From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 15:56:23 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 2DFC416A4CE for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:56:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from asmtp04.eresmas.com (asmtp04.eresmas.com [62.81.235.144]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D4743D31 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:56:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ea1abz@wanadoo.es) Received: from [192.168.108.52] (helo=mx01.eresmas.com) by asmtp04.eresmas.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Czzd6-0004XN-1T for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:56:20 +0100 Received: from [80.103.57.160] (helo=[80.103.57.160]) by mx01.eresmas.com with asmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Czzd4-0006Gz-0r for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:56:19 +0100 Message-ID: <420E26FD.7090005@wanadoo.es> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:55:41 +0100 From: Ramiro Aceves User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041124) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <200502112313.28082.hindrich@worldchat.com> <823196404.20050212105644@wanadoo.fr> <420DE422.3020102@wanadoo.es> <1546398643.20050212123202@wanadoo.fr> <420E0164.7090300@wanadoo.es> <27964692.20050212160046@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <27964692.20050212160046@wanadoo.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux 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 15:56:23 -0000 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Ramiro Aceves writes: > > >>Yes, but some OSes are famous for their "blue screens" > > > None that I'm aware of. Blue screens are more of a popular myth > invented by people who hate Microsoft than a reality. I saw occasional > BSODs long ago when there were driver problems or hardware problems on > servers, but I haven't seen a blue screen in years now. There are not a myth, they are a fact. I have seen bluescreens frecuently in win95 and winMillenium. Now I am out of the winbugs world since 2 years and I am very happy. > > >>One day FreeBSD 5.3 completely crashed when doing something in X-window >>System on an old pentium 75MHz. > > > I've had FreeBSD hang while trying to use X servers, but I never could > establish whether the OS itself had frozen or whether it was just the > interface. It happened often enough that it was one of the reasons why > I abandoned any attempt to use a GUI. Sure X is the culprit. > > >>Sometimes I get my Debian box crashed in my 1200 MHz AMD when I watch TV >>card in X-window and move windows (I do not know if it is a matter of >>bttv driver or X-window System bug, but it is anoying). > > > Notice that these both happen with GUIs. One reason is that GUIs put > hooks into the operating system that destabilize it. It's a very high > price to pay just to see pretty pictures on the screen, in my view. > I need the GUIs for my daily work. Electronic circuit design software requires GUI, imaging editing requieres GUI, and because of that many people needs a GUI, but that is not a reason to use Winbugs. > >>On the other had, when I used Windows I had daily crashes :-) > > > Every instance of daily crashes I've seen in NT-based versions of > Windows has been the result of bad drivers, bad hardware, or user > errors. I have seen also winXP computers here at University that do very weird things everyday. > > >>Cant find this on my english dictionary( I do not know what it means) > > > Hype is exaggerated promotion without fact-based, objective > justification. Thank you very much. I understand now. > > >>I choosed Linux cause I think it was better than the windozes. > > > It's hard to believe how this could be true for desktop use. Each time > I ask for specifics, I'm given a list of things that aren't true, such > as the recurring claim of "daily crashes," when in fact it's extremely > rare for NT-based versions of Windows to ever crash at all. Why not choosing Linux or FreeBSD for the desktop? I can choose a windowmanager among decens, I have many apps that perform the same or better than the winbugs counterparts, and the best of all, they are *free* and do not depend on any comercial enterprise. I do not need too much bells and whistles to fell confortable at the desktop. A fluxbox window manager is perfect for me. The important thing are the apps, not the desktop. > > >>If an OS does not have the "third party apps", it is not useful for >>most of us. > > > That alone is one reason why Windows will probably remain king for the > forseeable future. > It is a matter of time, the problem is that we will not be alive to see it. :-( Ramiro.