Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 05:24:50 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "FreeBSD Advocacy" <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD on the desktop (was: TheRegister article on Hotmail) Message-ID: <048101c2943a$985ab290$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <3DDF7691.22726.4FCB4F2@localhost> <02dc01c29338$320168c0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3DDFF5A3.10708@mtbiker.net> <02ed01c2933c$e2b7c390$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3DE00F41.D5D828E9@mindspring.com> <031c01c29356$7f408300$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3DE071F3.F7D8CAAA@mindspring.com> <038501c293b4$2a6a6f90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3DE16EFF.E1E15BFD@mindspring.com> <043901c29424$958a5680$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3DE18817.4030201@josephguhlin.com> <046501c2942b$9185ba00$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3DE198C5.3080103@josephguhlin.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joseph writes: > It took me mere minutes to do it, but I was > coming from Windows 3.1 and DOS. Anything is an improvement over Windows 3.1 and DOS. > Now with the new features of the new version > of X, combined with the port system, it is only > some minor text editing and general knowledge > to get it all to work. Can I now run X at securelevel=3, then? > Whereas if I had no actual work to do on my > machines, I could just sit around idly trying > to stabilize Windows and constantly re-build the > errors it comes with, trying to secure it. The NT-based versions of Windows are neither unstable nor insecure. The kiddie versions of Windows (9x et al.) are both, although they've improved a lot over the years. All operating systems are stable if you don't really use them, however. And most lose stability if you try to do too much with them. > "FreeBSD isn't suitable for the desktop." You're > making an incorrect statement and asserting it > as a fact. The statement is neither correct nor incorrect; it is just an opinion, after all. However, for the average user, I think it is an entirely valid statement. > Considering I could simply install, and be up > and running a desktop with FreeBSD in 10 minutes > where as Windows would still be installing is > enough reason to invalidate your first statement ... Windows was preinstalled on the last machine I bought. It booted immediately as soon as I turned on the machine. > Who knows? BE was quite wonderful. That's what fans of Be say, certainly. I never even saw the OS, however, so I cannot say. > But with a monopoly, even the opportunity to > compete does not exist. Nobody has a real monopoly on operating systems. Some are more widely used than others, however. > As we have seen since Microsoft destroyed OS/2, > and perhaps some others I am not familiar with. Microsoft didn't destroy OS/2--it didn't need to. IBM destroyed OS/2. In the distant, misty past, Windows NT was supposed to be OS/2. IBM insisted on a command-line interface similar to that of MS-DOS, though, whereas Microsoft felt that a GUI was the future of desktop computing. As a result, MS and IBM parted ways, and MS went on to build NT, while IBM continued with OS/2 development. It turned out that Microsoft's decision was right, and IBM's decision was wrong, and ultimately Windows overran OS/2. But there was no "destruction" of anything. > Not on this list. As someone has already mentioned, > this list is for planning. Planning without any discussion of the competition? Hmm. I wonder who would have won World War II if the Allies had planned without ever discussing or examining Germany or Japan. > "FreeBSD isn't suitable for the desktop. No flavor > of UNIX is suitable for the desktop..." > Yes you did, see above. Reading that sentence, I don't see the words "FreeBSD desktop users should give up that OS for desktop use" anywhere. > No, but it is incorrect to preach the Christian > faith in a synagogue ... Ah ... so it is a question of religion, and not rational discussion? How many converts do you hope to find for your religion, when the competition is depending on logic and reason instead? > You're speaking somewhere that no one cares to > hear you. My voice probably doesn't carry very well to the top of the ivory tower. > You are not listening to reason ... You just compared FreeBSD advocacy to religion. Who isn't listening to reason? > ... and trying to make yourself seem important > and victimized by saying that we are trying to > silence you because you have a different opinion. Neither, actually. But I see much hypocrisy in what I am reading here. The proselytizers denying they are religious, the intolerant denying their narrow-mindedness. I'm sure this makes all of you feel very comfortable, but at least know this: You are not going to be putting FreeBSD in more desktops and servers by blindly preaching your faith in the OS as a religious experience rather than a logical conclusion based on sound reasoning from acceptable premises. > Considering the nature of this list, us trying > to silence you, however, is perfectly allowed. Of course. But how many new users of FreeBSD will you win by excluding anyone who isn't already a true and unconditional believer in FreeBSD? > There are other places you could speak your > opinion, this is perhaps the most useless place > to speak your opinion. Given the mindset I am seeing, I tend to agree at least partially. But not everyone who is vocal represents the majority. > See, now you are claiming we have small minds. You advocate censorship and suppression of opposing viewpoints. You draw parallels between FreeBSD advocacy and religious faith. I don't see how either of these could be interpreted as open-mindedness. > This is the usual defense tactic, or as the > Linux community calls it, FUD. Indeed? Does the Linux community claim to have invented the term, too? > As I mentioned before, you are in the wrong > area to be discussing this. Maybe ... but one never knows whom one will reach even when the situation seems hopeless. > Constantly re-expressing an opinion is. No, it is not. Subsequent expressions are no more forcing an opinion than the first. > Distorting facts is. I haven't distorted any facts. > Or would it be more productive to let the people > who wish to focus on the Advocacy of FreeBSD > to focus on the Advocacy of FreeBSD ... There isn't any advocacy of FreeBSD when one denies everything else. It's an amazing viewpoint, actually. Why imagine Microsoft conspiracies when you are so effective at shooting yourselves in the feet already? With attitudes such as those I'm seeing here, you don't need enemies. > ... instead of distorting facts ... Which facts have I distorted? > ... telling things that they do not care to hear ... There is much significance in this. > ... or acting as a child and being quite stubborn. Isn't not caring to hear something one of the most common ways in which children are stubborn? > If I can run FreeBSD as a desktop without a > problem, and my ex-roomates who had not used even > Windows use FreeBSD as a desktop without a problem, > then FreeBSD is suitable for the Desktop. For you, but not for everyone, and certainly not for the majority of computer users. > The average user is less confused by the FreeBSD > login prompt than booting up a computer for the > first time and finding "ILLEGAL EXECUTION" along > with a variety of other non-useful information. I've never seen a computer display "ILLEGAL EXECUTION" when booting up for the first time. And I don't know anyone outside the IT industry who would find a FreeBSD login prompt less confusing than a Windows desktop. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?048101c2943a$985ab290$0a00000a>