Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:05:42 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Ken Bolingbroke" <hacker@bolingbroke.com> Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <02cd01c17911$3a3ebe80$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111290950370.22795-100000@fremont.bolingbroke.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ken writes: > You seem to be demonstrating your ignorance of > computing history. The original desktops and > workstations were UNIX. But the original UNIX was not a desktop. It was intended to be a stripped-down substitute for Multics, a very advanced multiuser timesharing system that was well ahead of its time (and well ahead of the capabilities of the hardware available when it was first conceived, despite having hardware built specifically to run it). As Multics began to wind down in 1968, Thompson and Ritchie looked into building a tiny multiuser timesharing system of their own, running it on DEC PDP hardware. It was never intended to be just a simple desktop OS; desktop computers didn't really exist at the time. > Sun, SGI, etc, all have a long history of making > desktops, that predate all these PC upstarts like > Dell and Gateway. UNIX predates Sun and SGI. > Rather, we're making the point that if desired, > FreeBSD can and does serve quite well as a desktop > system. That's true for MS-DOS, too. But neither OS is likely to be a suitable first choice for any normal user. > Sorry, but there's no such requirement. My heavy > desktop needs are sufficiently met with FreeBSD. I was comparing NT to consumer versions of Windows. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?02cd01c17911$3a3ebe80$0a00000a>