Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:32:17 -0700 (MST) From: Larry Lee <lclee@primenet.com> To: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Cc: lclee@primenet.com Subject: Re: Commerical applications Message-ID: <199701210332.UAA09421@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Lee Crites <adonai@jump.net> > Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:45:04 -0600 > Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation > > At 13:47 17-01-97 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > >> Microsoft isn't popular because of all the books that are written about > >> it, books are written because their products are popular. You get > >> popular by having good products and telling people about them. > > > >Or having mediocre products and telling people about them. 8-). > > One of the things I used to say (guess I still could with some minor > changes) was this: "Windoze, the operating system from the same people who > brought you edlin..." > And instead of edlin we have ex, vi and emacs. I'm not sure the casual user would appreciate the difference! Please pardon the interruption, I'm normally just a lurker, but you have totally missed the boat. FreeBSD clearly outperforms W95 and WNT on the same size hardware and runs on smaller hardware platforms. The basic UNIX commands are no more difficult to learn than the basic DOS commands and any UNIX shell is no more difficult to use than command.com and clearly has far more power and capabilities. Clearly there is more hardware supported on W95 than UNIX, but all the basic functionality is available and supported on UNIX. By that I mean that even though token ring or micro channel isn't supported, there are viable and easily obtainable alternatives such as ethernet or pci. I doubt that this is a barrier to FreeBSD acceptance. The UNIX install process is much more difficult than Windows and when it's complete you still don't have a fully functional UNIX system. FWIW I think that FreeBSD is far easier than NetBSD and Linux, but still way behind W95. UNIX costs less that Windows. I not sure that it does, since I suspect that there are more pirated copies of Windows and windows applications than there are official copies, but I'll leave it as a UNIX plus anyway. All you guys (not just the core team, but all the contributors/kibbitizers as well) have done a marvelous job with the OS, it's fast, efficient, layered, and reliable. No GPF's here. BUT Windows kicks UNIX's butt with good looking, easy to use applications. Not esoteric applications like ray tracing, but basic things like integrated word processing, database, spreadsheets, mail, and news readers. Netscape looks just as good on FreeBSD as it does on W95, but I understand that mcom is trimming back on the number of platforms they will support. Most people need basic letter, report, and documentation functionality. A few different scalable fonts, with bold and italic is all that is really needed. Spill checking, mail merge, inclusion of drawings and pictures would be nice, but aren't essential. I understand that wordperfect is available for FreeBSD, and if I outgrew a the basic offering I might consider purchasing that. Compare the appearance and utility of Eudora to xmh, Eudora looks better. Anything based on xaw looks awful, and the 3d version isn't much better. Compare the trumpet news reader with your favorite news reader, (I happen to like nn), Trumpet looks better and is easier to use. The world has gone graphical, but Unix still clings to its text based origins. I'm quite confident that somewhere, someone is still working on an ADM-31, but if UNIX continues to allows the needs of this user to prevent it from adopting a graphical interface, we will all lose! Several years ago I attended a conference in which Bill Joy was the keynote speaker. He described a layered system from a single vendor (Sun), in which the primary vendor supplied 'one good solution'. The importance of this is that a third party could choose a much smaller piece and replace (and hopefully) improve it. I believe that FreeBSD would benefit from that same type of bottom to top one good solution, such that when the basic system is installed you have one good solution to all of these needs. Which means that the basic FreeBSD installation should include setup of all peripherals and external interfaces, including X, PPP, ethernet, and most basic applications such as word processing. Most of what I'm describing here isn't on the leading edge of computer science or hardware technology and as such may not be interesting to the developers here, but unless you provide a solution to the applications that most people you won't ever be able to go head to head with Windows and put up a credible offering. Don't get me wrong, I think the FreeBSD team is doing great things, but if your goals are getting a larger marketshare or public acceptance, then any efforts towards multiprocessors would be better spent on installation procedures, word processors, and internet tools. Whether you do the work yourselves, or find and integrate someone elses work or farm it out to someone else doesn't matter. Having one complete package does, that works right out of the box does! Larry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701210332.UAA09421>