Date: 28 Nov 2001 14:18:01 -0800 From: Ken McGlothlen <mcglk@artlogix.com> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <87d722leue.fsf@ralf.artlogix.com> In-Reply-To: <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> writes:
| I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration. UNIX was designed to
| service hundreds of users sitting in front of dumb terminals; it was not
| designed to drive a single resource-intensive GUI on dedicated hardware for a
| single user. UNIX architecture puts a huge emphasis on multiple, independent
| users and processes, and very little emphasis on the kind of close
| integration and hardware dependency that a complex GUI requires. These
| characteristics make for an excellent timesharing system or server, but they
| also make for a poor desktop environment.
Unix has *often* been used for monolithic applications in single-user
environments. Cray systems, for example, even after the advent of UNICOS, were
often in a position of performing dedicated tasks. A GUI is nothing special.
It uses the same processor instructions, the same memory, the same process
structure as any other program.
While UNIX does emphasize multiple independent processes, it has little to do
with how a resource-intensive GUI needs. I admit that most of the widespread
GUIs don't use this approach well (Windows in particular), but I'm typing on a
Mac OS X system right now, and I gotta tell you, this makes a perfectly fine
desktop system. As long as your software is written with lots of processes in
mind, there's nothing stopping it from working well under Unix.
In short, your argument is fallacious.
| Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of multiple
| users and no provision for hardware independence. Processes and users are
| not intended to work simultaneously on the same machine on completely
| different tasks. As a result, it is very good for dedicated, single-user
| desktop use, but very poor for timesharing use and mediocre for server use.
This may be an accurate argument---though XP seems to be changing this a
little, it's unclear that it's a clear step towards a multiuser direction yet.
(I haven't used it at this writing.)
| If you believe that UNIX is as good a desktop as Windows, then logically you
| must also believe that Windows is as good a server as UNIX.
I'm sorry, Anthony, but that argument is . . . well, stupid. ("If you believe
that Sharon can pee standing up as she claims, then you must also believe that
I am capable of being pregnant.")
| An extension of this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems
| are essentially identical--but that obviously is not the reality.
If it were logic. Which it clearly isn't. Your argument is nonsensical.
| Most operating systems can be stretched to fill all sorts of roles for which
| they weren't intended. That doesn't make them good in such applications, nor
| does it make them superior to purpose-built operating systems for those same
| applications.
Cart before the horse. Applications must cater to the operating systems
they're designed to work on. Writing good GUI-type applications *is* more
difficult under Unix, but not as impossible as you seem to think it is. Good
libraries can solve that problem, as Mac OS X shows well.
| It's interesting to see how hard people will try to prove or at least argue
| that their pet operating systems are the best for all purposes, or even
| adequate for all purposes. I've never seen an operating system that can do
| it all, and I expect that I never will.
Again, you seem to be confusing "operating system" with "applications written
for an operating system."
| Heavy desktop use requires NT and its descendants.
(Such a religious statement. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.)
"Heavy desktop use" is what? Tell me, Anthony. I use a Mac OS X system for
most of my desktop applications. It all works. I could also use a FreeBSD
system as much if more applications were ported to it, but as it is, my FreeBSD
system also gets a lot of face time. Neither my Mac (thanks to OS X) or
FreeBSD systems crash nearly as often as the NT box I used to own, or the WinMe
box my parents now own (under light desktop use).
| Windows 9x and the Mac are for occasional, non-critical desktop use, for
| precisely the reasons you cite.
You should be embarrassed at the rather random leaps of "logic" you're making
here, Anthony. One is forced to wonder why you're using Unix at all.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87d722leue.fsf>