Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:24:53 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@sherline.com>, "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <01d701c1898c$00b28210$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <003701c18819$a9941a20$6600000a@ach.domain> <3C1FF8DA.2DBC501C@mindspring.com> <013b01c18844$b2ff8b50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C202951.D39F0144@mindspring.com> <005201c188b4$9bd4cd30$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey> <013b01c188f1$b3788340$1400a8c0@blah.com> <000901c18931$b11daf40$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey> <001001c1893b$a164d420$69cab8d0@blah.com> <000a01c18977$9007ac20$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremiah writes: > The minute kernel developers start concentrating > on coding for desktop applications, and any large > share of their time is spent on the desktop aspect, > I will know it is time to move to another *BSD. I fully agree. This is one of my concerns for FreeBSD. I expect Linux to move in that direction, but since it is such a crude operating system to begin with, I don't see that as much of a loss. FreeBSD, on the other hand, is a fine server operating system, and compromising its strengths just to make it look better on the desktop would be a step in the wrong direction. Microsoft made this same mistake with its transition from NT 3.x to NT 4.x, in which it compromised stability and security on the NT platform in order to more intimately integrate the GUI into the kernel. While that helped NT on the desktop (which was presumably the goal), it hurt NT as a server. 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?01d701c1898c$00b28210$0a00000a>