Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 19:58:42 +0200 From: Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@duth.gr> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <3C110351.4748B559@duth.gr> References: <0112071641320B.01380@stinky.akitanet.co.uk> <000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't understand why you are so hostile towards unix on the desktop. I'm probably biased since I've been using unix workstations since far longer than I care to remember, I guess, but why not? Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > The author of the article is obviously laboring under some serious > misconceptions. Most of what he writes seems to be an apology for Linux > being different from Windows, and he spends most of his time trying to prove > how closely Linux can approach the look and feel and ergonomy of Windows. > He seems to overlook the fact that he is effectively negating the whole > utility of Linux; after all, if you want something that looks and works like > Windows, your best bet is to install Windows, not an imitation. Nowadays I mostly use PCs for desktop workstations at home and at work, and all of them run FreeBSD (from my smp box at home down to a tiny libretto). Granted, if I wanted the looks and works of Windows, I'd be using it instead, but the fact that I might need software that can make stupid presentations like StarOffice doesn't mean that I am looking for "looks and works" of Windows. It means just that - I want to be able to make stupid presentations with which to bore to death colleagues at meetings, and it's nice that I can do that with FreeBSD, since I don't have to buy and learn a non unix OS to do just that. Another example is Windows autorun. I liked that idea and quickly hacked some scripts that duplicate that functionality, because it is quite handy. Does the fact that I like the idea of my media being automounted when I insert them and apropriate actions being taken (ie start playing if audio cd, fire up mplayer fullscreen if it contains one avi or open up a rox filer window in any other case) mean that I should be using windows instead? Nope, no again. It just means that although I value the fine grained control I have with unix, when I'm just back from work and I just want to listen to some soft music I appreciate the simplicity of merely inserting a CD in my DVD drive and not having to mount it and start the apropriate application manually. > He also says: > > "More and more, people get Linux from a commercial distribution packager, > install it (often with help from members of a local Linux Users Group), and > don't tamper with the kernel or other "underlying" system processes at all." > > In other words, buy Linux just as you buy Windows, and become dependent on a > Linux packager instead of Microsoft. What's to be gained by this? You're > in the same rut either way. You are still beholden to a commercial vendor, > you are still paying money for your software, and you are still dead in the > water if something goes wrong, since you never bothered to figure out how > anything behind the pretty package actually works. If you want a > commercial, turnkey desktop package, buy Windows--or, if you can't stand > Microsoft, buy a Mac. I fail to see your point - the users that can't be bothered to explore the underlying system will be "victims" of commercial vendors anyway, wether it is BSD or Windows XP. I watched a Mandrake 8.1 installation the other day, and it was as smooth as Windows XP. The installed system "just worked" and my otherwise unix-clueless colleague happily went on with his business. If it is good enough for him, then why not use it? Should he be willing to tamper with the underlying system to be entitled to use it? I think not. > This article is further evidence that a lot of Linux users are quite > clueless. I don't know exactly what motivates them to toss all the > strengths of UNIX aside and spend their time reinventing the wheel, but it > seems pretty pointless. Do people really hate Microsoft so much that they > are willing to increase their own work and inconvenience by orders of > magnitude just to have whatever Microsoft provides in every detail except > the name? No argument here, a lot of users are quite clueless, however I disagree with your "reinventing the wheel" bit. I, for one, am thankful that the windowmaker crew "reinvented" the wheel for example, since I've been using it exculsively for longer than I care to remember. I am also grateful that Opera decided to reinvent the wheel, since the result is a very neat and usable browser. I am also really happy that the rox crew decided to "reinvent the wheel" and make yet another unix file manager, since rox filer has got to be the simplest, fastest and most unobtrusive file manager I've ever used. It's not really "reinventing" but "reimplementing" the wheel, and sometimes this isn't bad. > Robin goes on further to say: > > "None of these advances in Linux usability have much to with "classic" > command line Linux, but so it goes. The ever-improving GUI (Graphical User > Interface) is the future of desktop computing, no matter what operating > system is running behind the user's monitor." > > Seems Robin has forgotten that UNIX is a server operating system. A GUI may > be the future of the desktop (actually, that future is already here under > Windows, which he seems to ignore), but why must the desktop be the future > of Linux, or of any other version of UNIX? I beg to differ. I do not think that "UNIX is a server operating system". It is a versatile system that can be morphed to whatever you want, from embedded systems to huge clusters of servers. Why not the desktop too? Thank $DEITY Apple didn't have that point of view, or we'd have yet another totally new OS and not MacOS X. > It's kind of like buying a high-performance racing car, and then trying to > prove that it can haul sand and manure just as well as any pick-up truck. > But if your purpose is to haul sand and manure, why not just buy the > pick-up? Your analogy is flawed - UNIX can be instantiated both as a pick-up truck and a racing car, IMHO. Just because Porsche only makes sports cars, it doesn't mean that this is how it should be done; Mercedes-Benz not only makes awesome cars, they also do impressive roadsters, huge bloody trucks and nice buses too. > My concern is that Robin and others like him (or her--not sure if it's a he > or she) are going to kill off UNIX by trying to make it work as a > desktop--where it will never come anywhere close to Windows, in all > likelihood--while ignoring its obvious superiority as a server. Just > because some of the Linux kiddies have never _seen_ a server doesn't mean > that servers aren't important, too. I don't think that Hotmail and > EverQuest servers are running Windows 98. --kkonstan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C110351.4748B559>