From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 13:56:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23AC16A4BF for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320A343F75 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:56:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11896; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 14:55:55 -0600 (MDT) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030901143026.029afce0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 14:55:21 -0600 To: Joao Schim , sub_0@netcabo.pt From: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: <20030901183120.05a8d0d9.joao@bowtie.nl> References: <1062427379.15322.12.camel@suzy.unbreakable.homeunix.org> <29508631.20030901165843@mail.ru> <1062427379.15322.12.camel@suzy.unbreakable.homeunix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 20:56:13 -0000 At 10:31 AM 9/1/2003, Joao Schim wrote: >Hey Mario, > >Well its my experience that FreeBSD is not only the best option for >firewall and Internet services but it is also very capable of running >desktop apps with the greatest stability. So that makes me wonder why you >seem to have that idea that FreeBSD isn't ment for Desktop. This attitude, which was heavily pushed 5-7 years ago by the "leaders" of the FreeBSD project, stemmed from several things. The first was an attempt to differentiate FreeBSD from Linux, which was outstripping the BSDs in the press and elsewhere. One way to compete successfully (in a Darwinian sense, especially) is to claim a niche. Your fitness is then determined by how well you fit into the niche, rather than your overall superiority. Since Linux had all the press and all the money behind it, the developers thought they'd do better competing for the server niche. A fine short term strategy, but a bad long term one. The second was a desire by these same developers to limit the scope of the project to make it more manageable and ensure that there was enough manpower to keep it going. FreeBSD, unlike Linux, is a complete OS rather than a kernel. The "userland" -- the programs users run every day -- is maintained along with the OS. Being a desktop OS implies supporting the entire desktop environment. This was more than the people who were orchestrating the project (particularly Jordan Hubbard) wanted to take on at the time, or perhaps felt that they COULD take on at the time. So adamant were they that they literally drove out of the project some folks who disagreed with this strategy and focus. Alas, the results can be seen today. While there's absolutely nothing wrong with FreeBSD as a desktop OS, the project's failure to encourage and participate in the creation of BSD-licensed desktops for UNIX-like OSes has essentially led to a situation where there are none to be had. The only desktops that run -- balkily and with only partial compatibility -- are GPLed. Not only do they bring with them the baggage of the license and the FSF's agenda, but for ideological reasons the developers have no desire to make them compatible with the BSDs. Yes, there are folks out there who are trying to make them run. But just try to install, say, KDE and get printing, power management, the built-in PPP utility (which is designed to mimic Windows' "Dial-up Networking"), or other similar features to work. You're in for a very frustrating experience. I was recently asked to set up a FreeBSD machine as a desktop for a school, and they had nothing but frustration. Every day or so, they found some part of KDE that didn't quite work right with FreeBSD or needed expert knowledge and special configuration to use with FreeBSD. They just put Windows back on that machine. It doesn't seem as if this situation is likely to change, either. The incompatibilities between the BSDs (not just FreeBSD, but all of the BSD) and the Linux desktops seem to grow daily. Both KDE and GNOME are pretty much becoming by, of, and for Linux exclusively. Even FVWM (which, I understand, was once BSD-licensed) is now GPLed. So, the result of the desire of these developers (many of whom are no longer involved with the project) to force BSD into the mold of a "server-only OS" has, alas, been to make it so... at least until someone, somewhere starts up a BSD desktop project. I'd love to run BSD on my desktop, but due to the poor compatibility and portability of the GPLed Linux desktops, I'll have to keep MacOS X or (ugh!) Windows on my desk for the moment. --Brett Glass