Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:16:56 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: "Konstantinos Konstantinidis" <kkonstan@duth.gr>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <005001c17f6c$e60c0ef0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <0112071641320B.01380@stinky.akitanet.co.uk> <000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C110351.4748B559@duth.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Konstantinos writes: > I don't understand why you are so hostile towards > unix on the desktop. I'm not hostile towards it at all. I just recognize that UNIX is not a desktop OS, at least not compared to Windows. I'm amazed that so many people try so hard to prove otherwise. The only possible motivation I can think of for this is that a lot of people who feel this way use UNIX (and especially Linux, the most primitive and overhyped version of UNIX) only because they hate Microsoft, and will go to any extreme, expend any effort, and suffer any inconvenience just so that they can have something that looks just like Windows but lacks the Microsoft brand. For more rational people, who choose systems that fit their requirements, UNIX logically becomes the server, and Windows logically becomes the desktop. Maybe someday that will change, but right now, that's the logical arrangement. > I'm probably biased since I've been using unix > workstations since far longer than I care to remember, > I guess, but why not? UNIX workstations and today's ordinary desktop are not the same thing. A consumer or office desktop runs a lot of commodity applications that are also run by other desktops in other homes and offices. Most users of this type of desktop have never come anywhere near UNIX, and would have nothing to gain from a UNIX workstation (and much to lose, given their cost). > Nowadays I mostly use PCs for desktop workstations > at home and at work, and all of them run FreeBSD > (from my smp box at home down to a tiny libretto). Well, either you are a rare exception to the rule, or UNIX desktop users keep an extremely low profile. Only one user in 100 to my Web site is running any flavor of UNIX, for example. Macs are eight times more popular, and they are still a small minority. > It means just that - I want to be able to make > stupid presentations with which to bore to death > colleagues at meetings, and it's nice that I can > do that with FreeBSD, since I don't have to buy > and learn a non unix OS to do just that. What do you do when someone sends you a presentation in PowerPoint? > I fail to see your point - the users that can't > be bothered to explore the underlying system will > be "victims" of commercial vendors anyway, wether it > is BSD or Windows XP. Exactly. So, if the result is the same, why do it the hard way with UNIX when one can do it the easy way with Windows? Furthermore, the results aren't exactly the same--Windows provides a more complete desktop environment. So, unless you are specifically trying to avoid Windows for some unfathomable reason (what might that be?), why not just install Windows? > I watched a Mandrake 8.1 installation the other day, > and it was as smooth as Windows XP. The installed > system "just worked" and my otherwise unix-clueless > colleague happily went on with his business. Maybe he can send me a summary of his experiences. Oh, it has to be in Word or PageMaster format, sorry. > It's not really "reinventing" but "reimplementing" > the wheel, and sometimes this isn't bad. It's difficult to see what the point of this is for the average computer user. > I beg to differ. I do not think that "UNIX is a > server operating system". You don't need multiuser timesharing in a desktop OS, nor do you need support for remote teletypes. > It is a versatile system that can be morphed to > whatever you want ... There's no such thing. Most operating systems can be _forced_ into just about any role, and UNIX is no exception; but no operating system can mutate into an optimal OS for every conceivable application, or even for more than a small minority of all possible applications. > Thank $DEITY Apple didn't have that point of view, or > we'd have yet another totally new OS and not MacOS X. Apple didn't have the money to write a new OS, otherwise it would have. Using a UNIX base was a cost-cutting measure. And even UNIX would be better on the desktop than the _old_ Mac OS, as far as stability and reliablity is concerned. > Your analogy is flawed - UNIX can be instantiated > both as a pick-up truck and a racing car, IMHO. Real-time process control, timesharing, dedicated batch, and dedicated desktop? I don't think so. I've never seen an OS that can do all that efficiently, and there's nothing magic about UNIX. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005001c17f6c$e60c0ef0$0a00000a>