From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 20 12:57:30 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 5C07116A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:57:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (wcborstel.demon.nl [82.161.134.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA84243D55 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:57:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.nl) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7514391; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:58:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (www.wcborstel.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76710-10; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:58:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B12421A; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:58:13 +0100 (CET) From: "Jorn Argelo" To: Scott Bennett , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd@danielquinn.org Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:58:13 +0100 Message-Id: <20050120125305.M63526@wcborstel.nl> In-Reply-To: <200501200855.j0K8tdsS021670@mp.cs.niu.edu> References: <200501200855.j0K8tdsS021670@mp.cs.niu.edu> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.41 20040926 X-OriginatingIP: 82.161.134.53 (jorn) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.wcborstel.nl Subject: Re: FreeBSD I LOVE YOU X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:57:30 -0000 On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:55:39 -0600 (CST), Scott Bennett wrote > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:26:49 -0500 daniel quinn > wrote: > >On January 19, 2005 03:06 pm, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > >> Freebsd0101@aol.com writes: > >> > >> Fac> I think the "junky old PC" market is just what the current FreeBSD > >> "team" Fac> is targeting. > >> > >> At least someone is thinking of it. There are a lot of PCs out there > >> that are still in perfect working order, but are too slow to run the > >> hugely bloated desktop operating systems (and the "server" versions > >> thereof) that are popular today. Efficient operating systems like UNIX > >> can give these machines new life and purpose and save tremendous > >> resources in the process. > >> > >> Indeed, someone in the Third World without the means to buy a new PC and > >> an expensive Windows license could find a junk PC and install FreeBSD on > >> it for nothing, and be up and running in no time. While UNIX doesn't > >> have the advantages of Windows on the desktop, you can't beat the price, > >> and it'll run on anything. > > > >not to mention the huge environmental implications of producing newer hardware > >every year to support said bloated hardware. if the same job can be done > >with a 10 year old box, i'm glad freebsd is here to help me do it. > > > The recent discussion in this thread causes me to wonder > whether FreeBSD's performance on older, slower equipment could be a contributing > factor to why hardware vendors like Dell and ATI are willing to > provide only limited support for LINUX and none at all for FreeBSD. > After all, if FreeBSD lets a Pentium II w/MMX handle, for example, a > moderately loaded web site or large network firewall or some other > reasonable use and thereby obviating many purchases of hardware > upgrades, why would they want to encourage its use? AFAIK Dell only provides support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Which is a company. There's probably profit in it for Dell as well. So why would a company that want more money give support for an operating system where is no money to be gained from? Of course, I could be completely wrong in here. So feel free to correct me if I am :) Cheers, Jorn