Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:13:38 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@duth.gr> Cc: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <15377.5346.169020.721942@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <3C110351.4748B559@duth.gr> References: <0112071641320B.01380@stinky.akitanet.co.uk> <000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C110351.4748B559@duth.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@duth.gr> types: > I don't understand why you are so hostile towards unix on the desktop. > I'm probably biased since I've been using unix workstations since far > longer than I care to remember, I guess, but why not? > > Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > > > The author of the article is obviously laboring under some serious > > misconceptions. Most of what he writes seems to be an apology for Linux > > being different from Windows, and he spends most of his time trying to prove > > how closely Linux can approach the look and feel and ergonomy of Windows. > > He seems to overlook the fact that he is effectively negating the whole > > utility of Linux; after all, if you want something that looks and works like > > Windows, your best bet is to install Windows, not an imitation. > > Nowadays I mostly use PCs for desktop workstations at home and at work, and > all of them run FreeBSD (from my smp box at home down to a tiny libretto). > Granted, if I wanted the looks and works of Windows, I'd be using it instead, > but the fact that I might need software that can make stupid presentations > like StarOffice doesn't mean that I am looking for "looks and works" of > Windows. It means just that - I want to be able to make stupid presentations > with which to bore to death colleagues at meetings, and it's nice that I can > do that with FreeBSD, since I don't have to buy and learn a non unix OS to > do just that. > > Another example is Windows autorun. I liked that idea and quickly hacked some > scripts that duplicate that functionality, because it is quite handy. Does > the fact that I like the idea of my media being automounted when I insert them > and apropriate actions being taken (ie start playing if audio cd, fire up > mplayer fullscreen if it contains one avi or open up a rox filer window in any > other case) mean that I should be using windows instead? Nope, no again. It > just means that although I value the fine grained control I have with unix, > when I'm just back from work and I just want to listen to some soft music I > appreciate the simplicity of merely inserting a CD in my DVD drive and not > having to mount it and start the apropriate application manually. > > > He also says: > > > > "More and more, people get Linux from a commercial distribution packager, > > install it (often with help from members of a local Linux Users Group), and > > don't tamper with the kernel or other "underlying" system processes at all." > > > > In other words, buy Linux just as you buy Windows, and become dependent on a > > Linux packager instead of Microsoft. What's to be gained by this? You're > > in the same rut either way. You are still beholden to a commercial vendor, > > you are still paying money for your software, and you are still dead in the > > water if something goes wrong, since you never bothered to figure out how > > anything behind the pretty package actually works. If you want a > > commercial, turnkey desktop package, buy Windows--or, if you can't stand > > Microsoft, buy a Mac. > > I fail to see your point - the users that can't be bothered to explore the > underlying system will be "victims" of commercial vendors anyway, wether it > is BSD or Windows XP. I watched a Mandrake 8.1 installation the other day, > and it was as smooth as Windows XP. The installed system "just worked" and > my otherwise unix-clueless colleague happily went on with his business. If > it is good enough for him, then why not use it? Should he be willing to > tamper with the underlying system to be entitled to use it? I think not. > > > This article is further evidence that a lot of Linux users are quite > > clueless. I don't know exactly what motivates them to toss all the > > strengths of UNIX aside and spend their time reinventing the wheel, but it > > seems pretty pointless. Do people really hate Microsoft so much that they > > are willing to increase their own work and inconvenience by orders of > > magnitude just to have whatever Microsoft provides in every detail except > > the name? > > No argument here, a lot of users are quite clueless, however I disagree with > your "reinventing the wheel" bit. I, for one, am thankful that the windowmaker > crew "reinvented" the wheel for example, since I've been using it exculsively > for longer than I care to remember. I am also grateful that Opera decided to > reinvent the wheel, since the result is a very neat and usable browser. I am > also really happy that the rox crew decided to "reinvent the wheel" and make > yet another unix file manager, since rox filer has got to be the simplest, > fastest and most unobtrusive file manager I've ever used. It's not really > "reinventing" but "reimplementing" the wheel, and sometimes this isn't bad. > > > Robin goes on further to say: > > > > "None of these advances in Linux usability have much to with "classic" > > command line Linux, but so it goes. The ever-improving GUI (Graphical User > > Interface) is the future of desktop computing, no matter what operating > > system is running behind the user's monitor." > > > > Seems Robin has forgotten that UNIX is a server operating system. A GUI may > > be the future of the desktop (actually, that future is already here under > > Windows, which he seems to ignore), but why must the desktop be the future > > of Linux, or of any other version of UNIX? > > I beg to differ. I do not think that "UNIX is a server operating system". It > is a versatile system that can be morphed to whatever you want, from embedded > systems to huge clusters of servers. Why not the desktop too? Thank $DEITY Apple > didn't have that point of view, or we'd have yet another totally new OS and > not MacOS X. > > > It's kind of like buying a high-performance racing car, and then trying to > > prove that it can haul sand and manure just as well as any pick-up truck. > > But if your purpose is to haul sand and manure, why not just buy the > > pick-up? > > Your analogy is flawed - UNIX can be instantiated both as a pick-up truck and > a racing car, IMHO. Just because Porsche only makes sports cars, it doesn't > mean that this is how it should be done; Mercedes-Benz not only makes awesome > cars, they also do impressive roadsters, huge bloody trucks and nice buses > too. > > > My concern is that Robin and others like him (or her--not sure if it's a he > > or she) are going to kill off UNIX by trying to make it work as a > > desktop--where it will never come anywhere close to Windows, in all > > likelihood--while ignoring its obvious superiority as a server. Just > > because some of the Linux kiddies have never _seen_ a server doesn't mean > > that servers aren't important, too. I don't think that Hotmail and > > EverQuest servers are running Windows 98. > > --kkonstan > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15377.5346.169020.721942>