Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:31:33 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEGJFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <1479247773.20050213212204@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 12:22 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... > > > In any case, it's all completely unnecessary, since you can simply run > real Windows instead and get 100% compatibility with better performance > and stability. > Actually that's not always true. Back in the mid 90's when IBM was into the windows emulation thing under OS/2, they did some time trials of Windows applications running under straight Windows vs running under Windows-that-was-running-on -top-of-OS/2. The apps ran faster in the non-native (OS/2) Windows, mainly because Microsoft's disk routines were so terrible. > > Why? > > Because I run specific applications for specific purposes. The > applications are what's important; the OS is not. WRONG, the specific purpose is what's important, not the tool to accomplish it. If someone contracts with you to create an image and give the output to them as a photoshop source file, then obviously in that case Photoshop is a requirement. But if the same person wants the output as a tiff image, then there is no requirement to use photoshop, there are many other tools to create an image and output in tiff. > So if I > decide that I > need Photoshop, I run an OS that supports Photoshop. Simple. > But if your not needing to supply photoshop output, then you aren't actually "needing" to use it. Your "choosing" to use it. Which means that you COULD switch over to 100% UNIX if you selected other tools to use. So, unless your being required to output in photoshop files, you can't use Photoshop as a reason that you "can't" switch. People always use the line "I have to run (insert here) Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. etc. because my boss tells me to do so, that is why I can't switch" But this is MOSTLY in my experience, a load of bullcrap. Most of them could work up their business letter in any old wordprocessor, work up their spreadsheet in any old spreadsheet program, work up their presentation in any old presentation program. As long as the work got done, their boss is going to be happy. But people like to say this to give themselves an excuse for not having to learn how to use a new program. You should hear the whining and pissing and moaning in a typical office every time Microsoft upgrades one of their program and a new version comes out. It's the same issue. People just don't like learning how to do something in a new way, that's all it is. It doesen't mean they couldn't do it, though. > > There are hundreds of thousands of applications that run on Windows; > something for just about everyone. > This is baloney. There may be several hundred thousand Windows apps out there but there are only a few hundred that most Windows users use. > > Professional webmasters generally build their sites with text editors. > No they don't, they use HTML editors which while they have a section that is text input, they do a lot of other things as well. An accurate statement would be that professional webmasters generally use text to build their sites, but it's absurd to imply that they use vi or notepad for this. > > If you want control and input, you use Notepad to build your site, or > the equivalent. > And if you want to be professional about it and get the thing done in time, you use Macromedia Homesite or something equivalent. (and no Homesite isn't a point-and-click website builder) Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEGJFAAA.tedm>