Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:55:41 +0100 From: Ramiro Aceves <ea1abz@wanadoo.es> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux Message-ID: <420E26FD.7090005@wanadoo.es> In-Reply-To: <27964692.20050212160046@wanadoo.fr> References: <200502112313.28082.hindrich@worldchat.com> <823196404.20050212105644@wanadoo.fr> <420DE422.3020102@wanadoo.es> <1546398643.20050212123202@wanadoo.fr> <420E0164.7090300@wanadoo.es> <27964692.20050212160046@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Ramiro Aceves writes: > > >>Yes, but some OSes are famous for their "blue screens" > > > None that I'm aware of. Blue screens are more of a popular myth > invented by people who hate Microsoft than a reality. I saw occasional > BSODs long ago when there were driver problems or hardware problems on > servers, but I haven't seen a blue screen in years now. There are not a myth, they are a fact. I have seen bluescreens frecuently in win95 and winMillenium. Now I am out of the winbugs world since 2 years and I am very happy. > > >>One day FreeBSD 5.3 completely crashed when doing something in X-window >>System on an old pentium 75MHz. > > > I've had FreeBSD hang while trying to use X servers, but I never could > establish whether the OS itself had frozen or whether it was just the > interface. It happened often enough that it was one of the reasons why > I abandoned any attempt to use a GUI. Sure X is the culprit. > > >>Sometimes I get my Debian box crashed in my 1200 MHz AMD when I watch TV >>card in X-window and move windows (I do not know if it is a matter of >>bttv driver or X-window System bug, but it is anoying). > > > Notice that these both happen with GUIs. One reason is that GUIs put > hooks into the operating system that destabilize it. It's a very high > price to pay just to see pretty pictures on the screen, in my view. > I need the GUIs for my daily work. Electronic circuit design software requires GUI, imaging editing requieres GUI, and because of that many people needs a GUI, but that is not a reason to use Winbugs. > >>On the other had, when I used Windows I had daily crashes :-) > > > Every instance of daily crashes I've seen in NT-based versions of > Windows has been the result of bad drivers, bad hardware, or user > errors. I have seen also winXP computers here at University that do very weird things everyday. > > >>Cant find this on my english dictionary( I do not know what it means) > > > Hype is exaggerated promotion without fact-based, objective > justification. Thank you very much. I understand now. > > >>I choosed Linux cause I think it was better than the windozes. > > > It's hard to believe how this could be true for desktop use. Each time > I ask for specifics, I'm given a list of things that aren't true, such > as the recurring claim of "daily crashes," when in fact it's extremely > rare for NT-based versions of Windows to ever crash at all. Why not choosing Linux or FreeBSD for the desktop? I can choose a windowmanager among decens, I have many apps that perform the same or better than the winbugs counterparts, and the best of all, they are *free* and do not depend on any comercial enterprise. I do not need too much bells and whistles to fell confortable at the desktop. A fluxbox window manager is perfect for me. The important thing are the apps, not the desktop. > > >>If an OS does not have the "third party apps", it is not useful for >>most of us. > > > That alone is one reason why Windows will probably remain king for the > forseeable future. > It is a matter of time, the problem is that we will not be alive to see it. :-( Ramiro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420E26FD.7090005>