Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:59:48 -0800 From: darren kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux Message-ID: <200502121359.53523.bulliver@badcomputer.org> In-Reply-To: <1443267912.20050212215132@wanadoo.fr> References: <200502112313.28082.hindrich@worldchat.com> <200502121141.07311.bulliver@badcomputer.org> <1443267912.20050212215132@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart2423933.OVNxu5d0jh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline quoth the Anthony Atkielski: > darren kirby writes: > > I think your interpretation here is a tad glib. > > I think it's right on the money. The entire Linux movement is fueled by > hatred for Microsoft. And the ultimate goal of the Linux movement is to > build an OS that walks, talks, and quacks like Microsoft Windows, but > doesn't come from Redmond. That is just not right. Perhaps for Redhat, SuSe et al this may be the case= ,=20 but what do you expect? MS is their primary (only?) competition.=20 There are a million different reasons to run Linux, and a million different= =20 types of people that run it. I am part of the Linux community, or movement,= =20 or whatever you want to call it, and I sure as hell do not need people=20 presuming to tell me my motives for running it. > To me, that seems like a waste of time and energy. To me, massive generalizations about the 'communities' of free *nix users, = and=20 all the bickering and infighting therein is a waste of time. Case in point:= =20 this email :) > The idea in itself of building an alternative desktop operating system > is fine. But why does it have to look like Windows? The more closely a > system approaches the look and feel of Windows, the less reason there is > to use that system instead of Windows. Now you seem to be implying that the only difference between any two operat= ing=20 systems is what the GUI looks like.=20 > And why use UNIX as a basis for a desktop GUI? Just because it's there? > I know Apple was forced to resort to that, but that doesn't make it a > good idea. So what's your solution, feed the Redmond beast? No thanks. > > Do you think these people are writing any software? Are they designing > > programming interfaces? Do they have a damn thing to do with the > > development of Linux or any of its supporting software? > > Yes, a lot of them do. In my experience, the developers are the quiet ones that speak with their=20 software. It's the lusers that scream "Linux is teh roxor" everywhere you g= o.=20 I am in full-on agreement that this particular group needs to grow up. Again, I am not trolling, and I am not a Linux zealot. I run FreeBSD, Linux= ,=20 Solaris and any other free unix I can get my hand on. Why? Because I think= =20 they're cool. All of them. Including Linux. Peace, =2Dd =2D-=20 darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." =2D Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 --nextPart2423933.OVNxu5d0jh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCDnxZwPD5Cr/3CJgRAhUeAJ9SDDm6AqKL/qVP6Fx6GhlRe58i+QCfTD0d 0aIt27KThMn6w3Bn+K0ZWuo= =6DWb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2423933.OVNxu5d0jh--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502121359.53523.bulliver>