Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:46:17 -0500 From: "Doug Reynolds" <mav@wastegate.net> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: "questions@freebsd.org" <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <20011202164705.878A637B405@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:36:43 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: >I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration. UNIX was designed to >service hundreds of users sitting in front of dumb terminals; it was not >designed to drive a single resource-intensive GUI on dedicated hardware for a >single user. UNIX architecture puts a huge emphasis on multiple, independent >users and processes, and very little emphasis on the kind of close integration >and hardware dependency that a complex GUI requires. These characteristics make >for an excellent timesharing system or server, but they also make for a poor >desktop environment. surprisingly enough, i agree with you here. nothing beats unix for running servers. it is hard to beat windows when running a pretty gui that has a decent function. >Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of multiple users >and no provision for hardware independence. Processes and users are not >intended to work simultaneously on the same machine on completely different >tasks. As a result, it is very good for dedicated, single-user desktop use, but >very poor for timesharing use and mediocre for server use. > >If you believe that UNIX is as good a desktop as Windows, then logically you >must also believe that Windows is as good a server as UNIX. An extension of >this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems are essentially >identical--but that obviously is not the reality. not necessarity. from a basic X setup, it _really_ _really_ sucks. I admit that. but if you spend the couple days / weeks, its not bad. notice i didn't say it was ultra-mega. that is because it is free, so don't bitch. >Most operating systems can be stretched to fill all sorts of roles for which >they weren't intended. That doesn't make them good in such applications, nor >does it make them superior to purpose-built operating systems for those same >applications. ie Windows 2000 as a server >> Quite to the contrary, every time someone has >> asked me to work on Win 9x or Macs - through the >> mid 90s - they crashed regularly under my >> normal usage patterns. That convinced me that, >> if anything, those operating systems aren't >> suitable for "heave desktop use". > >Heavy desktop use requires NT and its descendants. Windows 9x and the Mac are >for occasional, non-critical desktop use, for precisely the reasons you cite. actually, you can leave out Win2000. it is garbage. I've been running it off and on, it doesn't have any 3d support, the video drivers for it lockup randomly, and the print sharing sucks ( I have a epson printer on my network hooked to a win98se box, and everytime you print to it, it crashes). file sharing is probably great, but i've yet to figure that out yet. it is going bye - bye as soon as i convert back to FAT32. (dumbass me converted to ntfs). --- doug reynolds | the maverick | mav@wastegate.net 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?20011202164705.878A637B405>