Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:54:15 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net>, <chat@freebsd.org>, "Eric Melville" <eric@freebsd.org>, "Randall Hamilton" <nitedog@silly.pikachu.org>, "GB Clark II" <gclarkii@vsservices.com> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <15367.43943.686638.723011@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <040701c179af$4bda25f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15367.37543.15609.362257@guru.mired.org> <040701c179af$4bda25f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types: > Mike writes: > > My observation of windows users - both at home > > and in the office - indicate that "most" is about 60%. > Even if that is true, it's still a lot higher than for most systems. For most users, yes. Not for all users. > > No, it isn't. You overlooked what happens in > > reality, which is that the users go where > > Microsoft wants them to be, and give up on the > > being where they want to be. > Urban legends die hard. It's comforting to think that Microsoft succeeded by > cheating somehow, instead of just by being smarter than the rest of us, but > there just isn't any solid evidence of that. It's a question of management > decisions, and Microsoft's decisions have been right more often than not, > whereas the decisions of competiting companies have too often been wrong. Actually, I agree with everything you just said. That doesn't contradict my statement, it supplements it. Microsot succeeded in providing something that was "good enough" - i.e., 60% - for most users, and not wasting resources trying to be more than that for anything larger than the entire market. That's smart. It makes for lousy tech, but it's smart management. > Let's not forget that the world was Apple's oyster once, and they completely > blew that out the window. Indeed, I've always been amazed by how long Apple has > survived, given how feverishly and frequently it shoots itself in the foot. The > same can be said of other companies. I don't believe the world was ever Apple's oyster, and I helped found a company that sold Apple ]['s (actually, we sold the black Apples for licensing reasons) to businesses. The only period when Apple had a clear superiority was when VisiCalc was available for it, and there were no spreadsheets on other machines. That lasted a few months at most. Since that was also during the period before anyone had been fired for buying IBM, there weren't a lot of sales of any of them. Before the IBM PC appeared, apple may have been the most popular home pc, but they had lots of competition. After the RS Model I appeared, the competition was in a lot more storefronts. They never dominated the market the way IBM dominates it now. Just compare a Byte from that era to a current one. As soon as the first PC from a company that had a solid reputation - IBM - showed up, Apple was clearly out of the running. For Windowing environments, the Mac never caught up with DOS, so that clearly wasn't it. As soon as MS had a windowing environment that was good enough - 3.0 - Apple lost the the windowing environment, though the Mac can still be found in desktop publishing and graphics markets that haven't converted yet. > > But that users *is* suffering - that's why they're > > complaining about Windows. > Most people are _not_ complaining about Windows. And of those who are, most > have never tried anything else, and they don't realize how bad things could be. Most people I know who use Windows complain about the computer. The only difference between those who have exposure to other things is that that group complains about Windows, whereas the those who haven't complain about the computer. > > As for the second part, most of the Windows users > > I know are hostile to computers. > Most of the Windows users I know don't really care either way. The computer is > just an appliance to them, and evokes no particular emotions in them. I chose hostile because you did. They react to them like they do to most things that malfunction regularly. They curse at them when they don't work properly, and complain about how often they malfunction when the topic comes up. > > Those that have had experience with things other > > than Windows - the Mac, for instance - tend to > > be hostile to Windows. > Not necessarily. I know people who were quite pleased to move from the Mac to > Windows. It was nice to not have to depend on one company for both (overpriced) > hardware and (overpriced) software, and one user told me that she was pleased to > finally be able to buy the software she wanted (most of what interested her > wasn't available on the Mac). That doesn't surprise me at all. I was quite pleased to get away from overpriced hardware and software in a proprietary environment to one that wasn't proprietary. I also avoided the (overpriced) software from MS. I was doing Unix support at a Mac shop when they had everyone but the actual desktop publishing group move to Windows. Many complained because the systems were less stable, some were pleased because they could now interoperate with their home environment. They all went where microsoft wanted them to go. > > In other words, you've placed yourself in a > > position where you can't escape from a proprietary > > solution. > Proprietary or not, you're stuck with standards. Even open-source environments > still lock you down in practice. Proprietary standards lock you down. Open standards don't. You can find both sets of standards in both environments. So yes, you can be locked down in an open-source environment. You can also *not* be locked down in a proprietary environment. You just have to be aware of the possibility and work to avoid it. > Running FreeBSD may not help you if you need a driver that only is > available for Linux. Or Windows. That's one of the major disadvantages of not using Windows: I don't get a FreeBSD driver for the hardware when I buy it. On the other hand, the ability to run Linux binaries meant I'd have a good shot at getting commercial