Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:19:48 +0200
From:      Joao Schim <joao@bowtie.nl>
To:        Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, sub_0@netcabo.pt
Cc:        freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
Message-ID:  <20030902021948.2588aded.joao@bowtie.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030901143026.029afce0@localhost>
References:  <1062427379.15322.12.camel@suzy.unbreakable.homeunix.org> <29508631.20030901165843@mail.ru> <1062427379.15322.12.camel@suzy.unbreakable.homeunix.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20030901143026.029afce0@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 14:55:21 -0600
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> wrote:

> At 10:31 AM 9/1/2003, Joao Schim wrote:
> 
> >Hey Mario,
> >
> >Well its my experience that FreeBSD is not only the best option for
> >firewall and Internet services but it is also very capable of running
> >desktop apps with the greatest stability. So that makes me wonder why you
> >seem to have that idea that FreeBSD isn't ment for Desktop.
> 
> This attitude, which was heavily pushed 5-7 years ago by the "leaders"
> of the FreeBSD project, stemmed from several things. The first was an 
> attempt to differentiate FreeBSD from Linux, which was outstripping the BSDs 
> in the press and elsewhere. One way to compete successfully (in a Darwinian 
> sense, especially) is to claim a niche. Your fitness is then determined by 
> how well you fit into the niche, rather than your overall superiority. Since
> Linux had all the press and all the money behind it, the developers thought
> they'd do better competing for the server niche. A fine short term strategy,
> but a bad long term one.
> 
> The second was a desire by these same developers to limit the scope of the 
> project to make it more manageable and ensure that there was enough manpower
> to keep it going. FreeBSD, unlike Linux, is a complete OS rather than a kernel.
> The "userland" -- the programs users run every day -- is maintained along with
> the OS. Being a desktop OS implies supporting the entire desktop environment. 
> This was more than the people who were orchestrating the project (particularly 
> Jordan Hubbard) wanted to take on at the time, or perhaps felt that they COULD
> take on at the time. So adamant were they that they literally drove out of 
> the project some folks who disagreed with this strategy and focus.
> 
> Alas, the results can be seen today. While there's absolutely nothing wrong
> with FreeBSD as a desktop OS, the project's failure to encourage and participate 
> in the creation of BSD-licensed desktops for UNIX-like OSes has essentially led 
> to a situation where there are none to be had. The only desktops that run -- 
> balkily and with only partial compatibility -- are GPLed. Not only do they bring 
> with them the baggage of the license and the FSF's agenda, but for ideological 
> reasons the developers have no desire to make them compatible with the BSDs. Yes, 
> there are folks out there who are trying to make them run. But just try to 
> install, say, KDE and get printing, power management, the built-in PPP utility 
> (which is designed to mimic Windows' "Dial-up Networking"), or other similar 
> features to work. You're in for a very frustrating experience. 
> 
> I was recently asked to set up a FreeBSD machine as a desktop for a school, and 
> they had nothing but frustration. Every day or so, they found some part of KDE 
> that didn't quite work right with FreeBSD or needed expert knowledge and special 
> configuration to use with FreeBSD. They just put Windows back on that machine.
> 
> It doesn't seem as if this situation is likely to change, either. The 
> incompatibilities between the BSDs (not just FreeBSD, but all of the BSD)
> and the Linux desktops seem to grow daily. Both KDE and GNOME are pretty much 
> becoming by, of, and for Linux exclusively. Even FVWM (which, I understand, 
> was once BSD-licensed) is now GPLed.
> 
> So, the result of the desire of these developers (many of whom are no longer
> involved with the project) to force BSD into the mold of a "server-only OS"
> has, alas, been to make it so... at least until someone, somewhere starts
> up a BSD desktop project. I'd love to run BSD on my desktop, but due to the
> poor compatibility and portability of the GPLed Linux desktops, I'll have
> to keep MacOS X or (ugh!) Windows on my desk for the moment.
> 
> --Brett Glass
> 

Brett,
Thanks for that enlighting story.

The fact that FreeBSD is not fully supported with KDE or GNOME  does not 
mean that the OS isn't up for the job.  I think your attempt at setting 
up a dekstop box for that school would have led to as much frustration when
you would have tried it with GNU/Linux. For as far as i can tell its just
extra _features_ that are lacking support, the general use of it is not
bound to failure.

a difference should be made between the term 'Desktop OS' as being a 
MS windows like system on wich every Joe can get around with by clicking
around using wizards and such, and the desktop as a graphical environment
in wich people familiar with the OS can get their job done. 

The last thing FreeBSD needs is that zealot thinking that lots of Linux
folks have   involving world domination and such, thinking that every single
soul that is used to using windows can easily make a switch. 
Thats not what i am talking about.

Also i think that the gap you are talking about between Linux and FreeBSD
can only grow further if the  BSD teams persists in being a Network OS only.
Cause why should they spend time on a OS that says not to be a Desktop os.
Then you just create that vicious circle.

But i dont think you would mind if you're so upset with the GPL ;)

Kindest regards,

Joao



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030902021948.2588aded.joao>