Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:42:11 +0200
From:      Jerome Herman <>
To:        FreeBSD <>
Subject:   Re: Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <20110718162245.0d426239@scorpio>
References:  <20110717071059.25971662@scorpio> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20110718162245.0d426239@scorpio>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 18/07/2011 22:22, Jerry wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:44:15 -0500
> Gary Gatten articulated:
>> <snip>
>> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
>> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not
>> much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
>> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well.  "Supported" versions
>> of Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into
>> the enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD
>> did in the last 30.
> I think the explanation is rather simple, "Give the user what he wants,
> not what you think he wants."
I would highly advise against doing such a thing. So much evil in "Ask 
me what you want, I will give you what you asked."
I did this only once, some stupid foe in management asked me to activate 
and send him every little warning of anything that would happen to the 
production servers.
I advise against it, but he insisted, I then stubbornly refused and he 
threaten to have me fired.
So I activated the every thing SNMP trap I could think of and forwarded 
him. In the first hour, even before any backup or maintenance operation, 
he received about 10 000 mails.
>   You are never going to satisfy every
> conceivable user, so concentrate on the core users. Microsoft has done
> that extremely well. On the latest Windows 7, getting wireless up and
> running is the most effortless thing I have done in awhile.
Keeping it up is a different beast, not even mentioning the constant 
disconnect/reconnect operations if by any chance you sit between two AP, 
you will learn new meanings for pain if your wifi is not natively 
supported by windows.
Most of the time Windows wifi management, and closed vendors wifi 
management do not get along too well. True there were huge progress made 
in Windows 7, but honestly I still do prefer the FreeBSD approach were I 
can choose my AP once and for all.

> Windows
> does everything but fill in the password. On FreeBSD, well lets just
> say if that even if they had a driver for the wireless card I have
> installed, getting it up and running would be another matter. Correct
> me if I am wrong, but even "network manager" is not available on
> FreeBSD is it?
I never saw the use of the tool "network manager" under Linux. Very 
honestly I turn it off and remove it as soon as I can. The only thing it 
ever did to me is giving headaches.
FreeBSD forces you to pick your wireless card carefully. But it is not a 
huge problem.

> I have not checked in awhile. I know that there are some
> programs listed, but none of them work as seamlessly as Microsoft's. It
> is a basic truism in any business that in order to beat your rival, you
> have to produce a better product or one that costs less and
> still maintains the same basic usability.
FreeBSD users are expected to be able to read and to use this ability. 
Sure this does cut FreeBSD from quite a lot of potential users, but then 
again making an OS for people who do not want to read the manual is a 
very bad idea.
> Simply creating a free product
> that is not as usable is not enough. If you cannot accomplish that,
> then at least try to create the illusion of it. FreeBSD has failed at
> the goal also.
>> > From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems
>>> applications just work on Linux?  When I need to compile an app, it
>>> takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD.
>>> Granted someone more knowledgeable with FBSD, Compilers, etc. could
>>> do it much faster than I.
>> Anyway, if someone has a brief explanation of why Linux has
>> apparently triumphed (in so far as installed base, desktop
>> penetration, etc.) where so many others have failed (including IBM
>> with OS/2) I'd be interested in hearing those thoughts.
> OS/2 was IBM's fault from the beginning. They insisted that it be tied
> to the 286 processor. Gates attempted to talk them out of it in a
> famous meeting in Armonk, NY. IBM refused and effectively wrote it's own
> death sentence with OS/2. As with any product, first impressions are
> crucial. Their first one failed. Unfortunately, so many FOSS pundits
> have not learned this simple lesson.

>  From Wikipedia:
> OS/2 1.x targeted the 80286 processor: IBM insisted on supporting the
> Intel 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, due to
> commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2's
> because of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2.[16] Until release 2.0 in
> April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not
> benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model
> and virtual 8086 mode features. This was especially painful in
> providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1
> could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including
> expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still
> limited to one 640KB "DOS box".

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>