Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:26:09 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Eric Melville" <eric@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "Randall Hamilton" <nitedog@silly.pikachu.org>, "GB Clark II" <gclarkii@vsservices.com>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <032301c17946$6341c1d0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <000901c17892$28e1ce90$0301a8c0@nitedog> <01bc01c17892$f2dea380$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011129133936.A90325@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric writes: > I know a good number of people that would consider > that a step up from today's workplace full of chain > letters, outlook viruses, and collections of porn > and mp3 files. I also tend to agree with them. So do I. For controlled workplace environments, a group of X terminals connected to a large UNIX box would be preferable to a hodgepodge of individually configured and feature-bloated PCs. People who take reservations or examine insurance claims all day do not need PCs to do so, and putting PCs on their desks encourages all manner of time-wasting activities. All of the standard office stuff could be handled by an X terminal on the desktop (and note that I say terminal, not a freestanding PC acting as a terminal--you want something with all the local functionality locked in firmware). However, the trend after the introduction of the PC was to increasingly abandon centralized mainframes and minicomputers and put PCs everywhere. This is an overreaction to the excessive centralization of yore, when everyone had to make do with just a 3270 connected to a distant, slow-moving mainframe. Perhaps the pendulum will one day swing in the opposite direction. I note that Microsoft's very poor attempts to make PCs behave like dumb terminals (at ten times the price) are tacit acknowledgements of this, although of course Microsoft would never condone replacing PCs with mere terminals. > Don't forget that the goal here is to get work done. Yes. > The number of applications which actually benefit > in this regard from being graphical is very limited. Absolutely true. Besides, you can get graphics on an X terminal. > As for the false perception of graphical items > being easier to learn, every version of windows > to date most certainly take time and effort to learn as > well. True, but not nearly as much as that required for UNIX, which is the very archetype of a geek's operating system. > I could have sworn that was also your reason > for X being bad. No. Besides, I don't consider X bad, just not as good for general desktop use as Windows. If I want a windowed GUI, why not pick the OS that was designed from the ground up for that purpose? > Using your very own "strength in numbers" logic, > I can claim that your opinion is not of any value > in comparison to someone like Steve Jobs. Jobs, > incidently, thinks that unix makes a great desktop. Jobs thinks that the Mac is a great computer. But only one user in twenty agrees with him. > This may be a problem with windows, where the > interface is the OS, but such is not the case > for X. It doesn't matter where the interface is. It's the fact of using a GUI that makes the difference. X may be a server that can run _under_ UNIX, but it still is so complex and requires so many privileges that it destabilizes the system. > I'd call the screensaver a waste as well. Why > does your server have a screen? To provide for situations when remote terminals cannot connect, as during boot operations. I got only a small monitor for it, however. 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?032301c17946$6341c1d0$0a00000a>