Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:30:43 +1200
From:      Richard B Mahoney <rbm49@student.canterbury.ac.nz>
To:        Subscribers to FreeBSD-Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River
Message-ID:  <20010410143043.I10996@tacacs.canterbury.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <"from 01031149"@3web.net>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Dear Duke et al.,

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 04:35:46PM -0600, Duke Normandin wrote:

[huge snip]

> If FreeBSD exists to perform primarily* as a server platform - period --
> *then it should be marketed as such. Why? Because *all* peripheral
> support is, by-and-large, developed for, tested on and limited to
> server-grade quality stuff. It should then be plainly emphasized that
> FreeBSD is *NOT* an appropriate OS for deployment on run-of-the-mill,
> Microsoft-grade hardware. In the spirit of professional good-will, A
> referal to some of the Linux sites could then be given.
> 
> As well, it should be again plainly emphasized that FreeBSD is *NOT* an
> appropriate OS for most folks wanting to migrate from a Windows/Mac
> platform, as the level of computer literacy and competence required to
> successfully install the OS, hardware peripherals, software, etc, far
> exceeds that of the average Joe. Like you say above, the potential
> FreeBSD user could then be advised to stay with Windows or be directed to
> Linux. Fair enough -- I'd say!

[little snip]

In an attempt to keep things in perspective, I would like to
mention how satisfied I am with FreeBSD as a workstation.

My much loved beast is used primarily as a workstation and
occasionally I connect to it via ftp or telnet. In the true sense
of the word, it was never worthy of the name server. Its a six
year old Digital Venturis 5133 with only 40 Mgs of
RAM. Regardless of its inadequacies, it runs 4.2 Stable with
greater speed and stability than anything else on offer. For me,
Linux, although an option, is not a necessity.

I migrated to BSD straight from Win95. This move, although it had
its moments, was relatively painless. Yes it took a while to
configure the desktop. But for all that, the desktop could be
configured. And desktop configuration under BSD seems no more or
less arduous than under Sun.

This similarity with Sun -- although it may be superficial -- is
for me a great advantage. It enables me to telnet to one of the
Sun boxes at varsity and to use VNC to run a remote desktop which
is identical to that of the machine from which I am dialing. All
this works seamlessly and for that I am very grateful. It never
ceases to surprise me that it is possible to have such
functionality running such ancient and inexpensive hardware.

In short, it would seem to me that it is simply untrue to attempt
to label FreeBSD inappropriate for the average desktop. With a
modicum of common sense in the selection of hardware it should be
possible to put together a fully functional workstation with
relatively little outlay. And as to getting up to speed with the
OS, well what's wrong with a little effort?

Many regards,

 Richard Mahoney


-- 
------------------------ Richard Mahoney -------------------------
78 Jeffreys Rd                                      +64-3-351-5831
Christchurch                                           New Zealand
--------------- mailto:rbm49@csc.canterbury.ac.nz ----------------

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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010410143043.I10996>