Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:01:45 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Randall Hamilton" <nitedog@silly.pikachu.org>, "GB Clark II" <gclarkii@vsservices.com>, "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <01bc01c17892$f2dea380$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15365.11290.211107.464324@guru.mired.org> <006101c17854$c6aa2570$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <01112817112006.13219@prime.vsservices.com> <016301c17888$c1be3cc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <000901c17892$28e1ce90$0301a8c0@nitedog>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randall writes: > I agree..the clueless people/drones that use it > get hacked enough WITHOUT it being a multiuser > OS....why increase that amount exponantually > by making it a multiuser OS? Making it a multiuser OS does not increase the loss unless there are actually multiple users of the system, which typically is not the case for desktops. > i mean...where WOULD we be without 90% of those > 100k applications... We would still be sitting in front of timesharing terminals connected to UNIX systems. > ...or having moving eyes follow your mouse on > the famous GUI? I tried xeyes. It seemed useless to me. > NT and stable in the same sentance? did not > expect to hear that....but in all honesty...you > are correct. I've seen many systems run for years at a time. > win NT does indeed run for years. its just slow > and stable...not to mention useless as a workstation. Actually, I prefer it for desktop workstation use over other versions of Windows. The consumer versions of Windows are too unstable and insecure for my tastes. Windows NT does not crash, except if you install buggy drivers (but that is almost unavoidable, since drivers must be trusted by the OS). > i see little use for cosmetic crap like addon > fancy GUI's and lame formating(gooo ms word!). It depends on what I'm doing. For network adminstration, simple text and command-line interfaces are what I prefer. I've spent too much time cursing Windows NT and its near-total reliance on GUI-based tools to feel otherwise. However, on the desktop, I like an ergonomic GUI. Note, for example, that I have FreeBSD on my server, but I access it mostly via ssh sessions from my Windows machine. > I will say windows 2000 is a better desktop... > and personally...i would rather not see freebsd > in the desktop arena. I have no problem with people using FreeBSD as a desktop OS, if they really want to fit square pegs into round holes. However, I should be _very_ upset if FreeBSD were "enhanced" to make it more GUI friendly. I consider FreeBSD to be a superlative _server_ OS, and anything that might be done to it to enhance the GUI "desktop experience" would almost certainly diminish its utility as a server dramatically. This is one reason why I'm not running X on the machine. Too much of the machine is required to run a GUI, and that's just a waste of resources on a server. The console on my machine spends about 99% of its time running the text-based Beastie screensaver--pretty much as you'd expect for a server system. > It's a great server OS...doing many things windows > cannot even remotly touch to date. I agree. Thus far I've been very favorably impressed by FreeBSD as a server. It's amazing how much bang for the buck you get with this operating system. > Let the cluebies run the desktops...the clued can > run the servers. I think that is how it is actually working. The desktop users are hobbyists and other relatively clueless users; those who use FreeBSD as a server are using it in production and for more serious purposes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01bc01c17892$f2dea380$0a00000a>