Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?)
Mike Meyer
> That isn't going to happen. Linux is a flavor of UNIX, and the architecture of
> UNIX is incompatible with heavy desktop use
You've said this before, but haven't done anything to demonstrate it.
I've been making heavy desktop use of, and supporting users making
heavy desktop use of, Unix since 1985. Nothing has happened during
that time that in any way indicated that Unix is "incompatible with
heavy desktopp use."
Quite to the contrary, every time someone has asked me to work on Win
9x or Macs - through the mid 90s - they crashed regularly under my
normal usage patterns. That convinced me that, if anything, those
operating systems aren't suitable for "heave desktop use".
In other words, I've got over 15 years of experience in direct
contradiction to your statement. I'd like to hear what evidence you
have to back it up.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@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 majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Anthony Atkielski
> You've said this before, but haven't done
> anything to demonstrate it.
I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration. UNIX was designed to
service hundreds of users sitting in front of dumb terminals; it was not
designed to drive a single resource-intensive GUI on dedicated hardware for a
single user. UNIX architecture puts a huge emphasis on multiple, independent
users and processes, and very little emphasis on the kind of close integration
and hardware dependency that a complex GUI requires. These characteristics make
for an excellent timesharing system or server, but they also make for a poor
desktop environment.
Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of multiple users
and no provision for hardware independence. Processes and users are not
intended to work simultaneously on the same machine on completely different
tasks. As a result, it is very good for dedicated, single-user desktop use, but
very poor for timesharing use and mediocre for server use.
If you believe that UNIX is as good a desktop as Windows, then logically you
must also believe that Windows is as good a server as UNIX. An extension of
this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems are essentially
identical--but that obviously is not the reality.
> I've been making heavy desktop use of, and
> supporting users making heavy desktop use of,
> Unix since 1985. Nothing has happened during
> that time that in any way indicated that Unix
> is "incompatible with heavy desktopp use."
Most operating systems can be stretched to fill all sorts of roles for which
they weren't intended. That doesn't make them good in such applications, nor
does it make them superior to purpose-built operating systems for those same
applications.
It's interesting to see how hard people will try to prove or at least argue that
their pet operating systems are the best for all purposes, or even adequate for
all purposes. I've never seen an operating system that can do it all, and I
expect that I never will.
> Quite to the contrary, every time someone has
> asked me to work on Win 9x or Macs - through the
> mid 90s - they crashed regularly under my
> normal usage patterns. That convinced me that,
> if anything, those operating systems aren't
> suitable for "heave desktop use".
Heavy desktop use requires NT and its descendants. Windows 9x and the Mac are
for occasional, non-critical desktop use, for precisely the reasons you cite.
Ken McGlothlen
| I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration. UNIX was designed to
| service hundreds of users sitting in front of dumb terminals; it was not
| designed to drive a single resource-intensive GUI on dedicated hardware for a
| single user. UNIX architecture puts a huge emphasis on multiple, independent
| users and processes, and very little emphasis on the kind of close
| integration and hardware dependency that a complex GUI requires. These
| characteristics make for an excellent timesharing system or server, but they
| also make for a poor desktop environment.
Unix has *often* been used for monolithic applications in single-user
environments. Cray systems, for example, even after the advent of UNICOS, were
often in a position of performing dedicated tasks. A GUI is nothing special.
It uses the same processor instructions, the same memory, the same process
structure as any other program.
While UNIX does emphasize multiple independent processes, it has little to do
with how a resource-intensive GUI needs. I admit that most of the widespread
GUIs don't use this approach well (Windows in particular), but I'm typing on a
Mac OS X system right now, and I gotta tell you, this makes a perfectly fine
desktop system. As long as your software is written with lots of processes in
mind, there's nothing stopping it from working well under Unix.
In short, your argument is fallacious.
| Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of multiple
| users and no provision for hardware independence. Processes and users are
| not intended to work simultaneously on the same machine on completely
| different tasks. As a result, it is very good for dedicated, single-user
| desktop use, but very poor for timesharing use and mediocre for server use.
This may be an accurate argument---though XP seems to be changing this a
little, it's unclear that it's a clear step towards a multiuser direction yet.
(I haven't used it at this writing.)
| If you believe that UNIX is as good a desktop as Windows, then logically you
| must also believe that Windows is as good a server as UNIX.
I'm sorry, Anthony, but that argument is . . . well, stupid. ("If you believe
that Sharon can pee standing up as she claims, then you must also believe that
I am capable of being pregnant.")
| An extension of this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems
| are essentially identical--but that obviously is not the reality.
If it were logic. Which it clearly isn't. Your argument is nonsensical.
| Most operating systems can be stretched to fill all sorts of roles for which
| they weren't intended. That doesn't make them good in such applications, nor
| does it make them superior to purpose-built operating systems for those same
| applications.
Cart before the horse. Applications must cater to the operating systems
they're designed to work on. Writing good GUI-type applications *is* more
difficult under Unix, but not as impossible as you seem to think it is. Good
libraries can solve that problem, as Mac OS X shows well.
| It's interesting to see how hard people will try to prove or at least argue
| that their pet operating systems are the best for all purposes, or even
| adequate for all purposes. I've never seen an operating system that can do
| it all, and I expect that I never will.
Again, you seem to be confusing "operating system" with "applications written
for an operating system."
| Heavy desktop use requires NT and its descendants.
(Such a religious statement. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.)
"Heavy desktop use" is what? Tell me, Anthony. I use a Mac OS X system for
most of my desktop applications. It all works. I could also use a FreeBSD
system as much if more applications were ported to it, but as it is, my FreeBSD
system also gets a lot of face time. Neither my Mac (thanks to OS X) or
FreeBSD systems crash nearly as often as the NT box I used to own, or the WinMe
box my parents now own (under light desktop use).
| Windows 9x and the Mac are for occasional, non-critical desktop use, for
| precisely the reasons you cite.
You should be embarrassed at the rather random leaps of "logic" you're making
here, Anthony. One is forced to wonder why you're using Unix at all.
Anthony Atkielski
> subscribe to this list ;) there are advantages
> to using it as a desktop.
Obviously. My point was that, if you are choosing an OS for primarily desktop
use, the best choice is Microsoft Windows. If you already have one machine and
it is running FreeBSD for other purposes, it may be more economical to use it
for desktop use as well, rather than buy a different machine and run Windows on
it (and dropping FreeBSD to switch to Windows is very unlikely to be
justifiable, unless you are making a major change in your computer use with
almost total emphasis on the desktop).
I really don't understand this preoccupation with desktops. Doesn't anyone run
FreeBSD as a server, or is that simply not considered cool enough to please
anyone anymore?
