure others could come up with more potential desktop users, but my point is, I would think it reasonable to ask anyone that considers themselves a FreeBSD advocate to modify a statement such as "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop" to something such as "FreeBSD has no appeal as a desktop operating system to the mainstream computer user." It'd be even more FreeBSD-advocating to use a phrase like the one on the web site, eg "It is well-suited for a great number of both desktop and server applications." Let me give one more example. If we agree now that FreeBSD in certain specific desktop environments makes a whole lot of sense, just as Windows as a server operating system makes sense in certain specific situations, than let me ask you this. If someone sent an email to a windows-advocacy list that made the statement "Windows has no place as a server OS," don't you think 1) that would be inappropriate for that list, and 2) that person was not a windows advocate? I think the biggest issue is the the incontrovertible-ness of the statement (sorry for making up a word). While again, I have said it is fine as an opinion, I still claim it is not welcome on a list which has as it's charter FreeBSD advocacy. If you want to claim that FreeBSD is not strong as a desktop, that is fine. You open up a discussion about what are its strengths and weaknesses. If you want to claim that FreeBSD is strong as a server OS, that is also good. I think "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop" is as non-useful a statement as "FreeBSD is the best server OS" (please note, I do not say I believe that statement, it is given as an example). To make such incontrovertible statements either way closes the door to discussions about the relative merits and weaknesses of FreeBSD, which I think we mostly agree is what FreeBSD advocacy should be. Gilbert > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message > 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?001001c1893b$a164d420$69cab8d0>