Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 04:52:18 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "FreeBSD Advocacy" <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD on the desktop (was: TheRegister article on Hotmail) Message-ID: <019901c292a3$b9c31690$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20021121161453.GA69019_submonkey.net@ns.sol.net> <008501c2917a$ac643080$0a00000a_atkielski.com@ns.sol.net> <200211221502.gAMF2a6a089963@catflap.bishopston.net> <20021122234047.GB60785@wantadilla.lemis.com> <014201c29296$f9cc4a20$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20021123023624.GA97416@gothmog.gr> <017101c2929b$18ef7e50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20021123033041.GA3884@gothmog.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Giorgos writes: > The "ease of use" part of working with a system > is very relevant. I don't see a problem with ease of use. > There aren't really thousands, but I was trying > to illustrate with an example what I consider > "difficult about working with Windows". You're entitled to express your opinion, but it may not be representative of a general rule. > Ah, but you will almost certainly agree that > it's not the "operating system" that users are > faced with, but its applications. Yes. > When those applications are not fit for the > purpose they were written or are incomplete, > flawed or buggy in the way they work, problems > do arise. Yes. However, the choice of an operating system is often a function of the _average_ functionality, reliability, security, etc., of the applications it runs. If most of the applications are buggy or weird, the OS may be excluded from consideration; conversely, if the applications are smoothly efficient and reliable, the OS may be given more consideration than it would merit on its own features alone. Additionally, the _number_ of choices for applications is a huge factor in choosing an OS. The more applications that are available (and the more choices there are for a given type of application), the more the OS is favored. After you get past these considerations, the final consideration is usually the technical merit of the OS itself. Windows wins on all three counts for the desktop. UNIX wins on all three counts for servers. I'm not sure that the Mac wins on any of these counts for general use, which might explain why it is very much a niche operating system. > Not really. I haven't seen any arguments posted > to back this claim :-/ Therefore they must not exist? > Sounds like tons of fun :) I don't run these computers for fun. I run them to get work done. I exhausted the novelty of playing with computers for their own sake many years ago, and now I consider them tools, as 99.9% of the human race does. I usually only deal with them for their own sake if I'm paid for it. > Windows is not bad or evil or inadequate for > fulfilling the purpose of a desktop machine. > It just isn't fit for me, and the style of work > that I have acquired after long years of being > a UNIX user. I already know that. However, your experience is not representative of the mainstream. Most people using computers have never even heard of UNIX, so they have no experience with it to color their preferences. > All that, of course, if one puts aside the > licensing and cost issues of Windows (which are > irrelevant to the suitability of Windows for a > desktop), are major factors in my deciding not > to use them on my desktop machines. Licensing and cost are not irrelevant in the big picture, although they are external to technical considerations. The cost of licensing Windows operating systems, in fact, has been a significant factor in the choice of UNIX (and FreeBSD) for many organizations. If you can run a server with an OS that is at least equivalent and usually superior to Windows, and you can do it for free, that's a _very_ strong point in favor of that OS. Even for individuals it may be a factor, if the budget is tight. That's why I run Windows XP Home Edition on one of my machines--it came with the machine, and the upgrade to XP Pro is too expensive for my purposes, and seems to add virtually nothing to my environment. FreeBSD cost me $10 (for the Wind River CD). FreeBSD represents _by far_ the best value for the money. It's unfortunate that it cannot replace Windows on the desktop, as I'm not keen on being so dependent on one vendor. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?019901c292a3$b9c31690$0a00000a>