Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:02:55 -0800 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <reso3w83@verizon.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <200502120402.56761.reso3w83@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <1118428918.20050212124140@wanadoo.fr> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050211122632.99069G-100000@fledge.watson.org> <200502120318.18929.reso3w83@verizon.net> <1118428918.20050212124140@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 12 February 2005 03:41 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Michael C. Shultz writes: > > What about the other 12000 ports? How do they do in windows? > > I don't know, since I don't need or use them. That was obvious by your confusion with Firefox an opera for example. You admit you don't know what is in ports yet feel it is OK to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop? Ever heard the saying "better to remain silent and thought a fool....."? > > > Likely there is a *FREE* port for most of what you listed above. > > No, there isn't. These software products run only on Windows, > generally speaking. A few exist in Mac versions as well. Virtually > none exist for any flavor of UNIX or UNIX-like operating systems. How do you know? You just admitted you don't use what is in ports... > > I have to run these applications for work and play. I therefore > cannot use any operating system that doesn't support them on the > desktop. > > > And if you wish to donate half of what you paid for each of those > > listed programs there would likely be a port author willing to > > customize/improve their port version just for you..... > > Why would I do that? They already run on Windows. Why would you say FreeBSD is a poor desktop when your only desktop experience is with windows? > > > At best windows can run two or three major applications at once > > before it pukes. > > I routinely have two dozen applications running under Windows, and > depending on memory available and required, it can easily run several > times that, or more. Bullshit. > > > On my lowly 256meg 1Gz machine I have 18 desktops, in those 18 > > desktops I normally have 3 to 4 major apps running, in two desk > > tops I have 2 terms with 4 tabs each running programs, and a > > handful of documents opened in the other desk tops. > > On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run > everything. Bullshit > > > With all that going on in the foreground, in the background all of > > my apps are being automatically and continuously updated. > > I never allow anything on my machines to be automatically updated. I > perform all updates myself, explicitly, and I never update anything > unless I have to. I don't blame you, when something goes wrong on a Windows system the solution is usually to reinstall everything. FreeBSD is a bit more robust than that. On this point I guess you'll have to take my word seeing as you have no experience with FreeBSD as a desktop.... Why do you feel you are qualified to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop again? > > > When I want a break from work I open a move with mplayer and watch > > it with out worrying about shutting anything else down, and if I > > need a music fix, xmms solves it. > > I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications > running. bullshit > > > Sometimes I'll go two weeks before rebooting. > > I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly > a year without a reboot. I don't remember ever seeing a system crash > on my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT > system (all because of bad drivers). bullshit. You are a flat out liar friend. > > > It was like going through withdrawl, not > > being able to defrag my drives, took a few years before I finally > > believed not all file systems frag themselves to death. > > Fragmentation is difficult to avoid entirely, but some file systems > are better at dealing with it than others. NTFS is no worse than > UNIX in this respect, as far as I can tell, although my guess is that > UNIX is probably superior, if there really is a difference (because > UNIX has been around for quite a while and seems to work pretty well > without defragmentation). NTFS frags, and slows down noticeably if you fail to defrag it. I'll assume your line of work is not database related... > > > Windows is crap, I feel sorry for you that you have to use it. > > Emotional assertions don't persuade me, and you need not feel sorry > for me, as everything runs perfectly here. I'm sure it does, in your dreams. -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502120402.56761.reso3w83>