From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 15:08:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BC716A4CE for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:08:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B4F43D2F for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:08:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1104.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E1DD91C00219 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:08:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1104.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4A38E1C0021E for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:07:57 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050212150757304.4A38E1C0021E@mwinf1104.wanadoo.fr Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:07:55 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <311372449.20050212160755@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <420E148D.1070306@incubus.de> References: <420E148D.1070306@incubus.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:08:10 -0000 Matthias Buelow writes: > This is not so much about FreeBSD, as the Unix+X11 combination in > general. It does not provide the fully integrated system the typical > end-user, coming from a Windows or Mac perspective, expects. That it > nevertheless works well enough for persons with a technical or > academical background, and those who invest some time, is not > questioned. What the Unix+X11 combination in its current blend doesn't > provide is the one-size-fits-all solution that Windows and the Mac try > to achieve. That's both a good and a bad thing, imho. Yes. Perhaps I've not been clear, but the problems with FreeBSD as a desktop are shared by virtually all versions of UNIX, since they all create their GUIs in the same way. Mac OS X is a notable exception. > There are, of course, situations where Unix is being used as a "desktop" > successfully. Think about Unix workstations at universities and larger > companies, which have been prevalent for the last 15 years. UNIX + GUI seem to work much better when they are used as what they are: UNIX systems with GUIs. When someone tries to make them look and behave like Windows, problems begin. Highly stable GUIs have existed on UNIX workstations for years, but they barely resemble Windows. > Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its > Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. Why not just burn taxpayer euro in a bonfire? It would have the same end result and it would be faster. > What these applications have in common is, that the desktop user is > normally different from the person maintaining the installation. This > is different from a SOHO setup, where both are normally identical. True, but I think other key differences are the discipline used in creating the GUI and the end result being targetet. Native UNIX GUIs are carefully written and do attempt to imitate any other OS. More recent desktop GUIs are crazy hodgepodges hastily written that amount to wannabe versions of Windows. There are a lot of people who desperately want to see UNIX as a replacement for Windows, and their desperation blinds them to the futility of their efforts and to the endless glaring defects of their attempts to achieve this. But the inadequacy of what they produce is very obvious to anyone without an emotional investment in hating Microsoft, and so these Windows clones will never gain much currency as the situation stands now. -- Anthony