From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 29 0:19:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from primus.vsservices.com (primus.vsservices.com [63.66.136.75]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4139037B420 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from prime.vsservices.com (conr-adsl-dhcp-26-38.txucom.net [209.34.26.38]) by primus.vsservices.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id fASNBJ117663; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:11:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gclarkii@vsservices.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: GB Clark II To: "Anthony Atkielski" , "Mike Meyer" Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:11:20 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> In-Reply-To: <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, I've put my comments inline so as not to lose the context. I've also moved it to chat, this does not belong on the questions list...:) On Wednesday 28 November 2001 15:36, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Mike writes: > > You've said this before, but haven't done > > anything to demonstrate it. > > I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration. UNIX was designed > to service hundreds of users sitting in front of dumb terminals; it was not > designed to drive a single resource-intensive GUI on dedicated hardware for > a single user. UNIX architecture puts a huge emphasis on multiple, > independent users and processes, and very little emphasis on the kind of > close integration and hardware dependency that a complex GUI requires. > These characteristics make for an excellent timesharing system or server, > but they also make for a poor desktop environment. The UNIX architecture of 30 years ago is long gone. Most modern day UNIX/unix-like OS have everything need to run a single user just fine. There is nothing that I know of in the Windows architecture (outside of having a graphics sub-system in the kernel) that makes it any better. Please point those parts of the Windows architecture that make is superior as a desktop system. The only thing Windows has going for it is good salesmanship and many of applications. As far as a GUI goes, I'll put a SGI UNIX system aginst Windows any day of the week. Also, not all UNIX/unix-like systems are created equal. Comparing FreeBSD on a Duron-850 (my home box) to 4.2BSD running on a VAX (13 years ago) is like comparing apples and grapes. > Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of multiple > users and no provision for hardware independence. Processes and users are > not intended to work simultaneously on the same machine on completely > different tasks. As a result, it is very good for dedicated, single-user > desktop use, but very poor for timesharing use and mediocre for server use. > > If you believe that UNIX is as good a desktop as Windows, then logically > you must also believe that Windows is as good a server as UNIX. An > extension of this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems > are essentially identical--but that obviously is not the reality. Excuse me? Which logic class shows that? Group A = Server Platform Group B = Desktop Platform Platform 1 = A + B Platform 2 = B Thats almost like saying that if you have brown hair and are left handed, all left handed people have brown hair. Person 1 = BH + LH Person 2 = LH Just because something is in two groups does not make the two groups equal. It almost smells like circular logic. > > I've been making heavy desktop use of, and > > supporting users making heavy desktop use of, > > Unix since 1985. Nothing has happened during > > that time that in any way indicated that Unix > > is "incompatible with heavy desktopp use." > > Most operating systems can be stretched to fill all sorts of roles for > which they weren't intended. That doesn't make them good in such > applications, nor does it make them superior to purpose-built operating > systems for those same applications. > > It's interesting to see how hard people will try to prove or at least argue > that their pet operating systems are the best for all purposes, or even > adequate for all purposes. I've never seen an operating system that can do > it all, and I expect that I never will. > Again, outside of more applications, please tell me how MS Windows is a better desktop platform at the architectural level than FreeBSD.