Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:50:18 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Willie Viljoen <will@unfoldings.net> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Desktop FreeBSD Message-ID: <20040309163120.L68396@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <200403091529.14762.will@unfoldings.net> References: <20040308210331.CDPV20549.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp.bellnexxia.net> <200403091529.14762.will@unfoldings.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Willie Viljoen wrote: > On Tuesday 09 March 2004 15:13, someone, possibly Narvi, wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 dashevil@sympatico.ca wrote: > > > I am against Joe Sixpack using FreeBSD. The reason I would argue for a > > > > 8-( > > > > so you would freebsd always be a fringe os? > > It's not a fringe OS anyway. Why does an OS have to be used by Joe Schmo and > Harry Desktop in order to be a mainstream OS? > > Computer don't just come in desktops you know, some of us actually like using > them for servers. As far as its use in the server market goes, FreeBSD, IMHO, > has Windows and Linux well and truly outgunned. > Not in numbers by any means. > Together with NetBSD and OpenBSD, the *BSD family infact, is in many cases > considered and used as a viable alternative to Solaris. > And like with Solaris, if anything, the marketshare is decreasing. > That's what KDE and GNOME are for, to add desktops to UNIX operating systems, > the operative word being "add". UNIXes were never meant to be desktops. > Adding a desktop to a UNIX is a great idea as it opens up UNIX to a new > market, but that's still no case for turning UNIX itself into a desktop > system. > > If that happens, FreeBSD would probably lose out all the market share it has > built up in the server market, since nobody wants to install a 300MB GUI in a > thin server. Huh? you are completely off your rocker - being able to do a desktop install - and having the OS behave rationaly in a desktop environment does not in any way maen that it needs to always install X. It means no more or less that when on a desktop machine, the OS should behave apprropriately, including automaticly detectinga nd loading sound, finding mouse, having a resonable set of desktop apps installed, using a printing system and so on. > > Please, before you write off an OS, consider all possible uses for it. If you > must, atleast rephrase and call it a "fringe desktop." > > If being useful for one specific thing is all we can classify an OS's worth > by, then let's turn it around and look at the server market, then by your > argument, Windows becomes a fringe OS :-) > Windows is not a fringe server OS - do you know what percenatge of worldwide servers - whetever web or not are running windows? This is not 1995 any more. > Will > > -- > Willie Viljoen > Freelance IT Consultant > > 214 Paul Kruger Avenue > Universitas > 9321 > South Africa > > +27 (51) 522 15 60 > +27 (82) 404 03 27 > > will@unfoldings.net >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040309163120.L68396>