Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:03:00 -0500 From: "Andre` Niel Cameron" <AndreC@Axxs.net> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>, "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: "setantae" <setantae@submonkey.net>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: home pc use Message-ID: <014e01c171d4$72316610$a50410ac@olmct.net> References: <3BF9B12B.3D521A4D@nycap.rr.com> <20011119220243.A268@prayforwind.com> <009a01c171a9$4eedbee0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <E1667rO-0002md-00@mrvdom03.schlund.de> <00cd01c171ac$ca0fa0e0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120102625.GB75402@rhadamanth> <00d201c171af$61dccb80$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120024643.B92409@xor.obsecurity.org> <012001c171b5$ac8d86a0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There is a (religious) belief among many that their preferred OS will somehow be > able to maintain a complex GUI environment without any of the complexity of code > or potential instability that goes with it. Obviously, this cannot be, and yet > they continue to believe it. > > Linux users seem to be the worst-afflicted in this respect, with their > irrational belief that somehow they will match the functionality and > comprehensiveness of Windows using an open-source, cobbled solution and somehow > make it _more_ stable than the commercial product. However, I've seen the same > attitude on these FreeBSD lists. My impression is that many FreeBSD users are > rabid Microsoft-haters who are more interested in duplicating Windows without > any Microsoft code than in using FreeBSD in the applications where it performs > best ... namely, multiuser server and network applications. But all flavors of > UNIX are _very_ poorly suited to desktop GUI environments, and it makes no > logical sense to try to replace a purpose-built OS like Windows with a > completely different OS having a completely different purpose; it can only be > motivated by an irrational desire to "teach someone a lesson" (such as > Microsoft). > > Similarly, and in the interest of equal time, I should point out that anyone > trying to configure NT/2000 to match UNIX for certain server and network > applications is spitting into the wind ... it's an uphill and potentially losing > battle. While NT/2000 can be made to work in this way (the underlying kernel is > certainly capable of it, largely because its design so much resembles that of > UNIX and other multiuser timesharing systems), it requires a lot more resources > to accomplish it, and the ergonomy is lacking. But NT/2000 religious devotees > are just as dogged in their attempts to fit a square peg into a round hole as > are the followers of UNIX variants. > > > This is an overgeneralization; under FreeBSD > > it's very rare for a window manager bug to > > "take out the OS". Even if the X server crashes > > the system still runs. > > You'd think so. But it worried me tremendously that, while simply trying to > change a font in KDE, the entire system crashed. It should not be possible for > an application like a windows manager to crash the kernel. The fact that this > was possible worries me because it casts a shadow on the security of the > kernel--how could a user application manage to crash the system like that? > > I console myself by speculating that perhaps the window manager called some > kernel function or driver that faulted because of a configuration problem or > (most likely) an incompatibility with the display hardware. Still not very > useful from a practical standpoint, but at least it would not make the OS look > as insecure. > > > In real terms, well-written and well-tested simple > > window managers rarely have catastrophic bugs. > > Well, KDE is apparently neither simple nor well-written and well-tested, because > it crashed the system; and when it didn't crash the system, it froze or did > other weird things a lot. > > > I can't remember the last time I had problems > > with windowmaker, for example. > > I'm not familiar with it. The KDE experience has soured me on window managers > for UNIX for the moment. I do just about everything from a command line right > now, anyway--I even surf with Lynx--so trying to clone Windows is not a high > priority. Unlike many people here, it seems, I see FreeBSD as an excellent > server OS, and that's how I use it. My desktop environment remains Windows NT > (and in fact most of my interaction with FreeBSD is via NT, as you'd expect in a > server/client environment). I would like to say well said. Personally I use Windows2k for most "desktop" related services I have a freeBSD "desktop" to give a well rounded experience as I like Star Office, KDE and Doom:) I also have a FreeBSD "Server" I acctually tried running NT and win2k as servers and was horrified by performance/stability/security. My NT server got hacked in one day, granted I had not applied the patches yet but still there should be some security right out of the box!:) NT/2k makes a good file server in a internal Windows based network. Other wise "Spitting in the wind" is just about the right analisis! This is the first time I have seen someone speak like this, usually it is death to those who say windows in a *nix list. Andre 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?014e01c171d4$72316610$a50410ac>