Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:24:56 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <005701c17f6e$01080f00$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112071014340.6468-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy writes: > That is not their goal. They want something better. Then why are they installing Linux, which is worse? > Who cares? What is wrong with having multiple > choices? What good are multiple choices if they all lead to the same result? > I wouldn't want to be limited to just two choices. So Linux and Windows alone wouldn't be enough? How many different desktops do you have? > That is irrelevant. (Everyone has to begin with > no knowledge.) Everyone begins with no knowledge, but some finish that way, too. > Anyways, the article also provides evidence > that many Linux users are not clueless. Where? > Often this has to do with hobbies and particular > interests. Then let them admit that it's a hobby and a special interest, instead of trying to deceive others into believing that UNIX is somehow a realistic alternative to a Windows desktop. > For example, I haven't seen a Microsoft Windows > 98 box come by default with any tools for remote > text-only login for administration and nothing > (by default) for remote GUI administration. Windows 98 isn't really designed for remote administration at all. It's a desktop OS. > I have never seen a Windows 98 box by default > that can be used to manage your own email and > allows using RBL lists to stop spam. I have never seen a Windows 98 user that would understand either of these concepts. > But I can pick one that is *easier* to customize > to provide functionality that nearer matches both. Not everyone has time on his hands to customize his OS until it actually does what he requires. > Why be so limited? Exactly. Why so much emphasis on the desktop, while ignoring everything else? Why try to fight the battle on the enemy's turf? Why does "winning" the desktop take priority over every other conceivable use for the operating system? All of this seems very irrational--unless it is motivated by hatred for Microsoft. > I am not sure why you continue to believe that > Unix shouldn't be a desktop. I'm not saying it _shouldn't_ be a desktop, I just wonder why any objective person would choose it as a desktop when Windows is so manifestly superior for that purpose. Even a Microsoft-basher could still choose the Mac, which is better than UNIX. > My mother has used Unix as her personal computer > for a couple years now. Who set up the machine? > Plus, I can use it and help with it without > having to travel to it. If she was able to install it and it is stable and adequate for her needs, why does she require your help? > And there is nothing wrong with it being obviously > superior as a desktop. There would be nothing wrong with it if it were true, but it's not. 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?005701c17f6e$01080f00$0a00000a>