> Since I am of the opinion that Windows will
> eventually become as much of a closed software
> environment as the Mac is for hardware ...
The OS itself is already completely closed, since it is proprietary. The same
is true for the Mac. However, Windows has always been more open to third-party
software products, and I don't expect that to change, as it only benefits
Microsoft (owner of the Windows OS). That is something that Apple just could
never understand, it seems.
> For the health of Open Source OSs in general
> I would point out that there are (tens of??)
> thousands more desktops than servers in the
> world. If there is going to be an OS war it
> will be won or lost there (IMO).
I doubt that. A single mainframe is worth ten thousand desktops. We still have
MVS with us. UNIX is the closest thing we have to an open-source mainframe OS.
mpd
> > Assuming one already uses FreeBSD (why else
> > subscribe to this list ;) there are advantages
> > to using it as a desktop.
>
> Obviously. My point was that, if you are choosing an OS for primarily desktop
> use, the best choice is Microsoft Windows. If you already have one machine and
It's not the best choice for me, nor for several others who have already
made that known. Please don't make blanket statements like this, especially
on this list, where you're going to be looked at and treated as a troll.
I personally have no use for the extra crap that so many windows users
can't seem to live without. Others may, but that still doesn't qualify
your statement, which is just an opinion.
(and as a software engineer, I find that windows is one of the
most piss-poor and developer-unfriendly systems around. That's my opinion.)
> it is running FreeBSD for other purposes, it may be more economical to use it
> for desktop use as well, rather than buy a different machine and run Windows on
> it (and dropping FreeBSD to switch to Windows is very unlikely to be
> justifiable, unless you are making a major change in your computer use with
> almost total emphasis on the desktop).
>
> I really don't understand this preoccupation with desktops. Doesn't anyone run
> FreeBSD as a server, or is that simply not considered cool enough to please
> anyone anymore?
Uh, lots of people do, but they don't feel like feeding the troll, I suppose.
>
> > Since I am of the opinion that Windows will
> > eventually become as much of a closed software
> > environment as the Mac is for hardware ...
>
> The OS itself is already completely closed, since it is proprietary. The same
> is true for the Mac. However, Windows has always been more open to third-party
> software products, and I don't expect that to change, as it only benefits
> Microsoft (owner of the Windows OS). That is something that Apple just could
> never understand, it seems.
Windows isn't "more open," it's just more proliferated, so it benefits
the software companies to release software for that platform.
If I wrote windows when I was 10, but millions of people used it,
software would still be released for it.
mike
--
___________________________________________________________
"WITH A FEW SMALL MODIFICATIONS ANY CANOE CAN TRAVEL THROUGH TIME!!!"
- Pokey the Penguin from "POKEY IN ANCIENT SCOTLAND"
Andrew C. Hornback
to the noise side of the signal to noise ratio, but there's only so much of
this that I an take.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG
> [mailto:owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Anthony
> Atkielski
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 4:37 PM
> To: Mike Meyer
> Cc: ques...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?)
>
> Mike writes:
>
> > You've said this before, but haven't done
> > anything to demonstrate it.
>
> I'm surprised that you think it requires demonstration.
Anthony, I'm glad you understand how to cut quoting down, but can you
please leave some information to give some context? Is that too much to
ask?
> UNIX was
> designed to
> service hundreds of users sitting in front of dumb terminals; it was not
> designed to drive a single resource-intensive GUI on dedicated
> hardware for a
> single user.
So, both Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics (among others) were wrong to
use a Unix-type OS for their high end GRAPHICAL workstations? I'm sure
Scott (Mr. McNealy) is crying over that comment.
> UNIX architecture puts a huge emphasis on multiple,
> independent
> users and processes, and very little emphasis on the kind of
> close integration
> and hardware dependency that a complex GUI requires.
Multiple independent processes... the sort of thing that you'd want to be
doing if you had multiple instances of a data analysis program running.
Which makes it perfect for Unix. However, in order to make sense of the
data that you get back from the analysis program, you're saying that you
need to move it to a different platform? That doesn't make sense to me.
> These
> characteristics make
> for an excellent timesharing system or server, but they also make
> for a poor
> desktop environment.
Anthony, I realize that you're new here and we've been trying to help you
with the problems you've had with your server, and I understand that you're
coming from a closed-minded Microsoft point of view... but, until you have
used and properly evaluated FreeBSD (or any other Unix, for that matter) in
a desktop environment, I don't believe you have the right to say that it
makes a poor desktop environment. Making assertions without examples, proof
or fact to cite to back them up is not good. And on the side of making a
good desktop environment, I've already mentioned Sun and SGI. If anyone's
keeping score, that's 2-0.
> Windows is the other way around. It has virtually no concept of
> multiple users
> and no provision for hardware independence.
The lack of hardware independence is thanks to Microsoft. At one time, you
could run Windows on everything from a Macintosh to the latest and greatest
from Intel to the wicked fast Alpha from DEC. What happened?
> Processes and users are not
> intended to work simultaneously on the same machine on completely
> different
> tasks. As a result, it is very good for dedicated, single-user
> desktop use, but
> very poor for timesharing use and mediocre for server use.
>
> If you believe that UNIX is as good a desktop as Windows, then
> logically you
> must also believe that Windows is as good a server as UNIX.
Your logic is flawed, yet again. Just because you equate A and B in
reference to situation C does not mean that A equates to B in situation D.
> An
> extension of
> this logic leads to the conclusion that the operating systems are
> essentially
> identical--but that obviously is not the reality.
That is because the logic itself is flawed. See above.
> > I've been making heavy desktop use of, and
> > supporting users making heavy desktop use of,
> > Unix since 1985. Nothing has happened during
> > that time that in any way indicated that Unix
> > is "incompatible with heavy desktopp use."
>
> Most operating systems can be stretched to fill all sorts of
> roles for which
> they weren't intended.
Such as running a web server on VM/CMS...
> That doesn't make them good in such
> applications, nor
> does it make them superior to purpose-built operating systems for
> those same
> applications.
So, from what you're saying here is that you advocate one operating system
for each type of application? That would be absurd.
> It's interesting to see how hard people will try to prove or at
> least argue that
> their pet operating systems are the best for all purposes, or
> even adequate for
> all purposes.
*looks around*
I don't believe that ANYONE here has said that FreeBSD is the best for ALL
purposes. If you've seen that quote, I'd appreciate you sending me a copy
of the message or a URL to it.
> I've never seen an operating system that can do it
> all, and I
> expect that I never will.
True, but you've seen attempts at that very thing. Look at your Microsoft
desktop.
> > Quite to the contrary, every time someone has
> > asked me to work on Win 9x or Macs - through the
> > mid 90s - they crashed regularly under my
> > normal usage patterns. That convinced me that,
> > if anything, those operating systems aren't
> > suitable for "heave desktop use".
