Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 13 Jul 1997 23:44:30 -0500 (EST)
From:      John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>
To:        "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Cc:        m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: My opinion about freebsd (fwd)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970713225549.3129C-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199707140006.UAA26526@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Joel N. Weber II wrote:

> windows 95 is usable?  I found getting networking to work on it was
> much more difficult than getting networking working on Linux...

How so?  (No, that isn't a troll, I'm honestly curious.  Also,
the difficulty depends quite a lot on the network you are trying 
to hook into.)

> I don't think you're buying usablity.  I don't think people conciously
> choose Microsoft over a free system.  Microsoft has arranged to be
> the default choice, and their marketing people promise more.

Well, true to a degree, but overly simplistic.

Some people make careful, calculated choices about what hardware
and system software they want, then they cobble together
applications that work on that system.  Free unix-like systems
are likely to be found among this crowd.  You would find OS/2
users users here as well.  The identifying trait here is that the
OS *is* the primary application---after all, what is unix if not
the ultimately customizable application?  :)

Some people make careful, calculated choices about what
applications they need, then they get whatever OS will run the
software.  Some unix systems here, but Microsoft Windows with its
huge application base dominates. When an organization is choosing
how to outfit desktops with machines, the question isn't "what is
the coolest, cheapest OS to use", but "what OS runs Excel the
best".  Sure, you can run windows applications on some Unix or
OS/2 systems, but if all your main applications are Windows, it
really isn't worth the extra overhead.  The long life of MS-DOS
is a testament to the triumph of application over OS--users
wouldn't touch Windows until their applications migrated and
proved themselves.  To this day, WordPerfect for DOS is alive and
well.

A combination of these two are users whose choice of operating
system or application software based substantial pre-existing
investments in either category.  In the case of substantial
(windows) application investment, Windows NT has a very secure
foothold in this corner of the universe.  Microsoft has told us
where *they* want to go today and have conveniently provided us
with a yellow brick road to get there, with "Microsoft" carefully
enscribed on each and every brick.

Finally, some people just take what is given to them and if it
seems to server their needs without too much pain, they could
care less about some hacker yo-yo claiming that their free
unix-like system multi-tasks more efficiently.  Microsoft has, of
course, secured this market by making sure every new Intel based
machine comes with Windows 95 pre-installed.


-john




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970713225549.3129C-100000>