Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:16:27 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: UNIX on the Desktop (was: Re: Why no Indians and Arabs?) Message-ID: <3C1DB7EB.9232204A@mindspring.com> References: <20011216112759.U16958-100000@localhost> <002f01c1866e$1e4d9510$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > f.johan writes: > > i'm curious, why would you say it doesn't work well? > > It is a less appropriate choice than Windows or the Mac, for several > reasons, including: > > 1. Windows and the Mac OS were both designed specifically for a windowed, > desktop environment; UNIX was not. Lindows. NeXTStep. Pink. Are you aware that most of the Windows design, from the 1.0 version onward, was based on HP VUE(tm), including the function key bindings (ALT-F4 to close, etc.)? > 2. Windows and the Mac are single-user, dedicated desktop operating systems; > UNIX is a multiuser timesharing system. This is actually a minus, since credential domains are a significant barrier to having your system "owned", aqnd contain damage when the worst does happen (crackers, virus, worms, etc.). > 3. The native user interface of Windows/Mac is a GUI; the native interface > of UNIX is a simple text display. THe former is better suited to desktop > environments (friendly, attractive, ergonomic); the latter is better suited > to servers (inexpensive, efficient, fast). Actually, you probaqbly weren't there for Windows through 95; it was only with Windows 95, when they could not otherwise get rid of DR-DOS, that Windows booted graphically (even then, it ran as an application on DOS, and can still be booted to DOS, up to the point it became NT derived). Caldera (which bought the former Digital Research from Novell) won an outstanding lawsuit in recent years because of this. > 4. The number of useful desktop applications for Windows and the Mac exceed > the number of such applications available for UNIX by several orders of > magnitude. Lindows. MacOS X. > 5. Windows/Mac have virtually no security, but considerable flexibility for > things like games (the two being inversely correlated); UNIX has much better > security, but is less friendly to insecure applications like games. Desktop > enviroments favor flexibility over security. This is not implicit; it's jut a matter of good programming. The "first person shooter" immersive games were originally developed on UNIX (for example, DOOM first ran on NeXTStep). Let us also not forget the contribution of companies like Electronic Arts and Cinemaware (both Utah companies, in fact -- the latter invented the use of "cell animation", which later became the basis of MP2 and MP4 video stream delta-compression). Much of this work occurred on AmigaDOS (and "Intuition"), and the Atari ST (DR-DOS and GEM, a graphical environment also from Digital Research). If you want desktop applications, the first spread sheets, word processors, databases, etc., ran on CP/M (and MP/M) -- also from Digital Research. Finally, remember that the Xerox Alto did not run "MacOS" or "Windows"; Don Masarro, in case you are interested -- the man who took the Xerox Alto to market, and one of the founders of Shugart... you've heard of "floppy disks"? -- is CEO of ClickArray, a company that sells FreeBSD-based web acceleration products. > 6. Since most of the world is running Windows (or the Mac) on its > desktops, compatibility concerns strongly favor this operating system > for new installations. Lindows. > 7. Users are more likely to already be familiar with Windows (or the Mac) > than with UNIX, even in GUI incarnations of the latter. Transferrability of skills has more to do with complying with "The Windows Style Guide" than it does with a paticular graphical toolkit or UI paradigm. This is actually what the Gnome and KDE people need to learn before they will be successful: it is more important that someone be able to transfer skills from a temp employee trained in Microsoft products, than it is to "do it different from Microsoft". The primary barrier for other products entry into the Windows market is that there is a documented US$2,500 per seat (it is now closer to $3,000, IMO) training cost associated with minimal ability to utilize desktop applications. This is also why the stupidity of making computer programs look like "cell hones" or "VCR controls" will continue to flop in the market; while everyone continues to chase product differentiation, there is a stronger requirement that the skills in using, for example, tabbed dialogs, be transferrable to new programs. This requirement *vastly* outweighs the need for differentiation. The same thing that killed the NeXT machine -- the inability to have you product differentiate itself from competitors, or, indeed, any other part of the OS -- is something which a monopoly can force on you, and the benefits to the user are compelling enough that when that happens, as it has with Windows, users prefer "good enough and the same" to "better, but different". And rightly so. > Many of the reasons that favor Windows and the Mac on the desktop also favor > UNIX in the server domain. Assets become liabilities when moving from > desktop to server, and vice versa. It isn't really possible to have an > operating system that handles both environments optimally, and UNIX shines > strongly for servers, whereas Windows shines strongly for desktops. That's actually false, and you know it. The ability to perform "point-and-click" for trivial administrative tasks (such as minimal firewall installation, or minimal mail server configuration) far, far outweighs "raw power" in most cases. Your argument about the "custom MTA" at Hotmail was a convenient strawman. This is, in fact, why Microsoft is so fearful of Apple right now, on a short while after they had to prop them up to show a phantom competitor to minimize the damages they would face from the recent antitrust suits (damages they still face, according to the states, who have refused to knuckle under). -- Terry 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?3C1DB7EB.9232204A>