Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:23:45 -0800 From: "Gilbert Gong" <ggong@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Message-ID: <008901c18961$ef58ece0$1400a8c0@blah.com> References: <003701c18819$a9941a20$6600000a@ach.domain> <3C1FF8DA.2DBC501C@mindspring.com> <013b01c18844$b2ff8b50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C202951.D39F0144@mindspring.com> <005201c188b4$9bd4cd30$a700a8c0@cptnhosedonkey> <013b01c188f1$b3788340$1400a8c0@blah.com> <014501c18927$2a552ec0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think one of the big problems here is that so many people are actually > hellbent on "beating" Microsoft, and so insist that UNIX is "better" than Anthony, I hope you aren't talking about me when you mention people that are "hellbent on 'beating' Microsoft," because I do not think I have made any statements which are indicative of the attitude you describe. > Microsoft on the desktop, even though that's about the last place in the > universe where you'd want to compare UNIX side-by-side with MS if you want > UNIX to win. At the same time, UNIX as a server is virtually forgotten, > even though that is what UNIX does best. As a result, while satisfying I think it is very rare for most of us that actually use FreeBSD to forget Unix as a server. How do you know people forget Unix as a server? All indications to me are that it is not forgotten as a server, but maybe that is because I read the lists such as -hackers, -current, and -stable. > their emotional need to hurt Microsoft, at least in their own minds, they > damage the cause of UNIX and FreeBSD by advocating it in precisely the > environments where it is least likely to be acceptable to objective users. > It's amazing how many people are so blinded by their own subjective > preferences that they cannot see this. It is helpful to look seperately at Microsoft as a company, and Microsoft software products. Microsoft software products have their issues, but so does all software, including FreeBSD. I think that on the FreeBSD lists, most people that criticize Microsoft are not explicitly criticizing their software, but more often the company. Now let me explain why. Most people that are involved with FreeBSD tend to dislike FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). It's a FreeBSD cultural thing. Microsoft (the company) is seen as a great spreader of FUD. Most users of FreeBSD also tend to like freedom (another cultural thing). Microsoft (the company) is seen as a company that does their best to limit your freedom, not explicity but through more sneaky tactics. And of course you can easily disagree or agree with this viewpoint. But I just wanted to make clear that often when you see people "hellbent on 'beating' Microsoft" (whom I do not consider myself one of) they often are beating Microsoft as a company, and not Microsoft products. Another thing I would remind you of is that I never said we should advocate FreeBSD for the average user. I have simply stated it would make many of us less upset if you would not state so vehemently that "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop" > > > That is fine as an opinion, I suppose, but not > > very FreeBSD-advocating. > > It makes a lot more sense to advocate FreeBSD for what it does best than to > advocate it for what it does worst. Advocating UNIX for the desktop is more > likely to hurt the OS and help it, as objective parties who compare it with > Microsoft are very likely to choose MS, further marginalizing UNIX in their > minds--they'll have "proof" that UNIX is "worse" than Windows. > You may be correct on this. But then shouldn't you say to us: "The best way to advocate FreeBSD is to talk about it as a server, and never mention it as a desktop system."? If you made statements like that, people would be less upset, and you would have a better chance of achieving your goal of convincing us not to advocate FreeBSD as a desktop system. > > I would argue that Unix has a potential > > place in the desktop. > > It does, but it is not a replacement or substitute for Windows, and the > average user needs Windows, not UNIX. I'm glad we agree on something. > > > In fact, we have to remember that the biggest Unix > > desktop vendor, Apple (via OS X), built their kernel > > on a FreeBSD code base. > > We also have to remember that the vast majority of Apple users still run the > old Mac OS, and Apple systems still boot MacOS 9 preferentially, IIRC. > > Apple built OS X on a UNIX code base because it was cheaper than writing an > OS from scratch (something they simply could not afford), not because UNIX > was in any way inherently superior for the desktop (although I'm sure it's a > huge step forward from the old Mac OS, which still used an architecture > scarcely any better than Windows 3.X). Well, now I'm just curious to understand what you really think. So, how would you describe the architectural differences between Unix and Windows NT? How about between Unix and Windows 98? Do you think that Windows NT/2000/XP is architecturally superior to Unix for use in a desktop environment? If so, what makes it architecturally superior in a desktop environment? Do you think Unix is architecturally superior in a server environment? If so, what makes it architecturally suprerior in a server enviroment? > > > To bash Unix on the desktop is to bash OS X, > > which is to indirectly bash FreeBSD (and all > > other BSDs, as well as all Unixes). > > To be selectively blind to the failings and weaknesses of an operating > system is to base one's position on emotion, rather than reason. Others who > do not share the same emotions will not be persuaded to adopt such a > position. Um, maybe. Or even if I say yes you are right, what does this have to do with anything? Though you know around my friends, if I say I like strawberry ice cream enough, eventually they'll probably start to think strawberry ice cream probably isn't so bad. It's what friendship is all about, being open to what other people like that you might not like or know about. But I digress. So, what specific failings and weaknesses of particular operating systems have you seen people overlook? > > > Anothony, many of us would feel a lot less upset > > if you would not state so strongly that Unix has > > no place in the desktop. > > Perhaps "feeling upset" is the real problem. If you are so attached to an > OS that you feel upset whenever anyone says anything less than positive > about it, then you are not an objective evaluator of that operating system. So I'm emotionally attached to FreeBSD. Is that really a problem? If I really like Breyer's strawberry ice cream, does that mean I can't be a Breyer's strawberry ice cream advocate? Or that if I talk about how much I like it that people will ignore me and not listen to me? When I am in "FreeBSD advocate" mode, I think I should be emotionally attached to the operating system. But I won't let my bias cause me to suggest using FreeBSD as a corporate desktop operating system. That doesn't mean that FreeBSD doesn't have a place in certain desktop applications. > > > And yes I do use some microsoft products, and in > > fact do use MS on the desktop (as you could tell > > by reading my mail headers). > > Most people do. So why do you bash UNIX by using Windows on the desktop? > I'm not bashing Unix by using Windows on the desktop. Because I hope to use Unix as a desktop operating system some day. Perhaps sooner, perhaps later. But either way, I don't make statements like "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop." One final note: As I said in my email to Jeremiah, what people get upset about, is the absolute-ness (yes I made up another word) with which you come across in presenting ideas such as "FreeBSD has no place on the desktop." Now, I realize that those exact words may not actually be yours. In Terry's words, I may be paraphrasing you. But even if those are not your exact words, that is the attitude you come across with. But if that is not your true view, than great. I've noticed you concede that Unix does have a place in some desktop applications, but that the "average user needs Windows." That at least is a much less absolute stance. Thank you for that. I welcome your efforts to clarify your viewpoint (though some are probably getting real tired of this thread and want it to die). Gilbert PS. For those of you that actually read this far, sorry if it was boring. Of course, if it was boring you probably didn't make it this far. And sorry if I am reiterating stuff that ppl have already discussed on -chat. I haven't been reading that list.. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message > 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?008901c18961$ef58ece0$1400a8c0>