Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:03:32 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why dual boot? Message-ID: <3C5270E4.BF21F79B@mindspring.com> References: <3C4FBE5C.2AE8C65@mindspring.com> <20020123114658.A514@lpt.ens.fr> <20020123223104.SM01952@there> <3C4FBE5C.2AE8C65@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020124213809.00e6e5d0@localhost> <20020125131659.GB7374@hades.hell.gr> <3C51CD33.4E69B204@mindspring.com> <001b01c1a635$636a4170$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Dual-boot configurations are really not necessary today. Even the cheapest > second-hand PC will run FreeBSD quite nicely, so there isn't any reason not > to run it on a separate, dedicated machine. If you need both Windows and > FreeBSD, just use one machine for each. Works great in a one room apartment. Also works great if you aren't a geek, and only want to own one computer, or are a student, who has to have a Windows machine for classwork, but would like to have a UNIX to work/learn on, too. > Additionally, no production system can be a dual-boot system, > since production systems by nature are up 24 hours a day. How many production systems do you think people buy from stores like Office Max? What percentage of machines sold do you think are sold by stores like Office Max? How many machines sold by these stores don't automatically include OS software you are asking people to scratch? Say that all of them come with Windows installed; the cost of Windows alone is ~$129 (street price). Congradualtions, you've just added that mush to the cost of trying out FreeBSD. > I've never run multiple-boot configurations on any machine. Nowadays there > is no significant cost advantage, and it's a real pain to stop the system > and reboot each time you want to use one system or the other, and getting > both systems configured to boot on a single hardware configuration can be > problematic. So rather than fixing it so it's not problematic, let's ignore the problem entirely, and whenever someone says anything, we can ask "what problem?". 8-). > Additionally, I prefer that the FreeBSD machine be _pure_ > FreeBSD, and that the Windows machine be _pure_ Windows. I don't think the machine should have to wear the scarlet letter "D" if it's dual boot, in order that all may know of the machines impurity, if that's what you're implying. I don't see any real benefit to the ethnic cleansing of hard disks, apart from it permitting you to pretend that coresidence problems don't exist. > Finally, when you > have two machines running simultaneously, you can use both operating systems > as intended: Windows for the desktop, and FreeBSD as your server. My > FreeBSD system handles e-mail, prototyping of my Web site, DNS, and so on, > for example. You mean Windows NT/XP as your server, and FreeBSD as your... your... uh... your... reason to buy another machine? -- Terry 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?3C5270E4.BF21F79B>