Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:33:59 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Convince me, please! Message-ID: <20070809213359.GC73498@demeter.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20070809173032.GB12072@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> References: <46BA9682.7020203@ix.netcom.com> <20070809140617.GB10705@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> <20070809185248.J71656@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20070809173032.GB12072@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 12:30:32PM -0500, David Kelly wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 06:54:37PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > >For the best user experience, and Unix too: MacOS X. > > > > a very little unix (few tools and kernel) + lots of bulky overhead ... > > Try it, you will find otherwise. The user interface works without > hassle. MacOS X comes with more standard utilities than does FreeBSD, > for instance procmail, fetchmail, sqlite3, Apache, php 4.4.7, ... I don't really think of entirely unnecessary (for most purposes) server software as "standard utilities". Speaking only for myself, I *have* tried MacOS X (and used it in a professional capacity), and I too find it to be "very little unix" with "lots of bulky overhead". I also find it actively user-hostile in some of its aesthetic design choices (when your aesthetic sense demands that you make input devices less usable, there's a problem). MacOS X has some definite benefits, but it's not the be-all and end-all of OS design by any stretch. Its biggest benefit is that it's not MS Windows (speaking of user hostility). -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070809213359.GC73498>