>
> Heavy desktop use requires NT and its descendants.
So, you bought all of the marketing spiel from Microsoft, didn't you?
Windows 3.1 and 95 both could stand a good deal of, you call it heavy
desktop use, I call it hammering. It's when you move into the 98 and
further iterations of the 9x kernel that you run into problems. Of course,
that may have something to do with short product cycles, seeing how
Microsoft doesn't make money if they don't have something shiny and new to
sell.
> Windows 9x
> and the Mac are
> for occasional, non-critical desktop use, for precisely the
> reasons you cite.
Oh... and now you're a Macintosh maven? I could fill up your favorite pub
(probably two to three times over) with people that would dispute your
opinion that Mac is only useful for "occasional, non-critical desktop use".
Anthony, is there anything about computers that you're not a leading figure
with regards to?
--- Andy
Anthony Atkielski
> It's not the best choice for me, nor for several
> others who have already made that known.
Perhaps not, but I was not addressing you and your circle of acquaintances
exclusively. And overall, it _is_ the best choice. It surprises me that anyone
contests the obvious.
> Please don't make blanket statements like this,
> especially on this list, where you're going to be
> looked at and treated as a troll.
Only by those with a religious devotion to a different operating system. I'm
sure there are plenty of ordinary, professional IT folk here, too, who do not
possess religious beliefs in one software product or computer system over
another and thus do not feel inclined to leap irrationally to their defense at
every perceived aspersion cast upon their faith.
> I personally have no use for the extra crap that
> so many windows users can't seem to live without.
That's true of most users, but that is not what makes Windows attractive. The
availability of 100,000 different applications for the platform in itself
justifies Windows. So does its near-total dedication to the desktop
environment. So does its compatibility (most other people use Windows, so
Windows applications are the most compatible with what most other people are
using). There are many reasons.
> Others may, but that still doesn't qualify
> your statement, which is just an opinion.
My opinion seems to correlate well with the market figures, and that is not
surprising, since the market figures are in part what drives my opinion.
> ... and as a software engineer, I find that windows
> is one of the most piss-poor and developer-unfriendly
> systems around.
As a software engineer, then, you should also know that systems that are the
most friendly to users tend to be the most unfriendly to software engineers, and
vice versa.
I tend to agree that Windows is a nightmare to program for. But that has no
influence on its utility for the average user, since the average user is not
programming for his own system.
> Uh, lots of people do, but they don't feel like
> feeding the troll, I suppose.
Or they lack religious devotion to the OS. After all, people running FreeBSD on
servers are using the OS for what it does best, and absent a special affection
for it above and beyond that, they probably will not run it on the desktop
(unless it is more economical to do so, as in certain cases of a single
machine).
> Windows isn't "more open," it's just more proliferated ...
No, it is more open as well. _Anyone_ can write programs for Windows, and this
has always been true. It has not been true in the past for Apple, and I suspect
it is still not true now.
Apple is a good example of what happens when religious faith is given priority
over practical considerations. Microsoft is a good example of what happens when
practical considerations are given priority over religious faith. As proof,
note that the most important application on the Mac is Microsoft Office.
> ... so it benefits the software companies to release
> software for that platform.
It's the other way around: Software companies decided to write for Windows
(because it was a very inexpensive and open operating system, compared to the
Mac), and so more people bought Windows. Eventually a synergistic effect
develops, leading to a dominant market position, and this can happen entirely
independently of the vendor.
Mark Yeck
> heavy desktop use of, Unix since 1985. Nothing has happened during that
> time that in any way indicated that Unix is "incompatible with heavy
> desktopp use."
>
> Quite to the contrary, every time someone has asked me to work on Win
> 9x or Macs - through the mid 90s - they crashed regularly under my
> normal usage patterns. That convinced me that, if anything, those
> operating systems aren't suitable for "heave desktop use".
>
> In other words, I've got over 15 years of experience in direct
> contradiction to your statement. I'd like to hear what evidence you
> have to back it up.
My experience is pretty much the same. I started using UNIX (Ultrix) in the
early nineties with Motif and ATK window managers, several years before my
first experience with any MS operating system. I've never found a situation
where Windows has made a better desktop than whatever UNIX and window
manager I'm running at the time (currently FreeBSD with Blackbox). I use
Win98, NT, and Win2k for work and I'm continually irritated by small things,
like random access of my empty floppy drive, random redraws of the desktop,
the Start menu closing while I'm trying to use it, installing a program as
one user and not being able to find it or use it as another user, and the
hell of coping with the registry. My experience with UNIX on the desktop
hasnt been totally bug free, but I find it quite a bit less annoying.
Every advantage I've seen with Microsoft is directly related to its
overwhelming domination of whatever market its in. My mother, for example,
may be better off using Windows on her desktop, not for any technical
reason, because if she has a problem she can ask almost anyone who uses
computers about it. Nearly anyone who's used a computer has used windows and
the advantage of not having to learn a new operating system may seem to
outweigh any technical advantage of UNIX (or MacOS). Microsoft Word isnt a
horrible piece of software, but it's only major advantage that I can see is
that someone can write a document in it and send it to nearly anyone and
expect that they will be able to open it with little effort.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the whole thing.
-mark
Anthony Atkielski
> As someone who spent 4+ years developing
> highly graphical, highly interactive, and highly
> hardware-dependent single user applications
> for Unix-based (SGI) workstations, I can
> assure you that the above statements
> have very little basis in reality.
As someone who has worked with mainframes and timesharing systems for years, I
can assure you that it is right.
Perhaps you can explain the utility of a multiuser environment for a single-user
desktop graphics workstation.
> There are many reasons that Windows is the
> dominant force on the desktop today but they
> have everything to do with marketing and
> economics and very little to do with operating
> system design.
That is a common misconception, held dear and defended by those with axes to
grind or religions to defend. Microsoft wanted the desktop GUI market and went
after it. Most UNIX vendors did not.
Anthony Atkielski
> So, both Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics
> (among others) were wrong to use a Unix-type OS
> for their high end GRAPHICAL workstations?
In what sense? It was certainly a poor technical decision. However, writing a
new operating system costs money, and so does buying a new operating system from
someone else. UNIX was at hand and about as close to open source and free as
one could get.
That is also why Apple chose UNIX as a basis for Mac OS X. They couldn't afford
to write something new, so they reused as much as they could, even though this
is not necessarily a good idea from a technical standpoint.
Microsoft did the same with Windows 3.x and (to a limited extent) Windows 95.
Windows NT had elements of OS/2 architecture in it as well.
