Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:06:26 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd. com, why not... Message-ID: <1883005470.20050215070626@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641AFF@mvaexch01.acuson.com> References: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641AFF@mvaexch01.acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Johnson David writes: > Except for Sun "enterprise servers" and Apple's offerings, every server I > have seen has been a PC. I guess that makes me part of the unwashed masses. It just means that your experience is recent. PC hardware is cheap and plentiful, and it is powerful enough for servers, so it is often used in that capacity. It's not ideal hardware for a server, but today's PCs have enough horsepower to fulfill this role, and they are very inexpensive. In the past, servers were likely to be proprietary hardware. > When I go to FreeBSDsystems.com and other similar sites, I see that > everything they sell is a PC. That 1U is a PC. That 4U is a PC. That tower > is a PC. They may not be client PCs, but PCs they are. The operating system and the environment make all the difference. ATMs are usually PCs, but that doesn't mean that understanding PCs is equivalent to understanding ATMs. > Servers and clients have converged. No, they are just as different as they have always been. You have to look beyond mere hardware. There are differences in operating systems, applications, use patterns, constraints, and environment. > To make a long story short, If I can have the same hardware on the > desktop as I do the server, why can't I have the same software as > well? You can, if you want to convert your desktop into a server, or convert your server into a desktop. But for a server role, you must run server software, and for a desktop role, you must run desktop software. Occasionally there are hardware constraints, too. > The mindset that needs to change is that we need to keep around an > artificial distinction between clients and servers. The distinction is not artificial; it's a critical and real distinction that many people today just don't understand. I've worked on all these types of systems, and their differences are as clear as black and white to me. > UNIX moved people away from mainframes to minis. No, it filled in a gap between the two. Mainframes are still in use. > And then it moved them away from minis to micros. No, minicomputers are still in use. > At the same time, micros were getting more and more powerful. We have > reached there is little difference between the server and the client. The difference is just as large now as it has always been. > You're starting to get a bit insulting here. It's difficult to describe the problem without at least adumbrating the ignorance of recent generations of so-called IT professionals. They are so clueless in so many domains that it's scary sometimes. > I am in no way suggesting that FreeBSD be taken off the server, > so stop acting like that's what I said. I didn't mention you at all. > But what if we don't run to run junk on the desktop? Then you run something better. That's when you spring for Windows 200x instead of a dusty old copy of Windows 98. > What is there to sacrifice? Many of the requirements of servers and clients are in direct conflict. Desktops require a GUI, but GUI just gets in the way on a server. Desktops must be inexpensive, but the reliability requirements of servers cost money. Desktops must be user-friendly, but servers must be secure. And so on. > I realize that I could certainly tune FreeBSD for one or the other, > but I fail to understand why tuning it one way prevents you from > tuning it the other. Some things are consequences of the fundamental design of an OS, and cannot be changed through tuning. > Because I don't have a freaking server! The fact that you don't have a server doesn't mean that FreeBSD should be promoted on the desktop in preference to its server role. > I want to use FreeBSD because that is what I want to use! Great, but not a very persuasive argument if you are trying to encourage others to use it. > FreeBSD is perfectly capable of being a desktop system, so why > shouldn't I be allowed to use it as such? You're _allowed_ to use anything. > What is so wrong about doing this? Nothing. > Why can't I come home in the evening to find something other than the > crappy Windows I've been using at work? You can. > You can have my FreeBSD desktop when you pry it out of my cold dead > hands! I can see that this is a strongly emotional issue for you. Unfortunately, that's a handicap when you are trying to advocate a system to unemotional third parties. Your last few statements above would cause you to be written off immediately if you were presenting FreeBSD to a committee of corporate IT managers, for example. They aren't interested in your deep love for FreeBSD; they are only interested in cogent and objective arguments that explain why they should adopt it. You cannot advocate with emotion. I've seen lots of geeks crash and burn this way while trying to negotiate with other people who see computers only as tools. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1883005470.20050215070626>