Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:48:04 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: Richard B Mahoney <rbm49@it.canterbury.ac.nz> Cc: FreeBSD-Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010409224804.I72259@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <20010410143043.I10996@tacacs.canterbury.ac.nz>; from "Richard B Mahoney" on Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:30:43PM References: <"from 01031149"@3web.net> <20010410143043.I10996@tacacs.canterbury.ac.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:30:43PM +1200, Richard B Mahoney wrote: > Dear Duke et al., > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 04:35:46PM -0600, Duke Normandin wrote: > > [huge snip] > > > If FreeBSD exists to perform primarily* as a server platform - period -- > > *then it should be marketed as such. Why? Because *all* peripheral > > support is, by-and-large, developed for, tested on and limited to > > server-grade quality stuff. It should then be plainly emphasized that > > FreeBSD is *NOT* an appropriate OS for deployment on run-of-the-mill, > > Microsoft-grade hardware. In the spirit of professional good-will, A > > referal to some of the Linux sites could then be given. > > > > As well, it should be again plainly emphasized that FreeBSD is *NOT* an > > appropriate OS for most folks wanting to migrate from a Windows/Mac > > platform, as the level of computer literacy and competence required to > > successfully install the OS, hardware peripherals, software, etc, far > > exceeds that of the average Joe. Like you say above, the potential > > FreeBSD user could then be advised to stay with Windows or be directed to > > Linux. Fair enough -- I'd say! > > [little snip] > > In an attempt to keep things in perspective, I would like to > mention how satisfied I am with FreeBSD as a workstation. Good to hear! I never doubted that it was capable of excelling as a desktop platform. > My much loved beast is used primarily as a workstation and > occasionally I connect to it via ftp or telnet. In the true sense > of the word, it was never worthy of the name server. Its a six > year old Digital Venturis 5133 with only 40 Mgs of > RAM. Regardless of its inadequacies, it runs 4.2 Stable with > greater speed and stability than anything else on offer. For me, > Linux, although an option, is not a necessity. I have 3.3R on a no-name 486DX2-66 with 20M RAM - no X Windows. I have a 3Com 509 NIC in it that connects to a win95 box. I love fooling around with it and learning Unix. It's never crashed, hiccuped or burped - even on the garbage-grade hardwarethat I have. > I migrated to BSD straight from Win95. This move, although it had > its moments, was relatively painless. Yes it took a while to > configure the desktop. But for all that, the desktop could be > configured. And desktop configuration under BSD seems no more or > less arduous than under Sun. My experience was similar, except that the only Sun I've seen is the one that fries my bald head when I sometimes loose my hat chasing cattle. ;) > This similarity with Sun -- although it may be superficial -- is > for me a great advantage. It enables me to telnet to one of the > Sun boxes at varsity and to use VNC to run a remote desktop which > is identical to that of the machine from which I am dialing. All > this works seamlessly and for that I am very grateful. It never > ceases to surprise me that it is possible to have such > functionality running such ancient and inexpensive hardware. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is exactly what I've been trying to illicit from this discussion. I was informed that by and large FreeBSD's philosophy regarding peripheral hardware support was/is to target only higher end devices. That surprised me, and was wondering why such a philosophy. I received adequate explanation, although I may not agree. > In short, it would seem to me that it is simply untrue to attempt > to label FreeBSD inappropriate for the average desktop. With a > modicum of common sense in the selection of hardware it should be > possible to put together a fully functional workstation with > relatively little outlay. And as to getting up to speed with the > OS, well what's wrong with a little effort? I agree! I don't think that I characterized FreeBSD as inappropriate for use as an average desktop platform. On the contrary, this is *exactly* what I would like to see! I simply could not understand why an OS that is so capable as a server, could not equally shine as a desktop platform. As I said above, I've been informed that FreeBSD *can* excel given above average quality hardware. I was also informed that Linux supports a wider range of hardware - including out-right garbage. This perhaps explains, to some extent, why Linux has been relatively successful in attracting the Windows crowd with their "garbage hardware". I don't understand your comment, "And as to getting up to speed with the OS, well what's wrong with a little effort?" . I put quite a bit of effort in setting up 3.3R; and asked a lot of dumb questions to this very forum. I'm all for effort -- but like I said, I miss your point. -- -duke Calgary, Alberta, Canada 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?20010409224804.I72259>