Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:45:37 +0300 (EEST)
From:      Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
To:        John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>
Cc:        "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: My opinion about freebsd (fwd)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970714152330.25586C-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970713225549.3129C-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, John Fieber wrote:

> 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.)

Well, have you found a way to assign two different IP numbers to one
network interface? Using the standard bundled software?

Even NT worstation allows only 5.

> 
> > 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?  :)

Well, developing a custom in-house application on a more-or-less in-house
system (based on whatever operating system there is) is always another
option. I these cases, it might be worth using a free system.

Unix is a much better platform to develop software for. At least you know
what is going to be in the next release.

> 
> 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

What good would be Excel? It with it's macro language (real obfusticated
version of Basic with the *most* twisted vision of OO) is overly too slow.

Word I can understand. But Excel? It doesn't even have a decent
choise/ability to draw graphs.

> 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.
> 

As is WP for SCO, also, most of the big dos programs imho used to be
available for unix (at least sco).

> 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.

That some companies (around here) no more sell just systems but you can
also order a list of components. For the new system *has* to come with
win95 preinstalled which many may not want.

	Sander

	There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future -
	all these are just illusions.

> -john
> 
> 




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970714152330.25586C-100000>