Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:37:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112071014340.6468-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> In-Reply-To: <000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > utility of Linux; after all, if you want something that looks and works like > Windows, your best bet is to install Windows, not an imitation. That is not their goal. They want something better. > In other words, buy Linux just as you buy Windows, and become dependent on a > Linux packager instead of Microsoft. What's to be gained by this? You're > in the same rut either way. You are still beholden to a commercial vendor, Who cares? What is wrong with having multiple choices? > anything behind the pretty package actually works. If you want a > commercial, turnkey desktop package, buy Windows--or, if you can't stand > Microsoft, buy a Mac. I wouldn't want to be limited to just two choices. > This article is further evidence that a lot of Linux users are quite > clueless. That is irrelevant. (Everyone has to begin with no knowledge.) Anyways, the article also provides evidence that many Linux users are not clueless. > I don't know exactly what motivates them to toss all the > strengths of UNIX aside and spend their time reinventing the wheel, but it > seems pretty pointless. Often this has to do with hobbies and particular interests. > Do people really hate Microsoft so much that they > are willing to increase their own work and inconvenience by orders of > magnitude just to have whatever Microsoft provides in every detail except > the name? It is because Microsoft does not "provide in every detail" what other operating systems provide. For example, I haven't seen a Microsoft Windows 98 box come by default with any tools for remote text-only login for administration and nothing (by default) for remote GUI administration. I have never seen a Windows 98 box by default that can be used to manage your own email and allows using RBL lists to stop spam. (Using an idea from another email, Windows does not provide "the fine grained control".) In other words, I can't pick one or the other and have every feature. But I can pick one that is *easier* to customize to provide functionality that nearer matches both. > be the future of the desktop (actually, that future is already here under > Windows, which he seems to ignore), but why must the desktop be the future > of Linux, or of any other version of UNIX? Why be so limited? > My concern is that Robin and others like him (or her--not sure if it's a he > or she) are going to kill off UNIX by trying to make it work as a > desktop--where it will never come anywhere close to Windows, in all I am not sure why you continue to believe that Unix shouldn't be a desktop. My mother has used Unix as her personal computer for a couple years now. She surfs the web, chats, sends emails, looks at photos, prints letters, etc. Plus the same computer works as the router for the home network and handles some mail. It is a lot more stable than her previous operating system (which is why she changed), and it is a lot easier to update and manage remotely. Plus, I can use it and help with it without having to travel to it. > likelihood--while ignoring its obvious superiority as a server. Just And there is nothing wrong with it being obviously superior as a desktop. Jeremy C. Reed http://bsd.reedmedia.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0112071014340.6468-100000>