From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Nov 28 7:44:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from sage-american.com (sage-american.com [216.122.141.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E0537B417 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from SAGEONE (adsl-64-219-30-123.dsl.crchtx.swbell.net [64.219.30.123]) by sage-american.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA02547; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:44:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011128094417.01042450@mail.sage-american.com> X-Sender: jacks@mail.sage-american.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:44:17 -0600 To: "Anthony Atkielski" , "Bara Zani" , From: jacks@sage-american.com Subject: Re: freebsd as a desktop ? In-Reply-To: <00d701c1781b$638e8820$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <006201c17815$d8960040$fd6e34c6@mlevy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Not that my stamp of approval matters, but that is a VERY opened-minded and logical way of stating it. As a Windoze user since 1988, I truly love the superior power of the Unix server. However, I also still dual boot several machines with Win98 and Win2K because they still do their job... I wouldn't use Win98 at all if it weren't for the older hardware it still supports and Win2K doesn't. There is still one Win2K server in the bunch. When the hardware wears out and upgraded, I will never load the Win98 again as it is incredibly unstable crashing/locking constantly with very few apps running. Win2K is very stable, but not nearly as stable as FreeBSD.... but, Win2K can really run the desktop well all the many heavy apps that this publishing business needs. All of the hype for linux had some associates swearing that it was the way to go even before trying it... that's what hype can do. I see absolutely no reason to use Linux, but that may change later when it can run the destop better than Windoze. Yes, indeed an open mind is essential to maximize the use of the wonderful tools available to us in the most productive manner. We are lucky to have a choice! At 03:45 PM 11.28.2001 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: >Bara writes: > >> I figured that I'm all talk cause I use freebsd >> for servers but win2k as my desktop . > >There is no reason for you to feel that way. UNIX is a server operating system; >Windows 2K is a desktop operating system. You are simply using the appropriate >OS for each purpose. If this makes you feel guilty, it may be that you have >developed an emotional attachment to one or both of the two operating systems; >on that path lies danger. > >> so I decided to install freebsd and use it >> as my desktop client > >That was your first mistake. If Windows 2000 does what you require on the >desktop, there is no reason to replace it with FreeBSD. If you feel >"unfaithful" because you dare to use Windows on the desktop instead of using >FreeBSD on every machine for every purpose, you are replacing reason with >emotion, and as I've said, on that path lies danger. Of course, if these are >your own systems, it doesn't matter ... but if you are managing systems for your >employer or for others, installing one OS in preference to another just because >you feel emotionally attached to it is a very bad decision. > >I'm sure there are probably lots of people out there trying to replace FreeBSD >(or some other flavor of UNIX) with Windows 2000 as well, and for the same >emotional or religious reasons. But Windows 2000 usually doesn't work quite as >well as UNIX for pure, generalized server applications, just as UNIX doesn't >work as well as Windows on the desktop. Understanding this reality is an >important step towards the attainment of perpetual IT bliss. > >I use Windows NT as my desktop OS, and FreeBSD on my server. I see no reason to >change this, as both operating systems are now doing what they do best. Even >after using FreeBSD for only a few weeks, it is very clear to me that FreeBSD >whips the pants off NT as a server (although that didn't really surprise me), >and Windows whips the pants off FreeBSD on the desktop (no surprise there, >either). And note that I run Windows NT, not Windows 2000; since NT has always >done everything I require, I've never had any reason to "upgrade" to Windows >2000--and since I have no emotional attachment to any of these operating >systems, upgrading just to remain faithful to a religion is not a problem. > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > Best regards, Jack L. Stone, Server Admin Sage-American http://www.sage-american.com jacks@sage-american.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message