Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:33:59 -0600
From:      Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>
To:        FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Convince me, please!
Message-ID:  <20070809213359.GC73498@demeter.hydra>
In-Reply-To: <20070809173032.GB12072@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
References:  <46BA9682.7020203@ix.netcom.com> <20070809140617.GB10705@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> <20070809185248.J71656@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20070809173032.GB12072@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 12:30:32PM -0500, David Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 06:54:37PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > 
> > >For the best user experience, and Unix too: MacOS X.
> > 
> > a very little unix (few tools and kernel) + lots of bulky overhead ...
> 
> Try it, you will find otherwise. The user interface works without
> hassle. MacOS X comes with more standard utilities than does FreeBSD,
> for instance procmail, fetchmail, sqlite3, Apache, php 4.4.7, ...

I don't really think of entirely unnecessary (for most purposes) server
software as "standard utilities".  Speaking only for myself, I *have*
tried MacOS X (and used it in a professional capacity), and I too find it
to be "very little unix" with "lots of bulky overhead".  I also find it
actively user-hostile in some of its aesthetic design choices (when your
aesthetic sense demands that you make input devices less usable, there's
a problem).

MacOS X has some definite benefits, but it's not the be-all and end-all
of OS design by any stretch.  Its biggest benefit is that it's not MS
Windows (speaking of user hostility).

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070809213359.GC73498>