Writing a new operating system costs billions of dollars; even Microsoft cannot
afford to do that.
> I'm sure Scott (Mr. McNealy) is crying over that
> comment.
It's possible to make lots of money with technically less-than-ideal products.
Sun and SGI weren't selling graphics workstations on the basis of the underlying
OS.
> Multiple independent processes... the sort of
> thing that you'd want to be doing if you had
> multiple instances of a data analysis program
> running.
No. For data analysis, you need programs that communicate extensively, not
completely independent processes.
> Which makes it perfect for Unix.
See above. UNIX (and most other operating systems) lack the close communication
between processes that would be optimal for this type of application.
> ... I understand that you're coming from a closed=
> minded Microsoft point of view...
No. I come from a non-religious point of view, and when one is not encumbered
by religious faith in a particular platform or operating system, one tends to
see advantages and disadvantages of each system more clearly. I do not worship
a FreeBSD god (nor a Windows god), so I do not feel frightened by the idea of
running two completely different operating systems for two entirely different
purposes. I choose the tool that fits the job.
> ... but, until you have used and properly evaluated
> FreeBSD (or any other Unix, for that matter) in
> a desktop environment, I don't believe you have
> the right to say that it makes a poor desktop environment.
I knew within a few days of installing FreeBSD that it was suboptimal as a
desktop (at best).
You know, in Windows discussion groups, there are people arguing irrationally in
favor of Windows as a server. The names change, but the religious fervor is the
same.
> Making assertions without examples, proof or fact
> to cite to back them up is not good.
I've explained my reasoning in considerable detail. To those for whom IT is not
a religion, my explanations are cogent. For the true believers, no "proof" is
ever adequate to sway them from the Path.
> The lack of hardware independence is thanks to
> Microsoft.
No. The lack of hardware independence is a consequence of the need to support
high-performance, hardware-intensive applications like games. Indeed, recent
versions of the NT/2000 architecture have actually moved _more_ towards hardware
dependence specifically for this reason. That's what the desktop market wants.
Playing games, for example, requires very tight integration of OS and hardware,
and a significant part of the Windows desktop market just wants to play games.
> At one time, you could run Windows on everything
> from a Macintosh to the latest and greatest
> from Intel to the wicked fast Alpha from DEC.
There was essentially no demand for Windows on platforms other than Intel, and
continuing demand for support of applications that required the integration of
which I speak above additionally drove Intel-only development. Nobody was
buying MIPS machines, and almost no one was buying Alpha machines. Demand for
PowerPC support was pretty much nonexistent, as I recall.
> Such as running a web server on VM/CMS...
Yes. Or running Novell on the desktop. Just about every bizarre permutation
has been tried, rest assured.
> So, from what you're saying here is that you
> advocate one operating system for each type of
> application? That would be absurd.
What's absurd about it? In fact, that's exactly how real-world implementations
have typically done it, in the absence of political reasons for forcing one
"solution" to fit all environments. Many organizations use Windows on desktops
but UNIX on servers.
> I don't believe that ANYONE here has said that
> FreeBSD is the best for ALL purposes.
It's pretty obvious here that many people will do anything to avoid admitting
that Windows is the better choice for a desktop.
As I've said, on other groups you can watch true believers of other religions
making the same desperate attempts to "prove" that Windows makes the best Web
servers, or that Macs make great routers and firewalls.
> True, but you've seen attempts at that very
> thing. Look at your Microsoft desktop.
NT tries to be a server, and succeeds better than most, but it does not compare
with UNIX. It does make a superb desktop, however.
You see, Microsoft doesn't want to abandon the Windows religion, either, so it
tries to bend Windows to make it fit a server environment. But Windows will
never be ideal for that environment--the architecture of Windows fundamentally
works against it.
> So, you bought all of the marketing spiel
> from Microsoft, didn't you?
No, I used their operating systems, and I discovered that the NT/2000
architecture is the most robust by far.
> Windows 3.1 and 95 both could stand a good deal
> of, you call it heavy desktop use, I call it
> hammering.
With stable applications, yes. With poorly-written applications (the norm in
PC-land, alas!), they do not stand up very well. Poorly-written applications
are best run on NT, if possible, because NT will not crash when they do.
> It's when you move into the 98 and further
> iterations of the 9x kernel that you run into
> problems.
I'm not aware of any increase in instability in later versions of Windows 9x; in
fact, all reports I've heard say quite the opposite.
> Of course, that may have something to do with short
> product cycles, seeing how Microsoft doesn't make
> money if they don't have something shiny and new to
> sell.
This is true of all commercial software vendors. Look at the commercialized
versions of Apache, or the "distributions" of Linux.
> Oh... and now you're a Macintosh maven?
I've used them as well, although not extensively and not recently. The Mac OS
has never changed, though, unlike Windows (Mac OS X is the first significant
change, from what I understand).
> I could fill up your favorite pub (probably two to
> three times over) with people that would dispute your
> opinion that Mac is only useful for "occasional,
> non-critical desktop use".
Are you sure they wouldn't rather meet in a church? That's where worship is
usually conducted.
> Anthony, is there anything about computers that
> you're not a leading figure with regards to?
I don't have much experience with real-time systems, and I've never been heavily
into database management systems (by choice). I'm also stronger on central
systems than on networking.
Anthony Atkielski
> Every advantage I've seen with Microsoft is
> directly related to its overwhelming domination
> of whatever market its in.
The obvious question, then, is: How did Microsoft ever come to dominate any
market, if its dominance depends on already being dominant?
> My mother, for example, may be better off using
> Windows on her desktop, not for any technical
> reason, because if she has a problem she can ask
> almost anyone who uses computers about it.
At least 99.9% of desktop users are just like your mother.
That's one argument in favor of Windows.
> Nearly anyone who's used a computer has used
> windows and the advantage of not having to learn
> a new operating system may seem to outweigh
> any technical advantage of UNIX (or MacOS).
That's two.
> Microsoft Word isnt a horrible piece of software,
> but it's only major advantage that I can see is
> that someone can write a document in it and send
> it to nearly anyone and expect that they will be
> able to open it with little effort.
That's three.
For someone who seems to doubt the superiority of Windows on the desktop, you
certainly are arguing persuasively in its favor.
Matthew Graybosch
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 28 November 2001 22:33, you wrote:
> Mike writes:
> > It's not the best choice for me, nor for several
> > others who have already made that known.
>
> Perhaps not, but I was not addressing you and your circle of
> acquaintances exclusively. And overall, it _is_ the best choice.
> It surprises me that anyone contests the obvious.
Sounds like you're begging the question. Not to mention arguing from
popularity instead of the technical merits of Windows. Just because
something is popular doesn't mean it's right or good.
