Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:10:12 -0500 From: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <004801c17872$98e47b40$6600000a@ach.domain> In-Reply-To: <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I really didn't want to get into this, as I've been trying to avoid adding to the noise side of the signal to noise ratio, but there's only so much of this that I an take. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 4:37 PM > To: Mike Meyer > Cc: questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) > > Mike writes: > > > You've said this before, but haven't done > > anything to demonstrate it. > > I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration. Anthony, I'm glad you understand how to cut quoting down, but can you please leave some information to give some context? Is that too much to ask? > UNIX was > designed to > service hundreds of users sitting in front of dumb terminals; it was not > designed to drive a single resource-intensive GUI on dedicated > hardware for a > single user. So, both Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics (among others) were wrong to use a Unix-type OS for their high end GRAPHICAL workstations? I'm sure Scott (Mr. McNealy) is crying over that comment. > UNIX architecture puts a huge emphasis on multiple, > independent > users and processes, and very little emphasis on the kind of > close integration > and hardware dependency that a complex GUI requires. Multiple independent processes... the sort of thing that you'd want to be doing if you had multiple instances of a data analysis program running. Which makes it perfect for Unix. However, in order to make sense of the data that you get back from the analysis program, you're saying that you need to move it to a different platform? That doesn't make sense to me. > These > characteristics make > for an excellent timesharing system or server, but they also make > for a poor > desktop environment. Anthony, I realize that you're new here and we've been trying to help you with the problems you've had with your server, and I understand that you're coming from a closed-minded Microsoft point of view... but, until you have used and properly evaluated FreeBSD (or any other Unix, for that matter) in a desktop environment, I don't believe you have the right to say that it makes a poor desktop environment. Making assertions without examples, proof or fact to cite to back them up is not good. And on the side of making a good desktop environment, I've already mentioned Sun and SGI. If anyone's keeping score, that's 2-0. > Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of > multiple users > and no provision for hardware independence. The lack of hardware independence is thanks to Microsoft. At one time, you could run Windows on everything from a Macintosh to the latest and greatest from Intel to the wicked fast Alpha from DEC. What happened? > Processes and users are not > intended to work simultaneously on the same machine on completely > different > tasks. As a result, it is very good for dedicated, single-user > desktop use, but > very poor for timesharing use and mediocre for server use. > > If you believe that UNIX is as good a desktop as Windows, then > logically you > must also believe that Windows is as good a server as UNIX. Your logic is flawed, yet again. Just because you equate A and B in reference to situation C does not mean that A equates to B in situation D. > An > extension of > this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems are > essentially > identical--but that obviously is not the reality. That is because the logic itself is flawed. See above. > > I've been making heavy desktop use of, and > > supporting users making heavy desktop use of, > > Unix since 1985. Nothing has happened during > > that time that in any way indicated that Unix > > is "incompatible with heavy desktopp use." > > Most operating systems can be stretched to fill all sorts of > roles for which > they weren't intended. Such as running a web server on VM/CMS... > That doesn't make them good in such > applications, nor > does it make them superior to purpose-built operating systems for > those same > applications. So, from what you're saying here is that you advocate one operating system for each type of application? That would be absurd. > It's interesting to see how hard people will try to prove or at > least argue that > their pet operating systems are the best for all purposes, or > even adequate for > all purposes. *looks around* I don't believe that ANYONE here has said that FreeBSD is the best for ALL purposes. If you've seen that quote, I'd appreciate you sending me a copy of the message or a URL to it. > I've never seen an operating system that can do it > all, and I > expect that I never will. True, but you've seen attempts at that very thing. Look at your Microsoft desktop. > > Quite to the contrary, every time someone has > > asked me to work on Win 9x or Macs - through the > > mid 90s - they crashed regularly under my > > normal usage patterns. That convinced me that, > > if anything, those operating systems aren't > > suitable for "heave desktop use". > > Heavy desktop use requires NT and its descendants. So, you bought all of the marketing spiel from Microsoft, didn't you? Windows 3.1 and 95 both could stand a good deal of, you call it heavy desktop use, I call it hammering. It's when you move into the 98 and further iterations of the 9x kernel that you run into problems. Of course, that may have something to do with short product cycles, seeing how Microsoft doesn't make money if they don't have something shiny and new to sell. > Windows 9x > and the Mac are > for occasional, non-critical desktop use, for precisely the > reasons you cite. Oh... and now you're a Macintosh maven? I could fill up your favorite pub (probably two to three times over) with people that would dispute your opinion that Mac is only useful for "occasional, non-critical desktop use". Anthony, is there anything about computers that you're not a leading figure with regards to? --- Andy 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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?004801c17872$98e47b40$6600000a>