Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:07:40 -0700 From: Johnson David <DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> To: "Gregory A. Gilliss" <ggilliss@netpublishing.com>, advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Brilliant and very useful for FreeBSD, IMHO Message-ID: <200304071107.40633.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <20030406172035.GA45332@netpublishing.com> References: <20030406172035.GA45332@netpublishing.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 06 April 2003 10:20 am, Gregory A. Gilliss wrote: > This was posted on slashdot.org: > > http://www.linuxworld.com/2003/0401.tsu.html > > I would recommend that *everyone* read this today (Sunday) and ask > your- selves whether the current FreeBSD distro (4.x or 5.x) meets > the goals set out by this study? Frankly, the expections set forth by the reviewer are unrealistic. She wants a Windows clone. She wants a new operating system while not changing anything in how she works. By her own admission, not even Windows XP meets the criteria! (btw, it was a review, not a study) I don't think FreeBSD will ever be a "newbie" system. Sorry guys, but I don't. By "newbie" system I mean something that you click "OK" and it installs and works with no additional configuration for anything. The only way we could reach this state without compromising other goals is to have FreeBSD preinstalled on OEM systems. But that doesn't mean FreeBSD isn't suitable for a desktop system. Indeed, it already is. FreeBSD is what I use at home and at work on my desktops. The only time I boot into Windows is to run Outlook Calendar to schedule a meeting, or to play CivIII. The only time I boot into Linux is for software compatibility testing. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304071107.40633.DavidJohnson>