Windows may well be the *worst* choice from a usability standpoint,
IMHO.
Any script kiddie with a rudimentary knowledge of VB can write worms
and Trojans that can cause serious damage to a Windows machine
should the user let down her guard for even a moment.
Windows insists on abstracting everything from the user, so that the
user is mostly insulated from the consequences of her actions. If I
need to get under the hood for any reason, even to indulge my
curiosity, then I have to get past all the bondage and discipline
built into Windows.
Windows is sloppily coded, and wastes the potential of just about
every computer it touches. Among other things, Windows insists on
using the swapfile as much as possible, instead of real memory,
which needlessly wastes disk space and causes utterly unnecessary
disk I/O should I actually try to push the computer.
Installing or removing even the most trivial applications requires
proprietary automated tools like InstallShield because of the
Registry, a beast nasty enough to make Great Cthulhu look as cuddly
as a kitten in a basket.
Quite frankly, dealing with Windows on a home desktop, or even a
work desktop, is more aggravation than most of us get paid for.
> Only by those with a religious devotion to a different operating
> system. I'm sure there are plenty of ordinary, professional IT
> folk here, too, who do not possess religious beliefs in one
> software product or computer system over another and thus do not
> feel inclined to leap irrationally to their defense at every
> perceived aspersion cast upon their faith.
Frankly, it sounds like you're religiously devoted to Windows on the
desktop. Which is fine; you're welcome to your opinion. However, as
Ayn Rand writes: "Judge, and expect to be judged."
When I argue that FreeBSD is better for desktop use than Windows, I
argue from roughly five years of self-taught experience. I've used
MS-DOS, PC-DOS, Windows 3.1, 9x, NT4, and 2K. I've used several
Linux distributions: Red Hat 6.1, SuSE 6.3 - 7.1, Mandrake 8,
Slackware 2, and Debian 2.2. I have tried to use each of these
systems on the desktop, and with each I have had to keep a bottle of
generic acetominophen by my keyboard; each system induced at least
one headache a week.
I've been using FreeBSD since the end of September, on a desktop,
and I haven't had to use the painkillers yet.
> That's true of most users, but that is not what makes Windows
> attractive. The availability of 100,000 different applications
> for the platform in itself justifies Windows. So does its
> near-total dedication to the desktop environment. So does its
> compatibility (most other people use Windows, so Windows
> applications are the most compatible with what most other people
> are using). There are many reasons.
Don't just say that "there are many reasons". List them, and please
explain why you consider them reasons to use Windows. To begin with,
a significant portion of the 100K apps you mention are games. Many
of the others are either shareware or freeware, much of it as
bug-ridden as a 30-year old hooker from Queens. I think it'd be fair
to say that the average Windows user might use 100 out of the 100K
Windows apps you mention. Most of these apps have BSD (or GNU/Linux)
counterparts that are free as in beer if not free as in speech.
Quite frankly, there's no reason for formatting a document using MS'
proprietary *.DOC format when they look just as good in properly
formatted HTML. Of course, I wouldn't take an HTML document from a
Windows user without first using the Demoronizer, but that's what I
get for having friends that use Windows.
> My opinion seems to correlate well with the market figures, and
> that is not surprising, since the market figures are in part what
> drives my opinion.
Now, if I went by market figures, I could conclude that the
Backstreet Boys are a better band than Iron Maiden, and the Britney
Spears is a better singer than Sarah Brightman. Marketing figures
are relevent only to marketers. I personally consider marketers as
low a form of life as politicians, wife-beaters, and neo-Nazis.
> As a software engineer, then, you should also know that systems
> that are the most friendly to users tend to be the most unfriendly
> to software engineers, and vice versa.
Now, why should people put up with the security holes and the
general incompetence surr
> I tend to agree that Windows is a nightmare to program for. But
> that has no influence on its utility for the average user, since
> the average user is not programming for his own system.
I insist on differing on this point. I think that the harder a
system is to program for, the harder it is to write quality
software. If it's difficult to write quality software, then the user
has to put up with mediocre software. While most Windows users might
not be programmers, they do suffer when Windows programmers try to
cut corners when the API becomes too nightmarish to handle.
> Or they lack religious devotion to the OS. After all, people
> running FreeBSD on servers are using the OS for what it does best,
> and absent a special affection for it above and beyond that.
Personally, I think you fall back on the religion thing because you
cannot convince us as to the correctness of your position, yet
cannot concede that since we are not "average users" we have no
reason to tolerate an OS geared to "average users".
> No, it is more open as well. _Anyone_ can write programs for
> Windows, and this has always been true. It has not been true in
> the past for Apple, and I suspect it is still not true now.
When did Apple become relevant to this discussion of FBSD vs.
Windows on the desktop?
Yes, any schmuck can write programs for Windows. I've worked with
some of the idiots and have done some truly idiotic things myself.
However, anybody *willing to make an effort* can write programs for
FBSD. They don't have to learn C; they can do plenty with Python,
and Python is free. Just install the port. With Windows, on the
other hand, the dominant programming tools come from MS: the Visual
Studio tools, and they cost an arm and a leg.
> Apple is a good example of what happens when religious faith is
> given priority over practical considerations. Microsoft is a good
> example of what happens when practical considerations are given
> priority over religious faith. As proof, note that the most
> important application on the Mac is Microsoft Office.
Funny, I thought that Microsoft was a good example of what happens
when marketing considerations are given priority over writing solid
code. Microsoft's security record is reason enough to call their
products shoddy.
And, Anthony, please *do not* CC me in your reply. Just reply to the
list. Thanks.
- --
Matthew Graybosch
http://www.starbreaker.net
GnuPG Key ID: 0x7D488659
"Sex, Unix, and rock 'n roll"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8BboBcCiK1X1IhlkRAvFcAJ97zxaqlaGpDnpCE9tNJtTWILmO9wCggW/G
XWB3jcnci8Z3RPpW1O/KIO0=
=bDYp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anthony Atkielski
> Not to mention arguing from popularity instead
> of the technical merits of Windows.
Windows would be (barely) preferable on technical merits alone, although that is
not the sole reason for its success. Unfortunately, operating systems do not
succeed or fail based on technical merits alone; if they did, we'd be running
FreeMultics instead of FreeBSD.
> Windows may well be the *worst* choice from a
> usability standpoint, IMHO.
I've explained several times at length why this is not so.
> Any script kiddie with a rudimentary knowledge
> of VB can write worms and Trojans that can cause
> serious damage to a Windows machine should the
> user let down her guard for even a moment.
Windows is not intended to be a secure system. The security requirements of
desktop systems are very modest, since they should normally be behind firewalls.
> Windows insists on abstracting everything from
> the user, so that the user is mostly insulated
> from the consequences of her actions.
