Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:22:56 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu>, "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@sherline.com>, "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net>, <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <014501c18927$2a552ec0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <003701c18819$a9941a20$6600000a@ach.domain> <3C1FF8DA.2DBC501C@mindspring.com> <013b01c18844$b2ff8b50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C202951.D39F0144@mindspring.com> <005201c188b4$9bd4cd30$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey> <013b01c188f1$b3788340$1400a8c0@blah.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gilbert writes: > Hm, I think one of the big problems here is > that Anthony keeps stating that Unix has no > place in the desktop. I think one of the big problems here is that so many people are actually hellbent on "beating" Microsoft, and so insist that UNIX is "better" than Microsoft on the desktop, even though that's about the last place in the universe where you'd want to compare UNIX side-by-side with MS if you want UNIX to win. At the same time, UNIX as a server is virtually forgotten, even though that is what UNIX does best. As a result, while satisfying their emotional need to hurt Microsoft, at least in their own minds, they damage the cause of UNIX and FreeBSD by advocating it in precisely the environments where it is least likely to be acceptable to objective users. It's amazing how many people are so blinded by their own subjective preferences that they cannot see this. > That is fine as an opinion, I suppose, but not > very FreeBSD-advocating. It makes a lot more sense to advocate FreeBSD for what it does best than to advocate it for what it does worst. Advocating UNIX for the desktop is more likely to hurt the OS and help it, as objective parties who compare it with Microsoft are very likely to choose MS, further marginalizing UNIX in their minds--they'll have "proof" that UNIX is "worse" than Windows. > I would argue that Unix has a potential > place in the desktop. It does, but it is not a replacement or substitute for Windows, and the average user needs Windows, not UNIX. > In fact, we have to remember that the biggest Unix > desktop vendor, Apple (via OS X), built their kernel > on a FreeBSD code base. We also have to remember that the vast majority of Apple users still run the old Mac OS, and Apple systems still boot MacOS 9 preferentially, IIRC. Apple built OS X on a UNIX code base because it was cheaper than writing an OS from scratch (something they simply could not afford), not because UNIX was in any way inherently superior for the desktop (although I'm sure it's a huge step forward from the old Mac OS, which still used an architecture scarcely any better than Windows 3.X). > To bash Unix on the desktop is to bash OS X, > which is to indirectly bash FreeBSD (and all > other BSDs, as well as all Unixes). To be selectively blind to the failings and weaknesses of an operating system is to base one's position on emotion, rather than reason. Others who do not share the same emotions will not be persuaded to adopt such a position. > Anothony, many of us would feel a lot less upset > if you would not state so strongly that Unix has > no place in the desktop. Perhaps "feeling upset" is the real problem. If you are so attached to an OS that you feel upset whenever anyone says anything less than positive about it, then you are not an objective evaluator of that operating system. > And yes I do use some microsoft products, and in > fact do use MS on the desktop (as you could tell > by reading my mail headers). Most people do. So why do you bash UNIX by using Windows on the desktop? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?014501c18927$2a552ec0$0a00000a>