Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:45:34 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: FreeBSD Advocacy <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD on the desktop (was: TheRegister article on Hotmail) Message-ID: <20021123071534.GC39240@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <014201c29296$f9cc4a20$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20021121161453.GA69019_submonkey.net@ns.sol.net> <008501c2917a$ac643080$0a00000a_atkielski.com@ns.sol.net> <200211221502.gAMF2a6a089963@catflap.bishopston.net> <20021122234047.GB60785@wantadilla.lemis.com> <014201c29296$f9cc4a20$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[reformatted to a standard line length]
On Saturday, 23 November 2002 at 3:21:04 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Greg writes:
>
>> Agreed 100%. I've had to use Microsoft from time to time, but for
>> my purposes it's a toy compared to FreeBSD. It would take me
>> several times as long to get things done if I had to use Microsoft.
>
> I'd hardly expect to hear anything different on a FreeBSD advocacy
> list.
You don't read your own messages?
> There are lots of people at Microsoft who say _exactly_ the same
> thing about UNIX as a server ("it would take me several times as
> long to get things done if I had to use UNIX" or "UNIX is a toy
> compared to Windows 2000").
We were talking about desktops.
> Part of rational advocacy is recognizing the strengths AND the
> weaknesses of one's favored OS.
Or others. But yes, agreed.
> UNIX is a usually a poor choice for the desktop, and Windows is
> often a poor choice for a server. It's important for objective
> parties to remain wary of anyone who claims that a single operating
> system can do everything better than any other OS.
I think you've either misunderstood or misrepresented me.
Since I've (rather unwisely) come back into this discussion, I'd like
to make a few points:
1. I am most definitely not a fanatic user of FreeBSD. I've used
many operating systems in my time, including Microsoft.
2. You seem to have overlooked the "for my purposes" in the message
you replied to.
3. There's a tradeoff between "ease of learning" and "ease of use".
It's quite possible that Microsoft is easier for beginners, though
I'm getting the feeling lately that it has become much more
complicated. When I was forced to use Microsoft, I was
continually calling the help desk, because I couldn't understand
how to do things.
The reason for this is that "intuitive" is very subjective. If
you've used Microsoft all the time, you'll get the idea of the
look and feel. If, like me, you've never used "Windows" in anger,
you'll find it completely bizarre.
OK, so you can say "yes, but it's easy when you know it". You can
say that about FreeBSD as well. I don't believe it's true with
Microsoft. The reasons have less to do with Microsoft itself than
with the user interface; that's why I think things like OpenOffice
are the wrong thing to do.
A couple of examples (as I say, for my purposes):
1. I get about 1500 mail messages a day. They're usually in threads,
like this one. It's possible that Outlook can arrange things
hierarchically, but I haven't been able to find out how to do it.
mutt does this out of the box. I can delete whole threads with a
single keystroke. I won't even get started on the contortions you
need to get Outlook not to break correct text.
2. I suppose it's possible to use Microsoft without the mouse, but
I'd guess it's not easy. Every mouse click takes as long at 20
keystrokes, so using the mouse is inefficient where a keystroke
can do the same thing. In addition, the screen on which I'm
writing this has a resolution of 2048x1536. The window into which
I'm typing right now has a size of 110x110 characters, which
enables me to see the entire message on a single screen. Just
positioning the mouse on the correct place is quite difficult.
That's not to say that mice are bad; I use one all the time, but
for things where mice are better. Microsoft overdoes it.
3. I recently watched somebody prepare some slides for a presentation
with OpenOffice. He had to make a large number of tradeoffs in
order to get what he wanted. There seems to be no way to automate
things. By contrast, I make my slides with groff, and I have a
complete programming language behind it to help me do exactly what
I want.
I suppose I make some tradeoffs too, since I don't have all these
silly themes (or whatever they're called) which things like
PowerPoint offer. But that's OK by me. Too often, Microsoft
comes across like a child's toy: brightly coloured and weak on
functionality.
IMO the real reason why Microsoft is still used so much is because
computer users are (still) mainly newbies. When it becomes important
for them to be able to use computers effectively, more and more of
them will move on to something more powerful.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021123071534.GC39240>