That's exactly what most Windows users prefer.
> If I need to get under the hood for any reason,
> even to indulge my curiosity, then I have to
> get past all the bondage and discipline built
> into Windows.
Most users never want to get under the hood.
> Windows is sloppily coded ...
True of Windows 9x and its blood predecessors. Not true of NT. NT is rather
cleanly written, especially in the kernel. Looking at the two sources
side-by-side, you can often recognize the Windows 9x stuff at a glance.
> ... and wastes the potential of just about
> every computer it touches.
Most desktop systems are so dramatically overpowered that wasteful coding is the
only way to keep them busy. Since their horsepower is wasted if it isn't used,
anyway, using it makes no difference.
Of course, the situation is different for servers, which is one of many reasons
why Windows is not ideal for servers.
> Among other things, Windows insists on using
> the swapfile as much as possible, instead of
> real memory, which needlessly wastes disk space
> and causes utterly unnecessary disk I/O should
> I actually try to push the computer.
How did you determine this?
Note that the event-driven architecture of Windows requires a lot of swapping in
itself, regardless of memory-management algorithms. For example, significant
events must be signalled to _every_ program that owns windows, and that means
that every program must be in memory to process the events, which often requires
a ton of swapping. I've seen this on many occasions.
UNIX does not communicate between processes or between system nearly as much,
particularly with respect to asynchronous events. As a result, it does not have
to constantly swap processes in just to tell them that a user has, say, moved a
mouse.
> Installing or removing even the most trivial
> applications requires proprietary automated
> tools like InstallShield because of the
> Registry, a beast nasty enough to make Great
> Cthulhu look as cuddly as a kitten in a basket.
Yes, but from a user standpoint, it is much more ergonomic than in UNIX.
> Quite frankly, dealing with Windows on a home
> desktop, or even a work desktop, is more
> aggravation than most of us get paid for.
You are projecting the attitudes of many IT professionals onto the user
community at large. But only a very tiny fraction of Windows users--and desktop
users in general--works in IT.
Most of the characteristics you see as drawbacks are seen as advantages by the
huge majority of non-IT users.
> Frankly, it sounds like you're religiously
> devoted to Windows on the desktop.
Not religiously devoted, just objective enough to recognize that Windows is the
best desktop solution at this time.
> When I argue that FreeBSD is better for desktop
> use than Windows, I argue from roughly five
> years of self-taught experience.
Why don't you argue that FreeBSD is better for server use? At least then you
are not fighting a losing battle. Or must FreeBSD be used for _everything_ in
order to satisfy you?
> Don't just say that "there are many reasons".
> List them, and please explain why you consider
> them reasons to use Windows.
I list them over, and over, and over, but the faithful never seem to notice.
> To begin with, a significant portion of the
> 100K apps you mention are games.
So? The purpose of a computer is to do what its user wants it to do. Lots of
users like to play games.
> Many of the others are either shareware or
> freeware ...
Just like FreeBSD?
> ... much of it as bug-ridden as a 30-year old
> hooker from Queens.
Are you saying that freeware is likely to contain bugs? What does this imply
for FreeBSD, then?
> I think it'd be fair to say that the average
> Windows user might use 100 out of the 100K
> Windows apps you mention.
And in many cases, not a single one of those 100 applications exists in a UNIX
version.
> Most of these apps have BSD (or GNU/Linux)
> counterparts that are free as in beer if not
> free as in speech.
"Counterparts" aren't good enough. When you need to exchange Microsoft Word
files with someone, you need Microsoft Word, not just any generic word
processor.
> Quite frankly, there's no reason for formatting
> a document using MS' proprietary *.DOC format
> when they look just as good in properly formatted
> HTML.
HTML provides far less control over formatting than MS Word. And MS Word seems
hopelessly imprecise to those of us who do our work in Quark XPress.
> Of course, I wouldn't take an HTML document from a
> Windows user without first using the Demoronizer,
> but that's what I get for having friends that use
> Windows.
I suggest that people send me documents in PDF.
> Now, if I went by market figures, I could conclude
> that the Backstreet Boys are a better band than
> Iron Maiden, and the Britney Spears is a better
> singer than Sarah Brightman.
I'm not familiar with any of these persons or organizations, so I cannot
comment.
> Now, why should people put up with the security
> holes and the general incompetence surr
What?
Anyway, most desktop users care nothing about security.
> I insist on differing on this point. I think that
> the harder a system is to program for, the harder
> it is to write quality software.
That's not what I said. I said that the more friendly a system is for a user,
the more difficult it is to write software for it, and that is true.
Writing quality software requires only a competent engineer. Of course,
competent engineers are rare.
> If it's difficult to write quality software, then
> the user has to put up with mediocre software.
A poor workman blames his tools.
I can write software of top quality on _any_ platform.
> ... they do suffer when Windows programmers try to
> cut corners when the API becomes too nightmarish
> to handle.
Or when Windows programmers reach the limits of their competence, which often
doesn't take very long.
> Personally, I think you fall back on the religion
> thing because you cannot convince us as to the
> correctness of your position ...
Yes. Religion is what prevents people from seeing the objective data. For
example, I've explained again and again why Windows is preferable on the
destkop, and yet the true believers continue to ask me for explanations--they do
not even see them when I provide them.
But I do not seek to convince anyone in particular. True believers cannot be
convinced; but people without partisan feelings may look at what I say, and be
better informed, and make better choices.
> ... yet cannot concede that since we are not
> "average users" we have no reason to tolerate
> an OS geared to "average users".
It's not tolerance, it's preference. Average users have no preferences; they
use whatever gets the job done. Geeks like us have preferences (usually), as we
tend to use computers for their own sake, rather than as tools to get jobs done.
I'm a bit different in that I use computers to get work done, not just as
playthings. As a result, I've had to face the realities of what is really best
for a given purpose, as opposed to what I think might be cool to run.
> Yes, any schmuck can write programs for Windows.
That's one reason why there are so many Windows applications out there.
> However, anybody *willing to make an effort* can
> write programs for FBSD.
No special effort is required to write programs for FreeBSD. It's at least as
easy as Windows, and in fact I consider it at least an order of magnitude
easier. However, most people write software for the purpose of earning money,
and there is more money in Windows applications, usually, because of the larger
user base.
Additionally, many of the less competent programmers don't even know what UNIX
is. They just write for whatever machine they have in front of them.
> With Windows, on the other hand, the dominant
> programming tools come from MS: the Visual
> Studio tools, and they cost an arm and a leg.
For someone writing code for a living, these tools are just a cost of doing
business. Only people coding for fun worry about the cost of the tools.
