Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 12:40:32 +0200 From: "Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg" <listsub@401.cx> To: kitsune <kitsune@gmx.co.uk> Cc: ggilliss@netpublishing.com Subject: Re: Brilliant and very useful for FreeBSD, IMHO Message-ID: <3E93F8A0.3080500@401.cx> References: <20030406172035.GA45332@netpublishing.com> <3E91360F.1090702@401.cx> <3E916DC3.4090407@centtech.com> <20030408161632.07952231.kitsune@gmx.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
kitsune wrote: > On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 07:23:31 -0500 Eric Anderson > <anderson@centtech.com> wrote: >> Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: [..snip..] >> >>> I love FreeBSD, but not even I would get the idea to run it as >>> a desktop. It's not good at it, and if someone asks for my >>> opinion, I hope it never will be. Even Microsoft have realised >>> that it takes a different os to run a server then a desktop. >>> They have a plethora of different editions, like XP Home >>> Edition and W2K Advanced Server. As long as FreeBSD excels on >>> servers, chances are it will not make a perfect desktop. I say >>> we have enough desktop os's, lets keep FreeBSD kicking ass on >>> the servers. *snip* >> Just for informations sake, I taught my wife to use FreeBSD as >> her desktop OS in about 15 minutes. She got used to fluxbox and >> used it like she has known it for years. Also, recently I showed >> a unix "newbie" FreeBSD, and let him play with is and several >> Linux os's, and he finally decided on FreeBSD because (in his >> words) "it's just so simple and easy to get things done". >> >> Just my $0.02. >> >> Eric > > > I Agree. FreeBSD works great for desktops/workstations. I have it > installed on all my boxes using fluxbox. > > I managed to teach my sister to use freebsd in 30 minutes. When I > built a comp for her a few months ago with FreeBSD 4.7 on it. I think this entire thread boils down to how you define 'desktop'. To me, a desktop is a computer used for surf, email, chatt, games and similar non-serious tasks. A computer used for programming, CAD, DTP, analyzis, monitoring or similar is what I call a workstation, not a desktop. A desktop user is often clueless about the inner workings of his os, and so it should be. As long as he can get to the web, install a new game or get his icons to display in 4 billion colors, he is satisfied. Those are the users that need windows, not freebsd. A workstation user has, or atleast should have, a basic understanding of computers. He is usually able to install several os's using a bootloader, he partitions his drives, configures and tweaks his system and overall keep track of his software. FreeBSD can make an excellent workstation. I still claim that freebsd is not, and should not try to be, a good desktop os. All replies Ive seen so far stating things like "but Ive used freebsd as a desktop for years and I love it" are probably from workstation users. Those that show of friends or family as examples has always helped their loved ones to set things up or just given them a machine where everything is preconfigured. The fact that a clueless user can use a os that someone has spent hours setting up does not mean the os is a good desktop. A good desktop os to me is a os where the user himself can set things up the way he wants it, without help from experienced users. -- R
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E93F8A0.3080500>