Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:10:20 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Bolingbroke <hacker@bolingbroke.com> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111290950370.22795-100000@fremont.bolingbroke.com> In-Reply-To: <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > 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 You seem to be demonstrating your ignorance of computing history. The original desktops and workstations were UNIX. Sun, SGI, etc, all have a long history of making desktops, that predate all these PC upstarts like Dell and Gateway. PCs got a foothold for one reason: They were ridiculously cheap in comparison to a UNIX workstation (and still are, unfortunately). Because of this, small offices and so forth that couldn't justify the expense of a UNIX workstation went with a PC. The independent programmers and hobbyists also migrated towards the PC, and that led to a critical mass of software that now makes Windows the de facto choice of desktops. It never had anything to do with what was best suited for what, it was all a matter of economics. PCs were so cheap, it never mattered that they didn't have the power or GUI (back then) that UNIX had. People could afford the former, but not the latter, so it was the PC they bought. Sun still sells a nice array of desktops. They're not what you'd get for the office secretary, but they definitely have their place, particularly in heavy graphic and scientific applications. These are, and always have been, even before the advent of Windows 1.0, single-user desktop systems. That it ran the multi-user UNIX OS was pretty much irrevelant. > 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. That's a very unjustified misrepresentation you're making. I, for one, certainly don't limit myself to one OS for everything, nor do I claim there's a single OS to do everything. I don't see anyone else making that claim either (though granted, I don't read every message in this thread). Rather, we're making the point that if desired, FreeBSD can and does serve quite well as a desktop system. It's amusing that you're accusing everyone that disagrees with you of religious fanaticism, because you're the only one I see trying to arbitrarily limit choice--according to you, it must be Windows on the desktop and FreeBSD on the server, no exceptions apparently. Fortunately, we do have a choice, and for those that don't need Windows-centric applications, the reliability and stability of FreeBSD makes it an excellent choice for a desktop OS as well. > Heavy desktop use requires NT and its descendants. Sorry, but there's no such requirement. My heavy desktop needs are sufficiently met with FreeBSD. I have a spare Windows machine _only_ for a couple of time-wasting games. All my critical desktops apps stay on FreeBSD, where they never need restarting or rebooting. Ken Bolingbroke hacker@bolingbroke.com 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0111290950370.22795-100000>