From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 15 01:45:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D860D16A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:45:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp9.wanadoo.fr (smtp9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3767E43D39 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:45:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0912.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E8E901C005E8 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:45:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf0912.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B230C1C005E5 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:45:56 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050215014556729.B230C1C005E5@mwinf0912.wanadoo.fr Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:45:55 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <961491707.20050215024555@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641AF9@mvaexch01.acuson.com> References: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641AF9@mvaexch01.acuson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: SPAM: Score 3.7: Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd. com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:46:00 -0000 Johnson David writes: > You seem to be arguing that because FreeBSD on the desktop isn't > suitable for everyone then it must be unsuitable for everyone. Get I > get the gist of your argument correct? No, what I'm arguing is that FreeBSD should be promoted as a server, because that's what it does best. I'm beginning to understand the problem, though. It has occurred to me that most people using computers today have never seen any computers except PCs (and perhaps the occasional Mac). They assume that the entire world of IT is on the desktop. They also assume that any operating system that isn't ideal for the desktop is somehow not manly or sexy enough to warrant consideration. They don't realize that server and mainframe operating systems are much more difficult to write and must satisfy much more stringent criteria for reliability, stability, performance, and uptime. To them, any suggestion that an OS may not be suited to the desktop is tantamount to saying that the OS is worthless. Maybe this mindset needs to be changed. Most of the heavy-duty work in the world is done by servers and mainframes, not desktops. Most of the best operating systems in the world are mainframe and server operating systems, not desktop operating systems. And there's no shame in an operating system being better at server work than at desktop work; on the contrary, a good server operating system has considerably more prestige than a good desktop operating system ... at least in the eyes of IT professionals who have been around a while. Unfortuately, since so many people know and understand only desktops, they tend to equate non-desktop with non-existence, and so they get emotional when someone points out that their favorite OS may not be the ideal desktop OS. They are interested in UNIX, but only insofar as it runs on a desktop, since anything that doesn't run on a desktop is only half an operating system, in their eyes. In my case, I've used all different types of computers, not just PCs. The critical systems are the ones nobody sees: the serves and the mainframes. These are the systems that cost $100,000 a minute for every minute they are down. These are the systems that require the very best operating systems. You can run any piece of junk on a desktop. > To correct any fears you may have, no one here is advocating that we spend > any of your money or your time on desktop FreeBSD. No one is advocating > making FreeBSD worse as a server in order to cater to the desktop. And no > one is even advocating that we make it the top development priority. I hope so. I don't need a new desktop. I need a reliable server. I seem to have found one in FreeBSD, and I don't want to put that investment at risk. > FreeBSD doesn't have to make an either-or choice between servers and > clients. We can actually do both. You can do both if you are willing to sacrifice a little on each. "Jack of all trades, master of none." That's the Microsoft philosophy: try to push your OS as the solution to everything. But even they can't get the concept to work. Servers and clients are just too different. You need the right tool for the right job. > This list is FreeBSD *advocacy*. There is no advocacy in telling > people to use Windows or Mac OSX instead, especially when we're > perfectly capable of meeting many people's desktop needs. This is excellent evidence of the mindset I mentioned above. Why are people advocating FreeBSD on the desktop, but not on servers? FreeBSD shines on servers. It is not a substitute for Windows on the desktop. By constantly talking about FreeBSD on the desktop, you denigrate FreeBSD on servers, even though servers are what FreeBSD does best. And when potential users hear you talking about desktops all the time, they get the impression that they need not bother with FreeBSD their servers, because it's just another wannabe Windows, like Linux. People need to try to think out of the box, and that means recognizing that there's more to the world of computers than the machines on their desks. -- Anthony