From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 29 0:19:50 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 4ABE437B41C for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:19:29 -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 fAT4H7120829; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:17:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gclarkii@vsservices.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: GB Clark II To: "Anthony Atkielski" Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:17:09 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> In-Reply-To: <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01112822170907.13219@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 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