Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:11:20 -0600 From: GB Clark II <gclarkii@vsservices.com> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> In-Reply-To: <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I've put my comments inline so as not to lose the context. I've also moved it to chat, this does not belong on the questions list...:) On Wednesday 28 November 2001 15:36, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Mike writes: > > You've said this before, but haven't done > > anything to demonstrate it. > > I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration. 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. 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. > These characteristics make for an excellent timesharing system or server, > but they also make for a poor desktop environment. The UNIX architecture of 30 years ago is long gone. Most modern day UNIX/unix-like OS have everything need to run a single user just fine. There is nothing that I know of in the Windows architecture (outside of having a graphics sub-system in the kernel) that makes it any better. Please point those parts of the Windows architecture that make is superior as a desktop system. The only thing Windows has going for it is good salesmanship and many of applications. As far as a GUI goes, I'll put a SGI UNIX system aginst Windows any day of the week. Also, not all UNIX/unix-like systems are created equal. Comparing FreeBSD on a Duron-850 (my home box) to 4.2BSD running on a VAX (13 years ago) is like comparing apples and grapes. > Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of multiple > users and no provision for hardware independence. 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. An > extension of this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems > are essentially identical--but that obviously is not the reality. Excuse me? Which logic class shows that? Group A = Server Platform Group B = Desktop Platform Platform 1 = A + B Platform 2 = B Thats almost like saying that if you have brown hair and are left handed, all left handed people have brown hair. Person 1 = BH + LH Person 2 = LH Just because something is in two groups does not make the two groups equal. It almost smells like circular logic. > > 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. That doesn't make them good in such > applications, nor does it make them superior to purpose-built operating > systems for those same applications. > > 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. I've never seen an operating system that can do > it all, and I expect that I never will. > Again, outside of more applications, please tell me how MS Windows is a better desktop platform at the architectural level than FreeBSD.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01112817112006.13219>