Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:08:10 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net>, <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <15366.45514.579030.680673@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <026501c178c1$62f8fa70$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <004801c17872$98e47b40$6600000a@ach.domain> <017f01c1788c$8cb71d90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15365.52562.394957.602907@guru.mired.org> <01fe01c178a1$001d1be0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15365.58639.39658.89837@guru.mired.org> <022901c178ab$8b12cb50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <001401c1789c$f4ea1f60$6600000a@ach.domain> <021f01c178a9$43b2c500$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15365.63510.713899.607362@guru.mired.org> <026501c178c1$62f8fa70$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types: > Mike writes: > > Unix kept getting more and more expensive. Last > > time I checked, a source license ran to $70K ... > The cost of a single systems programmer, in other words. Not very much compared > to writing your own OS, and you can't get source licenses for any other OS at > all (almost). No, the original source cost you a year of programmer time. You then had to jack up the price to cover the license fees going back to AT&T. That's non-trivial. > > 2001 chose HAL because the letters are > > one further down the alphabet from IBM. > That is an urban legend, according to the author of the novel and screeplay. I had never seen the quote from Clarke before, or even heard that he had denied it. Thank you for providing the information along with a reference. > > Cutter chose WNT for the same reason, except he > > started with VMS. As I heard it, his reply when > > someone finally asked him about it was "What > > took you so long today." > That's not exactly a confirmation. It's as good as most of your arguments. > > If you can do the job the easy way, why do > > it the hard way? > Because you're a geek? No, lusers do things the hard way. Geeks find an easier way to do them. All good developers are lazy. > > ... but there's no reason to hide the > > alternatives from them. > Linux is not a viable alternative to Windows for non-IT users. No version of > UNIX is. Why don't you let them decide that for themselves, instead of reaching that conclusion based on your shallow exposure to the problem. > > If someone has complaints about the Windows GUI, > > it only makes sense to point them at a group that > > can provide them with a desktop that lets them > > use alternatives to that GUI. > If someone has complaints about the cost of gasoline, it only makes sense to > point them at a group that can provide them with vehicles that use alternatives > to gasoline. Exactly. In that case, I'd point them to the Electric Power Research Institute, which is the only place I've ever seen that had parking spaces marked "Electric Vehicles Only." > > Yes, and we went through it and didn't find > > anything that didn't exist for FreeBSD. > I didn't find anything that _did_ exist on FreeBSD. For every task you listed, I found an application. > > For Illustrator, it's "applix -gr" ... > No. For Illustrator, it's "Illustrator." I don't want something else that lets > me draw; I want something that is 100% compatible with Illustrator. The same is > true for all the other applications I've listed. Ah. In that case, I must conclude that Windows - in any flavor - is completely unsuitable for desktop use because there isn't a version of ratpoison for it. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. 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?15366.45514.579030.680673>