Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:43:27 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremiah Gowdy <jeremiah@sherline.com> Cc: Gilbert Gong <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <XFMail.011220134327.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <001501c1899d$4e36a780$03e2cbd8@server>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20-Dec-01 Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: >> If someone ported KDE to Windows/DOS, which OS would you recommend as the > best >> desktop-friendly OS to run it on? If someone ported the Windows UI to > FreeBSD, >> which UI would you then recommend to a FreeBSD user? > > Both of these questions would obviously depend on the implementation. > Assuming all of the theoretical coding was up to par... > > I would say, obviously use FreeBSD as the kernel for KDE, over Windows, > because I don't like Windows for it's kernel, I like Windows for it's UI. I > like FreeBSD for it's kernel. Now if, in some magical way, the Windows UI > could be ported to FreeBSD, and if there was binary application support for > it, I would switch to Windows/FreeBSD. > > This all agrees with my original statement. Windows UI = good. FreeBSD > kernel = good. Win32 kernel = well... it has alot of fun APIs to play with. >:) Fair enough. Those would be my answers as well. :) I just think a clear distinction needs to be made between OS and UI. Perhaps a better statement is that FreeBSD ia fine for a desktop OS if it is supported by the UI you wish to use. :) How does that sound? -- 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-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.011220134327.jhb>