Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:58:08 -0800 From: "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@sherline.com> To: "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <000a01c18977$9007ac20$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey> 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$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey> <001001c1893b$a164d420$69cab8d0@blah.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu> To: "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@sherline.com> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:49 AM Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? > 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). That is simply a longer way of stating what I have stated. FreeBSD is not a desktop OS, because it does not include a desktop as part of the OS. It is simply capable of running 3rd party desktop software. > 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. Apple's OS X is not what I would call a "unix". Certainly, the Mach based underlying kernel is unix-like, and the FreeBSD tools are unix-like. But the desktop is MacOS version 10. It may be the closest thing to Unix as a desktop, but I think they have more desktop and less Unix. Besides the fact that they are on a completely different hardware platform which costs 3 times as much. I disagree with Mac OS X being considered a unix-as-a-desktop in this conversation since we are mainly (for now) an i386 OS. > > 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? Well, there's a difference. It depends on what you're advocating FreeBSD FOR. At this point in time, I would not advocate FreeBSD as a desktop. Period. I would probably say "FreeBSD, and Linux, are not good desktop operating systems". > > > 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? Is it your opinion that the core FreeBSD team considers FreeBSD a desktop OS ? I doubt it. > 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." What, are we developing some standard "party line" that we can deliver rather than our real opinion ? I recommend FreeBSD as a server operating system whole-heartedly. I do not recommend it as a desktop operating system. Why would I say what you're saying when I don't agree ? > Let me give one more example. If we agree now that FreeBSD in certain > specific desktop environments makes a whole lot of sense I do not agree. > 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? You're saying that if someone doesn't advocate an OS BOTH in the server and desktop, then they are not an advocate of the OS. That's denying people the right to have a more fine grained opinion, and truely speak what's on their mind. I am a FreeBSD _SERVER_ Advocate. I am a Windows 2000/XP _DESKTOP_ Advocate. How simple is that ? > 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. I think that's ridiculous. You have this idea that somehow to be an advocate of FreeBSD, you have to support it in all of it's efforts. I do not support FreeBSD as a desktop. I don't think it SHOULD enter the desktop arena, any more than it already does with Gnome and KDE. The minute kernel developers start concentrating on coding for desktop applications, and any large share of their time is spent on the desktop aspect, I will know it is time to move to another *BSD. FreeBSD is a SERVER operating system. An EXCELLENT one. The best, in my opinion. That's because the focus is where it belongs. When that focus changes, and FreeBSD starts to become a wannabe desktop OS like Linux, I will be very sad. If people want to keep support going for Gnome and KDE, support X, and get desktop aps in the ports tree, that's great. When desktop code starts appearing in /usr/src, then you'll know FreeBSD is trying to become a desktop OS. I'll submit this idea for everyone to chew on. I don't believe you can have a single operating system be both a good server operating system, or a good desktop operating system. The opensource community's efforts to provide a desktop are about as feeble as Windows' efforts to make a server. Sure they both "work" but they're a far cry from the best. On the other hand, when operating systems focus on one area, they can produce something excellent, such as FreeBSD on a server, and Windows 2000 Professional on a desktop. Finally, I don't see what exactly the point of all this is. You're not actually recommending FreeBSD as a desktop. You're recommending XFree86 with Gnome or KDE, or some other window manager. None of those projects are directly associated with FreeBSD. Perhaps a better place for your FreeBSD as a desktop advocacy is on Gnome-Advocacy. You know how I can tell FreeBSD is not a desktop OS ? Find me a desktop in /usr/src. Until then, let Gnome and KDE continue their hard work developing a desktop. Either of those were truly worthy of desktop use (IMO), then perhaps I would recommend FreeBSD as a backend for the Gnome or KDE desktop. Notice the phrasing. FreeBSD is no more a desktop than Darwin is. 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?000a01c18977$9007ac20$a700a8c0>