From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 13:12:53 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 7031A16A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:12:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7D743D1F for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:12:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 31FE21C0009F for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:12:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0E7051C00085 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:12:52 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050213131252592.0E7051C00085@mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:12:51 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <6111473.20050213141251@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <420F4254.90500@wanadoo.es> References: <200502112313.28082.hindrich@worldchat.com> <9162ea4ff171ffc111003a204c81ef7d@HiWAAY.net> <200502121141.07311.bulliver@badcomputer.org> <1443267912.20050212215132@wanadoo.fr> <420F4254.90500@wanadoo.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:12:53 -0000 Ramiro Aceves writes: > I do not think that the ultimate goal of the Linux movement is to > build an OS that walks, talks, and quacks, the goal of Linux is to make > a OS that can do whatever you want. It can talk, walk if you need it, it > can be a server if you need it. It is a matter of configuring it for > your needs. It looks an awful lot like Windows for something that should be carving its own niche. And it is regularly presented as "Linux instead of Windows," which clearly implies that it's not a product in its own world, it's something that is trying to be like Windows. On that path lies danger. As for being what you need it to be, there are fundamental conflicts between desktop and server environments, such that no OS can do both perfectly. You can do one extremely well, or the other extremely well, but not both. > I do not understand ... A lot of kiddies spent all their time and energy bashing Microsoft and trying to find ways to be "as good as Microsoft" without actually using any Microsoft code. They are in a highly destructive love/hate relationship with the vendor, and that drives all their behavior, whereas among normal computer users and IT professionals, wholly different motivations and attitudes drive their behavior, in much healthier ways. > Because if you use a GUI ontop a better kernel, the resultint OS will be > better ... That depends on the type of kernel. Some operating systems are not well suited to single-user desktop GUI environments. > ... and again, they are free and MS is not free. You usually get what you pay for. -- Anthony