Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:17:09 -0600 From: GB Clark II <gclarkii@vsservices.com> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <01112822170907.13219@prime.vsservices.com> In-Reply-To: <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 28 November 2001 21:48, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> GB Clark II writes:
> > 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.
>
> UNIX already had that thirty years ago.
>
> And root has always been there.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's like saying, "There's nothing I know of in a car that makes it
> better than a horse, except that it goes faster." Having a good GUI is all
> it takes, in this case.
>
> > Please point those parts of the Windows
> > architecture that make is superior as a desktop
> > system.
>
> See above. The lack of a multiuser environment is usually an advantage as
> well, along with the heavy integration with the hardware (both of these are
> to the detriment of security, but desktop users don't care about security).
>
> > The only thing Windows has going for it is good
> > salesmanship and many of applications.
>
> "Many" meaning 100,000 applications, including all of the leading
> applications. That's enough!
>
> Salesmanship has not really been a factor. There was never much
> competition.
>
> > As far as a GUI goes, I'll put a SGI UNIX system
> > aginst Windows any day of the week.
>
> Perhaps you will, but most users won't. They don't care.
>
> Why would an average person going out to buy a computer for his desktop
> decide on SGI UNIX instead of Microsoft Windows?
>
> > 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.
>
> They are still far more alike than any version of UNIX and Windows.
>
> One of the advantages of UNIX, by the way, is that it will still run on
> slow, small hardware platforms. Windows tends to use all the hardware you
> can buy for it. Of course, desktop users don't care, since that's what
> they buy the hardware for, anyway, but for servers, this is a serious
> problem with the Window s platform.
>
> > It almost smells like circular logic.
>
> It's not religious faith, and to some people, anything that doesn't adhere
> to dogma "smells."
>
> > Again, outside of more applications, please tell
> > me how MS Windows is a better desktop platform
> > at the architectural level than FreeBSD.
>
> I already have, several times. But even if I had not, having more
> applications is already _more than enough_ to make it a better choice. You
> cannot discount an overwhelming advantage simply because it makes the
> comparison so lopsided.
>
> > From what I've seen from MS Windows 2.X to Windows
> > 2000 (I don't have XP) is that MS Windows does
> > nothing good.
>
> For a desktop user, it does most things better than UNIX, from an ergonomic
> standpoint and often from a technical standpoint.
>
> > Yes, Windows 2000 comes alot closer, but my brother=
> > inlaw still reboots his 2000 box many more times
> > than I do under FreeBSD.
>
> Windows NT/2000 systems run for years in stable environments. Desktop
> users tend to run a lot of junk, much of which has to be trusted by the OS,
> and that crashes systems.
>
> My FreeBSD system crashed within two hours of my first installation of KDE.
> It never crashes when I'm not trying to use it as a desktop. This is not
> a coincidence.
>
> It amazes me, for example, that I have to run with secure_level = -1 in
> order to use an X server. This is a very bad sign, as it means that the X
> server is not secure. No wonder it crashes the system.
>
> > And then you lose the one area where Windows has
> > any benifits, game playing.
>
> That is yet another of many benefits; I've described some of the others
> already.
You edited alot of it out. It is way out context.
Goodbye,
GB
--
GB Clark II | Roaming FreeBSD Admin
gclarkii@VSServices.COM | General Geek
CTHULU for President - Why choose the lesser of two evils?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01112822170907.13219>