From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 13:08:15 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 2D74716A4CF for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:08:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out011.verizon.net (out011pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0EA43D48 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:08:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from reso3w83@verizon.net) Received: from ringworm.mechee.com ([4.26.84.7]) by out011.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20050212130813.DDMF28171.out011.verizon.net@ringworm.mechee.com> for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:08:13 -0600 Received: by ringworm.mechee.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 405DD2CE740; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:03:58 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael C. Shultz" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:03:55 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <200502120402.56761.reso3w83@verizon.net> <466726127.20050212131954@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <466726127.20050212131954@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200502120503.55795.reso3w83@verizon.net> X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [4.26.84.7] at Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:08:12 -0600 Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:08:15 -0000 On Saturday 12 February 2005 04:19 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Michael C. Shultz writes: > > That was obvious by your confusion with Firefox an opera for > > example. > > What confusion? > > Firefox exists only for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. I politely cautioned you over the wisdom of remaining silent versus the embarassment of speaking out when you are clueless. Now that we both have resolved whose the fool may I direct your attention to: /usr/ports/www/firefox > All of these > require a GUI to work. I don't run a GUI on my FreeBSD machine. The > only browser I have installed on FreeBSD is lynx. And you STILL think you are qualified to say it is a poor desktop? > > Opera has a wider selection of platforms (including FreeBSD), but > it's still a GUI browser. > > > You admit you don't know what is in ports yet feel it is OK to > > say FreeBSD is a poor desktop? > > I can say that based on the OS alone. Can't you find a windows maillist somewhere? Sorry, maybe you did and even they give you the boot? > > > Ever heard the saying "better to remain silent and thought a > > fool....."? > > Yes. Un believable. > > > How do you know? You just admitted you don't use what is in > > ports... > > Because I've checked with the vendors for these products. They ought > to know. Yes, I can see how you may feel comfortable trusting salesmen. > > > Why would you say FreeBSD is a poor desktop when your only desktop > > experience is with windows? > > I do have desktop experience with FreeBSD. I tried it briefly and > abandoned it. It was so lame compared to Windows that it didn't take > but a day or two to realize that it was a waste of my time. I don't > have any emotional investment in operating systems, so I just went > back to Windows. Yes. Please go back to their list as well. They miss you probably. > > > I don't blame you, when something goes wrong on a Windows system > > the solution is usually to reinstall everything. > > No more so than with any other OS. The main reason I disallow > automatic updates is that I want to know exactly what is being > installed on the machine at all times. I'm sure you are without a clue on that issue also. > > > FreeBSD is a bit more robust than that. > > No, it's not. It's neither better nor worse. But in a production > environment, you never do any updates automatically, anyway. Oh really? > > > On this point I guess you'll have to take my word > > seeing as you have no experience with FreeBSD as a desktop.... > > Just as you've taken my word about the number of applications I run > simultaneously on Windows? Un like you and FreeBSD, I have years of experience with windows, I am quite comfortable with calling your claims bullshit. > > > Why do you feel you are qualified to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop > > again? > > Because I've used it for that purpose, along with a number of other > operating systems. Windows wins by a handsome margin. The closest > competitor is the Mac. Nothing else is even in the running. > > > bullshit Now you are reorganizing this message?? Mayl I remind you, my deceitful little friend where the billshit really fell: > I routinely have two dozen applications running under Windows, and > depending on memory available and required, it can easily run several > times that, or more. Bullshit. > On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run > everything. Bullshit > I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications > running. bullshit > I can go months without rebooting. My NT machine has gone for nearly > a year without a reboot. I don't remember ever seeing a system crash > on my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT > system (all because of bad drivers). bullshit. You are a flat out liar friend. > > I don't currently run database servers. But database servers have a > lot of issues relating to performance, not just file-system > fragmentation. They do on NT anyways. -Mike