Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:53:34 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010408175333.B117005@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <007701c0bfef$b594f120$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>; from "Ted Mittelstaedt" on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 10:49:43PM References: <20010407142725.A171295@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> <007701c0bfef$b594f120$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 10:49:43PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> This depends on what you want to do with a desktop system.
>
> The first issue that most people that want to run desktop systems want to
> do is the following: They Want The Cheapest Thing Possible. In short,
> placing some absolutely rediculous price constraints on building their
> desktop systems results in some truly gruesome hardware selections.
>
> So, what happens when someone with a e-machines system with a winmodem,
> a bunch of usb peripherals, a crappy monitor and video card goes and
> tries to load FreeBSD? Well, their chances of success are lower than if
> they tried loading, say, Windows ME. This is because ME has to be designed
> to run on that absolute junk hardware - because that's the target market
> Microsoft is shooting for.
So...is it fair to say that given the multitude of junk hardware in
active use, that M$ and perhaps Linux have done an outstanding job in
1. writing relatively stable drivers for this so-called crap, and 2.,
dove-tailing same with their perhaps not-so-stable kernel(s)? As well,
that this whole discussion is really about quality and availablity of
junk-hardware drivers?
> Now, there's absolutely no reason that you cannot select decent-quality
> hardware for desktop systems, such as using SCSI peripherals, and that
> sort of thing. It will cost you more money, probably a significantly
> more amount. The better hardware will run FreeBSD, and other
> higher-performance operating systems just fine. In fact, it may NOT run the
> cheaper OS's as well, I know of at least 1 Compaq model that a customer
> has which runs NT Workstation flawlessly, but crashed regularly under
> Windows 95.
True enough! However, in your vast experience, what percentage of the
current and future Unix users do you suppose can afford the quality of
basic and peripheral hardware that commercial houses opt for -- and more
importantly, that the FreeBSD top-level folks *seem* to have deemed to be
the only type that drivers would be written for?
Your comments above, IMHO, support your previous suggestion that this
whole issue revolves around certain strategic marketing decisions that
have been made. Something to the effect that -- we'll aim at being the
best server platform possible, and to hell with catering to the desktop
users with their paeon junk hardware. If they're clued-in enough to get
with the program and come up to standards, then it'll work for them, up
to a point. Otherwise, piss on em! Am I being unfair?
> I don't think that there's inherently anything that someone wants to do on
> a desktop system that is hazardous to the operating system. However,
> certainly there's programs that people want to run that ARE hazardous to
> the computer! For example, I've seen Pagemaker crash a system for no
> reason whatsoever, except application software bugs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sure....which can happen in a strict server setting as well, e.g, a
flaky NIC driver.
> If you are willing to use FreeBSD as a desktop OS - which means giving up
> the ability to run certain windows applications - then you will probably
> have no problems with it. Now, if you were a programmmer and you "forced"
> FreeBSD into running _all_ Windows applications, well then you might have to
> make serious compromises in system integrity to do it.
Would Netscape be a good example of the above? I take it that you are
suggesting that FreeBSD ports of some Windows programs are poorly done
*and* that the peripheral hardware that some of these use/require lead to
system performance degradation due to FreeBSD's poor junk-hardware
support?
> >Bottom-line -- should FreeBSD be chosen
> >strictly for use as a server, and Linux as a desktop platform, albeit the
> >latter's instability that *sometimes* occurs in their effort to support
> >as much relevant hardware/software as possible?
>
> This is the $64 question, isn't it? Well, my answer to that is the
> following: Since FreeBSD has stability and reliability as it's absolute
> mantra, when selecting an OS for _either_ a server or a desktop, try FreeBSD
> first. If it will work for what you want to do, then your ahead of the
> game. If it fails on the server hardware you have, then consider that the
> server hardware shouldn't be in use as a server to start with, and replace
> it. But, if FreeBSD fails on the desktop hardware, or you find that there's
> things that you can't do on your desktop that you want to do, then check out
> Linux.
I agree! and this is what I suspected all along. However, I now
understand *why* FreeBSD might not shine as a desktop platform in a lot
of cases, given the FreeBSD status quo.
> Now, understand that this rule is only good for _me_. In a large company
> with controlled desktops, you may for example, decide to standardize on
> Linux for the desktops from the get-go. You may do this with the idea that
> your more likely to run into oddball or substandard peripherals in your
> fleet of desktops. Since standardization is paramount here, and swapping
> out the entire fleet of desktops isn't an option, you may feel that
> ultimately you will get better support from the Linux community for the many
> variations of low-quality desktop hardware, and the many oddball user
> applications that you may run into.
Sure...Like you said marketing; marketing, marketing! Those Linux folks
aren't stupid either I suppose. I'm sure that they also recognize the
preponderance of the junk hardware that's being used both in private and
corporate settings - globally. So it's my guess that they are trying to
make the best out of a not-so-good fact of life, by writing the best
drivers possible for as much junk as possible -- in order to win over as
many new converts as possible, to the "Unix way". Isn't *that* what it
should be about -- at least to some degree?
Ted...how do you suppose Linux would behave as a server and/or desktop
platform if it ran on equipment that FreeBSD considered absolutely
top-notch? Equal to FreeBSD? A tad better or a tad bellow -- setting
aside any BSD bias (if applicable) for a moment?
> Compounding the problem of answering this question is the fact that Linux
> and FreeBSD are at the very _beginning_ of their life interfacing with
> commercial software and hardware vendors. There's still a large amount of
> new hardware that's being released _without_ support for Linux/FreeBSD
> drivers. Manufacturers are just beginning to come around and start
> including Linux drivers in new systems, and we haven't yet seen that large
> divergence of Linux into the desktop, and FreeBSD into the server market. I
> see the tendencies for it, however, which is why I made the comments that I
> did on this issue.
I agree with this completely. FreeBSD is evolving. Having lurked on this
list for almost 1.5 years now, my sense that if FreeBSD was once looked
upon by some of the original developers as simply an enjoyable hobby, it
certainly should not be seen as *only* that anymore -- not if FreeBSD is
to grow and spread. Of course as a volunteer effort, there's just so much
that can be done. Do you suppose it's time to evaluate *how* FreeBSD is to
evolve in the next 5 years? Is it a "good enough" server in it's present
incarnation? Given it's rock-solid kernel, could it hurt to support more
junk-hardware with reliable drivers? Do we want to be in the desktop
market at all, anyway?
Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!
--
-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?20010408175333.B117005>