From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 14 23:54:31 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E72A16A4CE for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:54:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from makeworld.com (makeworld.com [198.92.228.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F120843D53 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:54:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from racerx@makeworld.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.com [127.0.0.1]) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7D16129 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:54:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from makeworld.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (makeworld.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48207-02 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:54:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from [198.92.228.34] (racerx.makeworld.com [198.92.228.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A8E60F0 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:54:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <42113A4D.6040908@makeworld.com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:54:53 -0600 From: Chris User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050101) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <382521231.20050213212528@wanadoo.fr> <1709020540.20050214172431@wanadoo.fr> <4210D3DD.10808@makeworld.com> <353141149.20050215001519@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <353141149.20050215001519@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV 0.75.1/amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) at makeworld.com - Isn't it ironic Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:54:31 -0000 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Chris writes: > > >>That's a matter of point of view. If the user using FBSD uses a WM of >>his/her choice, and they are happy with the way if works - there isn't >>an issue. > > > Perhaps, but in a more objective sense, GUIs are an unnecessary > complication on servers. Most of the time, nobody is looking at the > monitor. Sometimes there is no monitor. A GUI just squanders resources > on a server that might need those resources for something else someday. > None of the server operations that a sysadmin might have to carry out > needs a GUI. Operations that must be done remotely are a thousand times > faster to do with a simple terminal CLI than with a bandwidth-hogging > GUI. And the present of a GUI on the server destabilizes the machine, > for reasons I have already explained. > I will agree on this point - A server does not NEED to a WM (none of mine do). However, I am speaking from a desktop point of view. -- Best regards, Chris You sure have to borrow a lot of money these days to be an average consumer.