Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:15:56 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <017f01c1788c$8cb71d90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <004801c17872$98e47b40$6600000a@ach.domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew writes: > So, both Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics > (among others) were wrong to use a Unix-type OS > for their high end GRAPHICAL workstations? In what sense? It was certainly a poor technical decision. However, writing a new operating system costs money, and so does buying a new operating system from someone else. UNIX was at hand and about as close to open source and free as one could get. That is also why Apple chose UNIX as a basis for Mac OS X. They couldn't afford to write something new, so they reused as much as they could, even though this is not necessarily a good idea from a technical standpoint. Microsoft did the same with Windows 3.x and (to a limited extent) Windows 95. Windows NT had elements of OS/2 architecture in it as well. Writing a new operating system costs billions of dollars; even Microsoft cannot afford to do that. > I'm sure Scott (Mr. McNealy) is crying over that > comment. It's possible to make lots of money with technically less-than-ideal products. Sun and SGI weren't selling graphics workstations on the basis of the underlying OS. > Multiple independent processes... the sort of > thing that you'd want to be doing if you had > multiple instances of a data analysis program > running. No. For data analysis, you need programs that communicate extensively, not completely independent processes. > Which makes it perfect for Unix. See above. UNIX (and most other operating systems) lack the close communication between processes that would be optimal for this type of application. > ... I understand that you're coming from a closed= > minded Microsoft point of view... No. I come from a non-religious point of view, and when one is not encumbered by religious faith in a particular platform or operating system, one tends to see advantages and disadvantages of each system more clearly. I do not worship a FreeBSD god (nor a Windows god), so I do not feel frightened by the idea of running two completely different operating systems for two entirely different purposes. I choose the tool that fits the job. > ... but, until you have used and properly evaluated > FreeBSD (or any other Unix, for that matter) in > a desktop environment, I don't believe you have > the right to say that it makes a poor desktop environment. I knew within a few days of installing FreeBSD that it was suboptimal as a desktop (at best). You know, in Windows discussion groups, there are people arguing irrationally in favor of Windows as a server. The names change, but the religious fervor is the same. > Making assertions without examples, proof or fact > to cite to back them up is not good. I've explained my reasoning in considerable detail. To those for whom IT is not a religion, my explanations are cogent. For the true believers, no "proof" is ever adequate to sway them from the Path. > The lack of hardware independence is thanks to > Microsoft. No. The lack of hardware independence is a consequence of the need to support high-performance, hardware-intensive applications like games. Indeed, recent versions of the NT/2000 architecture have actually moved _more_ towards hardware dependence specifically for this reason. That's what the desktop market wants. Playing games, for example, requires very tight integration of OS and hardware, and a significant part of the Windows desktop market just wants to play games. > At one time, you could run Windows on everything > from a Macintosh to the latest and greatest > from Intel to the wicked fast Alpha from DEC. There was essentially no demand for Windows on platforms other than Intel, and continuing demand for support of applications that required the integration of which I speak above additionally drove Intel-only development. Nobody was buying MIPS machines, and almost no one was buying Alpha machines. Demand for PowerPC support was pretty much nonexistent, as I recall. > Such as running a web server on VM/CMS... Yes. Or running Novell on the desktop. Just about every bizarre permutation has been tried, rest assured. > So, from what you're saying here is that you > advocate one operating system for each type of > application? That would be absurd. What's absurd about it? In fact, that's exactly how real-world implementations have typically done it, in the absence of political reasons for forcing one "solution" to fit all environments. Many organizations use Windows on desktops but UNIX on servers. > I don't believe that ANYONE here has said that > FreeBSD is the best for ALL purposes. It's pretty obvious here that many people will do anything to avoid admitting that Windows is the better choice for a desktop. As I've said, on other groups you can watch true believers of other religions making the same desperate attempts to "prove" that Windows makes the best Web servers, or that Macs make great routers and firewalls. > True, but you've seen attempts at that very > thing. Look at your Microsoft desktop. NT tries to be a server, and succeeds better than most, but it does not compare with UNIX. It does make a superb desktop, however. You see, Microsoft doesn't want to abandon the Windows religion, either, so it tries to bend Windows to make it fit a server environment. But Windows will never be ideal for that environment--the architecture of Windows fundamentally works against it. > So, you bought all of the marketing spiel > from Microsoft, didn't you? No, I used their operating systems, and I discovered that the NT/2000 architecture is the most robust by far. > Windows 3.1 and 95 both could stand a good deal > of, you call it heavy desktop use, I call it > hammering. With stable applications, yes. With poorly-written applications (the norm in PC-land, alas!), they do not stand up very well. Poorly-written applications are best run on NT, if possible, because NT will not crash when they do. > It's when you move into the 98 and further > iterations of the 9x kernel that you run into > problems. I'm not aware of any increase in instability in later versions of Windows 9x; in fact, all reports I've heard say quite the opposite. > Of course, that may have something to do with short > product cycles, seeing how Microsoft doesn't make > money if they don't have something shiny and new to > sell. This is true of all commercial software vendors. Look at the commercialized versions of Apache, or the "distributions" of Linux. > Oh... and now you're a Macintosh maven? I've used them as well, although not extensively and not recently. The Mac OS has never changed, though, unlike Windows (Mac OS X is the first significant change, from what I understand). > I could fill up your favorite pub (probably two to > three times over) with people that would dispute your > opinion that Mac is only useful for "occasional, > non-critical desktop use". Are you sure they wouldn't rather meet in a church? That's where worship is usually conducted. > Anthony, is there anything about computers that > you're not a leading figure with regards to? I don't have much experience with real-time systems, and I've never been heavily into database management systems (by choice). I'm also stronger on central systems than on networking. 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?017f01c1788c$8cb71d90$0a00000a>