Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 03:15:12 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Robin Melville <robmel@innotts.co.uk> Cc: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: To UNIX or not to UNIX ;-). Was: PPP problems. Message-ID: <16421.866628912@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:53:54 BST." <l03010d00afcd55ee2175@[194.176.130.28]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm a little puzzled by the whole thrust of this one. The thesis seems to > be that FreeBSD should challenge Windows & the Mac as a desktop system for > all. The fate of NeXT, for example, and the market position of Sun and SGI, > should really concentrate minds on this issue more than it seems to be > doing. > .. > [ arguments refuting the practicality of such a thesis elided ] All of this would be true if I saw FreeBSD or any UNIX as trying to compete as a desktop OS against Apple or M$, and if I gave that impression at any point then I'm truly sorry because that's only about 180 degrees away from my actual opinion. I do NOT think that FreeBSD should try to compete as a desktop OS. That is entirely the wrong direction to go in and the war for the desktop was already lost ages ago. It's over, UNIX got its ass completely kicked in the desktop OS arena, live with it. That's my motto. None of this has anything to do with the need for good GUI-based installation and maintainence tools, however. Point and click setup and configuration is no longer a special selling point in an OS any more than the steering wheel in your car is considered a luxury control option. It's an expected item in all vehicles, perhaps excepting certain experimental craft and cheap, home-built go-carts that one steers with the feet, and unless we want people thinking our OS is either a scientific curiousity or a go-cart, we need to offer the same options. If my point still isn't clear, then perhaps taking the following survey will help: 1. NT is gaining portions of the network server market, largely because: A) It out-performs the competition. B) It's economical and makes light demands of your hardware. C) It looks a lot like Windows95 and people gain the impression that it's easy to administer. If your answer was (C) then you're beginning to understand why putting time into providing basic services like a usable graphical desktop and GUI-oriented admin tools does *not* constitute going after the desktop market, it constitutes nothing less than ensuring the long-term survival of the technology. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16421.866628912>