Unix software running on FreeBSD. That has mostly worked out well, as I managed to get the Linux FrameMaker beta to work on FreeBSD. Unfortunately, Adobe decided not to release it as a product, even though they are still supporting and upgrading it for RISC workstations. > > I'd also advise you to change that situation as > > quickly as you can, because the longer you stay > > in it, the more painful it will be when you are > > finally forced to change for some reason. > Believe it or not, it really isn't that important to me. Computers are tools, > most of the time. I'm willing to accept that avoiding pain in the future is of no importance to you. It's worth some effort to me. > > Since experience has taught me not to get caught > > in the position you're in, *nothing* is sine qua > > non for my use. > Then I assume you don't actually use your computer for anything essential? I run my consulting business on my computer. If it isn't working properly, I can't work - which means I don't get paid. However, there is no single compenent that can't be replaced by another application with similar functionality should the need arise. I can even replace FreeBSD with Linux and move everything I use over to that. The rpm system will make getting all the open source tools I need installed a bit painfull, but it can be done. This is the software equivalent of the hardware practice of making sure you have a second source available for every critical part. > > That's why some of the Linux distributions are > > turning themselves into a clone of Windows - because > > they want to lower the learning curve as much as > > possible. > > The problem is, though, that some people are going to try Linux after hearing > the hype, find out it's nothing like they expected, and then go running back to > Windows even more devoted to the platform than before. Yup. But some people will find it's just what they want. > Since most of them know nothing of UNIX generally, their first (bad) > experience with that category of OS will likely also be their last. > If someone suggests FreeBSD to them afterwards, they'll just say > "no, thanks, I've already been through that with Linux." And they'll be right. If Linux - which tries to be like Windows - was more Unix than they needed, FreeBSD is absolutely wrong for them. > > Windows certainly isn't that. It's basis is DOS, > > which was a single-tasking program loader. > No. Windows NT has no basis in DOS at all. Most of the DOS influence > disappeared with the demise of Windows 3.x. Modern Windows resembles DOS about > as much as UNIX resembles Multics--not even that much, in fact. Except, as we discussed in the other thread, that even Windows NT still suffers from design decisions made during the Windows 3.1 era that catered to the single-tasking nature of DOS. Windows NT may have been designed from scratch to be a windowing environment, but it had to be compatable with a system for which that wasn't true. > > Every version since has been saddled with backwards > > compatability to that design ... > No. The NT architecture sacrificed it, in favor of better stability and > security. If XP is built on NT code, as I've heard, it will inherit this > stability and security as well (if Microsoft hasn't hacked away at it too much). Except that in the other thread, you already pointed out that NT has an event model that ultimately derives from the DOS-based Windows 3.1 environment. > > I've been told by an NT developer that that was the > > reason that Windows NT was so unstable that even > > Bill Gates admitted it. > Your NT-developer friend was wrong. NT had no DOS roots to speak of, and many > DOS programs would never run on NT at all. That's one reason why many > organizations were slow to adopt it--they wanted compatibility more than they > wanted stability and security. That's probably also why NT was hobbled slightly > in later releases to make it more DOS and Windows 3.x-like. You just agreed with my NT developer friend. He said that when they added 9x compatability, they made NT less stable. What he was really upset about was he that the level of compatability they got didn't require compromising stability; they could have gotten the same level and kept stability where it was. > > But for a graphic server and a simple wm, that's just not > > true. > Is there a server that I can run at secure_level=3 on FreeBSD? For FreeBSD, I don't know. DEC had a kit available for Ultrix to put it at one of the military security levels a couple of steps above the one Unix is normally provided at, and you could run X on that. This makes me suspect that the answer is yes, but I'd have to do some investigation to verify it. If you're willing to pay for my time to do so, I will. If you'd like pointers at what I'd check on doing so, I'll provide those gratis. > > Nuts, even with a relatively complex wm like gwm, > > it's not true, because the window manager doesn't > > need any extra privileges. > See above. Quit confusing the window manager and the server. The window manager doesn't require any extra priveleges. > > So install a terminal server, and set them up > > with serial consoles. Then run X and a simple > > windowm manager - ratpoison would be nearly ideal > > for this - that has the console for each displayed > > in a window. > I don't understand ... what would this buy me? The console and ssh sessions are > fine. I use FTP to move files. That would mean you don't have to keep consoles around for all those systems. If you're not interested in keeping the history of what goes on on the console around, you don't need X on the terminal server. In either case, you can connect to the terminal server remotely and talk to the console of the other servers. In fact, you can set the terminal server up with a serial console, and connect it back to one of the other servers so you can access the console of any of the systems remotely. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. 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?15367.43943.686638.723011>