From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 08:00:21 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DA316A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:00:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp9.wanadoo.fr (smtp9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC2E43D39 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:00:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0901.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AA84A200143C for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:00:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf0901.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8A9EF200143B for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:00:20 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050213080020567.8A9EF200143B@mwinf0901.wanadoo.fr Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:00:20 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1713463252.20050213090020@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <869B90CC-7D77-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> References: <1935025570.20050211232605@wanadoo.fr> <823306184.20050212113045@wanadoo.fr> <3689589ceb0c4136e92d14c65c5df940@chrononomicon.com> <546604224.20050212220510@wanadoo.fr> <5df61a9fd90e3f232682f5bf3251b9ae@chrononomicon.com> <1309842218.20050212222019@wanadoo.fr> <7044a5988c64b9ed12925e7de3bae075@chrononomicon.com> <999277958.20050213025654@wanadoo.fr> <869B90CC-7D77-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:00:21 -0000 Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > I can't think of any time that MS is the best choice, except in perhaps > some vertical market cases. It is often the most convenient choice. Convenience is reason enough by itself to choose a particular OS. The only people who deliberately choose inconvenient operating systems are those with an ax to grind. > Like the list of software you listed. Most of that can be replaced > with other SW -- especially if you switch to Mac OS X, though probably > also to a BSD or Linux solution. Maybe ... but that won't allow me to read and write the native file formats of these applications. I'm trying to find a way to reduce my dependence on expensive and bloated applications (which includes most Microsoft applications, unfortunately), but there aren't too many options. -- Anthony