> Funny, I thought that Microsoft was a good example
> of what happens when marketing considerations are
> given priority over writing solid code.
Nobody writing for the consumer market writes solid code, as that is not what
consumers want. Still, overall, nobody writes more solid code for that market
than Microsoft.
Simon Morton
> Simon writes:
>
>
>>As someone who spent 4+ years developing
>>highly graphical, highly interactive, and highly
>>hardware-dependent single user applications
>>for Unix-based (SGI) workstations, I can
>>assure you that the above statements
>>have very little basis in reality.
>>
>
> As someone who has worked with mainframes and timesharing systems for years, I
> can assure you that it is right.
>
> Perhaps you can explain the utility of a multiuser environment for a single-user
> desktop graphics workstation.
More to the point: you have stated yourself that UNIX-like systems are
suited for server applications (no interactive users) and time-sharing
applications (multiple interactive users). You have failed to provide
a single concrete justification for your contention that a system
supporting exactly one interactive user requires a radically different
architecture from one that supports both 0 (less than one) and n (more
than one.)
>
>>There are many reasons that Windows is the
>>dominant force on the desktop today but they
>>have everything to do with marketing and
>>economics and very little to do with operating
>>system design.
>>
>
> That is a common misconception, held dear and defended by those with axes to
> grind or religions to defend. Microsoft wanted the desktop GUI market and went
> after it. Most UNIX vendors did not.
Oh, right, and that had nothing to with marketing or economics.
Simon
--
http://www.SimonMorton.com
smorton at acm dot org
\rm -rf /bin/laden
Mark Yeck
> The obvious question, then, is: How did Microsoft ever come to
> dominate any market, if its dominance depends on already being
> dominant?
From what I saw during the years of Microsoft's rise, the came to dominate
the market through a combination of their own wise business decisions and
unwise decisions of their competitors, mainly Apple and IBM who made a
plethora of poor decisions, and the UNIX vendors who mostly chose to target
a completely different market than Microsoft. Microsoft dominated the PC
desktop and UNIX vendors dominated high end RISC workstation desktops. As PC
hardware became more powerful and their price remained about the same, they
began to compete very well with lower end RISC workstations, moving
Microsoft into markets that were solidly dominated by UNIX. Technical
superiority or desktop usability had almost no role in their rise to
dominance.
[arguement 1 snipped]
> At least 99.9% of desktop users are just like your mother.
>
> That's one argument in favor of Windows.
[arguement 2 snipped]
> That's two.
[arguement 3 snipped]
> That's three.
>
> For someone who seems to doubt the superiority of Windows on the
> desktop, you certainly are arguing persuasively in its favor.
Indeed. Three somewhat powerful arguements. None of them related to any sort
of technical superiority. I'm no FreeBSD zealot, but in almost all technical
respects including usability on the desktop, I find it superior to Windows.
There are plenty of reasons to use Microsoft products. My point is that
these reasons are all directly related to market dominance and not superior
design.
In fact, here's another one that I forgot: because of the dominance of
Windows, all hardware vendors make sure to have Windows drivers for their
products when they are released. Most wont provide a UNIX driver until
later, if at all. This has nothing to do with who has the superior design,
and everything to do with market dominance.
-mark
Anthony Atkielski
> More to the point: you have stated yourself that
> UNIX-like systems are suited for server applications
> (no interactive users) and time-sharing applications
> (multiple interactive users).
Yes, although server applications are still interactive from the OS standpoint.
I believe the superiority of UNIX in these domains is widely acknowledged.
> You have failed to provide a single concrete
> justification for your contention that a system
> supporting exactly one interactive user requires
> a radically different architecture from one that
> supports both 0 (less than one) and n (more
> than one.)
Interesting that you accept the first statement without comment, but you want
"justification" for the second. Odd that you have two different standards of
proof--based perhaps on what you prefer to believe?
> Oh, right, and that had nothing to with marketing
> or economics.
That would be an exaggeration, but Windows would not have succeeded on marketing
alone. The system had to do what people wanted, and so Microsoft engineered it
to do exactly that. These decisions haunt them now in their attempt to conquer
the server market, but they also ensure continued dominance on the desktop.
Simon Morton
>>More to the point: you have stated yourself that
>>UNIX-like systems are suited for server applications
>>(no interactive users) and time-sharing applications
>>(multiple interactive users).
>>
> Yes, although server applications are still interactive from the OS standpoint.
> I believe the superiority of UNIX in these domains is widely acknowledged.
>
>>You have failed to provide a single concrete
>>justification for your contention that a system
>>supporting exactly one interactive user requires
>>a radically different architecture from one that
>>supports both 0 (less than one) and n (more
>>than one.)
>>
> Interesting that you accept the first statement without comment, but you want
> "justification" for the second. Odd that you have two different standards of
> proof--based perhaps on what you prefer to believe?
Well I think we are consuming enough bandwidth as it is without
demanding justification for things we both agree on. I have
been trying (without success I might add) to get you to explain
the inconsistency in your position. If UNIX is good for 0 users
(server) and 2 users (time-sharing), why is it no good for 1 user?
What is so special about the number 1?
That is my last word on the subject. I'm sure most people on the
list are beyond fed up with this thread by now. I know I am.
Simon
--
http://www.SimonMorton.com
smorton at acm dot org
\rm -rf /bin/laden
Mark Yeck
> Mark writes:
> Yes, but Windows still has the technical advantage of being
> purpose-built for the desktop, whereas UNIX does not. Thus, someone
> choosing a desktop for the first time today would be well advised to
> choose Windows even on a purely technical basis alone.
Yes, you've mentioned that repeatedly. Being purpose-built isnt in and of
itself a technical advantage and it could be argued that it's offset by the
fact that UNIX was on the desktop years before Windows existed. As far as I
can recall, the only strictly technical arguement you've offered was the
tighter integration with the hardware (mostly for games).
> Neither is your explanation above of UNIX domination of high-end
> workstations.
True. I didnt think the technical reasons were relevant. At the risk of
getting even further off topic:
-this isnt strictly a technical advantage, but at the time that UNIX was
gaining it's dominance of workstations, Microsoft offered only DOS and
eventually Win3.0 and 3.1.
-RISC workstations used a wide variety of hardware and UNIX offered a
relatively consistant interface to all of them.
-UNIX's networking capabilities made it particularly well suited to the
applications that the workstations were used for. Capabilities including:
-Networked Filesystems
-Network transparent display(Xwindows)
I'm sure there were other things that I cant remember right now. Many
capabilities that UNIX had then are now offered by Microsoft to some degree,
including real multitasking and networked filesystems.
-mark
Anthony Atkielski
> Well I think we are consuming enough bandwidth
> as it is without demanding justification for
> things we both agree on.
