Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:24:08 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: <smorton@acm.org> Cc: <smorton@acm.org>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <01c601c17896$12bbf560$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C0574C4.3040001@verizon.net> <016e01c17889$23dfd990$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C05BD9D.4000909@verizon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Simon writes: > More to the point: you have stated yourself that > UNIX-like systems are suited for server applications > (no interactive users) and time-sharing applications > (multiple interactive users). Yes, although server applications are still interactive from the OS standpoint. I believe the superiority of UNIX in these domains is widely acknowledged. > You have failed to provide a single concrete > justification for your contention that a system > supporting exactly one interactive user requires > a radically different architecture from one that > supports both 0 (less than one) and n (more > than one.) Interesting that you accept the first statement without comment, but you want "justification" for the second. Odd that you have two different standards of proof--based perhaps on what you prefer to believe? > Oh, right, and that had nothing to with marketing > or economics. That would be an exaggeration, but Windows would not have succeeded on marketing alone. The system had to do what people wanted, and so Microsoft engineered it to do exactly that. These decisions haunt them now in their attempt to conquer the server market, but they also ensure continued dominance on the desktop. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01c601c17896$12bbf560$0a00000a>