Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:08:56 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <01af01c18968$3f277880$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <003701c18819$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> <014501c18927$2a552ec0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <008901c18961$ef58ece0$1400a8c0@blah.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gilbert writes: > Anthony, I hope you aren't talking about me > when you mention people that are "hellbent on > 'beating' Microsoft," because I do not think > I have made any statements which are indicative > of the attitude you describe. If you have not made any of the statements I describe, then logically I could not have been referring to you, and since you seem to believe the former, one wonders why you feel compelled to ask about the latter. I actually wasn't referring to anyone in particular, otherwise I would have identified him. It's interesting to see people _perceive_ themselves as targets of my observations, though. > I think it is very rare for most of us that > actually use FreeBSD to forget Unix as a server. And how many of us _use_ FreeBSD as a server? > How do you know people forget Unix as a server? Because they talk about it only as a desktop. > It is helpful to look seperately at Microsoft > as a company, and Microsoft software products. Why? Microsoft as a company is far less relevant to advocacy efforts and need not be considered at all, any more than the persons developing FreeBSD. > I think that on the FreeBSD lists, most people > that criticize Microsoft are not explicitly > criticizing their software, but more often the > company. Why do they not criticize FreeBSD developers as well, then? That would be just as irrelevant. > But I just wanted to make clear that often > when you see people "hellbent on 'beating' > Microsoft" (whom I do not consider myself one > of) they often are beating Microsoft as a > company, and not Microsoft products. In discussions of operating-system advantages and disadvantages, subjective evaluations of the entities producing those operating systems have little place. > I have simply stated it would make many of us > less upset if you would not state so vehemently > that "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop" I worry about unsophisticated users who take the advice of a rabid FreeBSD/Linux/UNIX supporter and install one of these operating systems in place of Windows, only to find out that it doesn't do what they need to do. It's very much like the realization that a Mac just doesn't cut the mustard for real-world use (mainly because of the smaller selection of applications), only much less expensive and considerably more probable and extreme. > You may be correct on this. But then shouldn't > you say to us: "The best way to advocate FreeBSD > is to talk about it as a server, and never mention > it as a desktop system."? Yes. Unless someone asks whether or not it can work as a desktop, there is no reason to bring it up. > If you made statements like that, people would > be less upset ... I doubt that. Religious fanaticism tolerates no moderation. Anything less than unconditional support in every way is seen as an attack. "If you aren't with us, you're against us." > So, how would you describe the architectural > differences between Unix and Windows NT? UNIX is far more oriented towards multiuser, remote timesharing, and far less oriented towards single-user, dedicated, heavy desktop use. UNIX also places a much heavier emphasis on device-independent and generalized services in a server role, whereas NT tends to be much more device-dependent and has a far more limited range of services that it can support. NT and UNIX kernels are far more similar than the more superficial layers of the OS, but the above differences nevertheless persist. > How about between Unix and Windows 98? No comparison. Windows 9x is a single-user, dedicated desktop that cannot function as a server except in the most contrived and artificial way. UNIX is virtually the opposite of this. For pure desktop use, Windows 9x is a better choice than UNIX; for mixed desktop/server use, only UNIX can reasonably be expected to suffice. > Do you think that Windows NT/2000/XP is architecturally > superior to Unix for use in a desktop environment? Yes. > If so, what makes it architecturally superior > in a desktop environment? A ground-up design intended to support such an environment, with such features as a heavily integrated GUI. Unrestricted access to virtually the entire range of Windows applications. A non-geek user interface that is virtually identical to the most popular interface around (Microsoft Windows). Ease of administration for unsophisticated administrators. These operating systems are probably not the optimal for the desktop, however (except perhaps for XP). The consumer versions of Windows are better still for most enviroments, especially home environments. NT and its brethren place far more emphasis on security and stability than the consumer versions do, and ordinary consumers often require flexibility and compatibility (both necessarily sacrificed for better security in NT) instead. > Do you think Unix is architecturally superior > in a server environment? Yes. > If so, what makes it architecturally suprerior > in a server enviroment? Simplicity, compact size, speed, ease of administration for expert administrators, ease of remote administration (often a nightmare with NT), extremely solid and extensive network support, an open architecture that invites the development of new applications, and a staggering base of existing server-oriented applications. Additionally, in the case of free versions of UNIX such as FreeBSD, the monetary savings that can be realized by not having to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in license fees per server (and often per user as well) may be a deciding factor in favor of UNIX alone. > Or even if I say yes you are right, what does > this have to do with anything? Advocacy based on emotion is usually misrepresentation. > So, what specific failings and weaknesses of > particular operating systems have you seen > people overlook? See my comments above concerning the superiority of Windows in a desktop environment. > So I'm emotionally attached to FreeBSD. Is > that really a problem? Definitely, if a third party asks for your recommendation. A consultant with an emotional attachment to one solution to the detriment of another is a waste of money. > If I really like Breyer's strawberry ice cream, > does that mean I can't be a Breyer's strawberry > ice cream advocate? You can promote the product, but you cannot objectively recommend it, since your affection for it introduces a strong bias in its favor. > Or that if I talk about how much I like it > that people will ignore me and not listen > to me? That is a risk, also--although people who have never tasted ice cream before may simply believe you, possibly to their own detriment. > When I am in "FreeBSD advocate" mode, I think > I should be emotionally attached to the operating > system. I disagree. You help no one by simply spreading your prejudice in favor of the OS. > But I won't let my bias cause me to suggest > using FreeBSD as a corporate desktop operating > system. Famous last words. Emotional attachment is a slippery slope. > That doesn't mean that FreeBSD doesn't have a > place in certain desktop applications. Very few indeed. Unless an application runs only on UNIX, that really isn't a reason to install it on the desktop. Apache and BIND run on NT, but since they run much better on UNIX, this is not a reason to use NT as the server for either program. > I'm not bashing Unix by using Windows on the > desktop. That is a matter of opinion. To the religious fanatic, daring to use a heretic operating system for _any_ purpose is "bashing." > One final note: As I said in my email to Jeremiah, > what people get upset about, is the absolute-ness > (yes I made up another word) with which you come > across in presenting ideas such as "FreeBSD has > no place on the desktop." That is their problem, not mine. I worry about people who need to make objective decisions concerning a choice of OS, not about people who made up their minds long ago. > But even if those are not your exact words, > that is the attitude you come across with. That is their inference, not my implication. 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?01af01c18968$3f277880$0a00000a>