Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:59:40 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Giorgos Keramidas <charon@labs.gr> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <XFMail.011129115940.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <02b101c1790e$e802df90$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29-Nov-01 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Giorgos writes: > >> Why? > > Because a single-user system does not have the overhead of a multiuser > system, > and it is more ergonomic as well. Humm, so I guess the fact that the terminal room desktop boxes I setup at BSDCon last year that booted over the network and automatically logged in on bootup into an X session that restarted from scratch when a user logged out was a lot of overhead? Amazing since it probably took all of 10 minutes of effort to do. Well, maybe 15 since I like to test things in stages. >> "More applications" for what definition of "more" >> and "applications" ? > > More = larger number, applications = anything that runs under the OS but is > not > part of it. Oh, yes, having 400 versions of tic tac toe is very valuable. Very much indeed. :) >> For what definition of "secure"? > > Not crashing the system. Umm, that's called "stable", not "secure". Granted, I still use Windows for games, but to be very bluntly honest, the _only_ applications for which being closer to the hardware than most Unix-like OS's allow is games. Word processors, spreadsheets, presentation tools, etc. do not need to grub around in the video cards internals. They just don't. Only games need this stuff. Windows is fine for games except that it tends to lock up and crash a lot even then. I've watched pieces of this thread, and your arguments are really fairly rediculous. You constantly contradict yourself and seem to be on a holy war to convince people that Windows is the only viable desktop for anyone in an attempt to combat people who say that their pet OS is perfect everywhere. The irony is that you are the one proclaiming that your pet OS is perfect on all desktops. The real truth which you think you are communicating (but aren't) is that different OS's are good in different places. This includes within the desktop arena. FreeBSD is a better desktop for me than Windows since I rarely play games and spend most of my time either reading mail, hacking code, or chatting on IRC. Since the code I'm hacking is the FreeBSD kernel, it is quite a bit easier for me to use FreeBSD as my desktop for doing this. However, my parents use Windows on their machine as that is more comfortable for them. Then again, they have so many problems with it that I'm tempted to at least put a FreeBSD gateway/nat box in their house to eliminate all the network problems at least. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ 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?XFMail.011129115940.jhb>