From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 6 06:39:43 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B95E106566C for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:39:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3378A8FC15 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:39:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.35]) by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FJMR1f0050lTkoCA4JSY8Y; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:26:32 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FJSW1f0031f6R9u8QJSXna; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:26:32 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:26:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:26:30 -0700 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20101006062629.GA6187@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4CAB25B1.6050906@radel.com> <4CAB2731.9090502@exonetric.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CAB2731.9090502@exonetric.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 X-Composer: Vim 7.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: Which OS for notebook X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:39:43 -0000 On Tue 05 Oct 2010 at 06:25:05 PDT Mark Blackman wrote: >Jon Radel wrote: >>I'm somewhat unclear on how that follows. Might it not be that many >>manufacturers, busily dealing with Microsoft, and easing into Linux now >>that it has significant "mindshare," have simply decided that there's no >>economic benefit to releasing detailed hardware specs in a form that >>works for FreeBSD developers? I really fail to see why you think the >>fact that the manufacturer itself has released binary drivers for >>Windows, and possibly Linux, and/or released hardware specs under NDA >>(non-disclosure agreement) to certain business partners, has any bearing >>on whether sufficient information to write a driver is available to any >>FreeBSD programmer with permission to use it to write an open source >>driver. > >There's also the whole train of thought that says FreeBSD isn't really >aimed at the desktop/laptop/notebook use model and any benefit in that >arena is entirely coincidental. I've often seen that opinion expressed, but never on the FreeBSD website or in any of its "official" materials. On the contrary, most of the official literature presents it as an OS for general-purpose computing, and not only for servers. If I'm wrong about and there is an official statement somewhere that the main intention is to provide an OS for servers, it would be good to know.