Or perhaps you realize that the things we agree on cannot be "justified" any
more than the things on which we disagree, but admitting that would destroy your
attempt to discredit my assertions by demanding justification for them.
> If UNIX is good for 0 users (server) and 2 users
> (time-sharing), why is it no good for 1 user?
First of all, server use and timesharing use are both multiuser enviroments.
And multiuser design differs significantly from single-user design.
> What is so special about the number 1?
Remember this question the next time you feel inclined to, say, complain about
Microsoft being a "monopoly."
> That is my last word on the subject. I'm sure
> most people on the list are beyond fed up with
> this thread by now. I know I am.
If you are fed up, all you have to do is stop replying.
Christopher Farley
> > My mother, for example, may be better off using
> > Windows on her desktop, not for any technical
> > reason, because if she has a problem she can ask
> > almost anyone who uses computers about it.
>
> That's one argument in favor of Windows.
The flip side of this is that if you have a *real* problem with Windows,
it is often impossible to cut through the noise when doing a Google
search for help. There's a tremendous amount of bad advice out there.
And Microsoft's Knowledge Base is almost always a waste of time.
Solving problems on a FreeBSD box is comparatively easy. I do a Google
search on this list and I almost never have to ask a question here.
Minimal noise.
Personally, I would never argue that FreeBSD should be installed on
everyone's desktop. But I'm pretty sure it belongs on mine.
I began buying personal computers back when the owner's manuals
contained instructions for programming your computer. To me, and
to many others, that's what you do with a computer: you program
it.
Microsoft has *completely* stripped that aspect of computing from
Windows. As such, the default install of Windows (any flavor) is a
terrible desktop environment for someone who still wants to do some
programming.
Microsoft has raised a whole generation of people who believe that
in order to program a computer, you've got to purchase a copy of
Microsoft Visual Studio for $950. Sure you could use gcc, but
Windows doesn't even provide a text editor with line numbers. I got
one off of TuCows, but it *expired* after 30 days and I didn't
really think it was worth $30. By the time I realized I could have
been running Emacs, I had already wiped WinNT from my desktop for
good.
FreeBSD, because of its academic/UNIX heritage, makes an absolutely
wonderful desktop for programmers. The default install contains one of
the greatest programming editors of all time (vi), compilers for C and
C++, a Perl interpreter, and one of the greatest version control systems
ever made (CVS). And yes, I want all this on my desktop machine, and
wouldn't feel right without it.
Plus, FreeBSD has a shell you can use productively, which is
important for those of us who believe that one can be far more
productive in a shell than in a GUI. (Try globbing filenames in a
GUI, buster!) The "Command Prompt/MS-DOS Prompt" is a very sorry
excuse for a shell, and it obviously hasn't been taken seriously
since MS-DOS 6. I think I could be more productive talking
my mother through a /bin/sh session than using the Command Prompt
directly. The situation is so dire I've installed Cygwin on *every*
Windows computer I need to use, if for no other reason than filename
completion.
The mere existence and popularity of Cygwin demonstrates that many
people prefer a Unix architecture to a Windows one. For many, this
preference is a general preference, whether you are in a server
environment or a desktop environment.
When you also consider that FreeBSD has an excellent web browser,
many superior email/news clients, nice CD ripping/burning software,
PDF viewers, xv and the GIMP, what more do you really need a computer
for?
Strike that. What else do *I* need a computer for?
--
Christopher Farley
www.northernbrewer.com
Anthony Atkielski
> The flip side of this is that if you have a
> *real* problem with Windows, it is often impossible
> to cut through the noise when doing a Google
> search for help.
I agree, although FreeBSD is not much better in this regard. I console myself
with the fact that FreeBSD is a much simpler OS, and I have the source, so in
theory it should fail less often, and if worse comes to worst, I could
theoretically find problems myself (that's quite a stretch of theory, however).
> And Microsoft's Knowledge Base is almost always
> a waste of time.
True, but many vendors have nothing at all.
> To me, and to many others, that's what you do
> with a computer: you program it.
A good definition of a computer geek. Geeks are not the majority.
> Microsoft has *completely* stripped that aspect
> of computing from Windows.
That's what users want.
> As such, the default install of Windows (any
> flavor) is a terrible desktop environment for
> someone who still wants to do some programming.
The default install is not intended for developers, and developers know how to
fix things themselves.
> Microsoft has raised a whole generation of people
> who believe that in order to program a computer,
> you've got to purchase a copy of Microsoft Visual
> Studio for $950.
Most of the options for Windows cost money.
> FreeBSD, because of its academic/UNIX heritage,
> makes an absolutely wonderful desktop for programmers.
No doubt about that. But most people don't use computers for the sake of using
computers, so this doesn't help the OS in larger terms.
Perhaps Microsoft has raised a generation of people to think that Visual Studio
is a necessity, but universities have raised a generation of CS majors to
believe that the only OS in the world is UNIX.
> And yes, I want all this on my desktop machine, and
> wouldn't feel right without it.
So what do you write, with all this programming activity?
> The mere existence and popularity of Cygwin
> demonstrates that many people prefer a Unix architecture
> to a Windows one.
The market numbers seem to indicate that the overwhelming majority of computer
users prefer a GUI. The situation may be different for the geeks, however.
> When you also consider that FreeBSD has an excellent
> web browser ...
Which browser is that? Lynx is very nice, but unfortunately it cannot handle
graphics. Is there a graphic browser that does _not_ require X?
Ken McGlothlen
entirely ignored a lot of folks with good points. He's not interested in
discussion, he wants an argument, and while I know that would be a great
lead-in to a Python reference, this isn't the best place for it.
Can we let it drop? He's a troll. I've noted that, and I plan on ignoring him
from here on out. Can we move on now?
Micke Josefsson
On 29-Nov-2001 Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Matthew writes:
>
[snip]
>
> Windows is not intended to be a secure system. The security requirements of
> desktop systems are very modest, since they should normally be behind
> firewalls.
>
I beg to differ here. Any system that is going to be used today must have a high
security level. Specially so, since a dominating system, such as windows, will
have to deal, not only with games, but with more or less confidential data. Not
all companies enjoy seeing their internal documents distributed freely via email.
So, while perhaps not intended to be a secure system - it should be!
Firewalls do a bit of the job but they cannot do everything needed to protect an
internal net. The "local" security of the individual client machines also matter.
There is no way to get around that. Any security flaw inside any computer is
going to be exploited sooner or later. FreeBSD or Windows!
>> Windows insists on abstracting everything from
>> the user, so that the user is mostly insulated
>> from the consequences of her actions.
>
> That's exactly what most Windows users prefer.
Until their box crashes mysteriously. Granted, many users don't mind
reinstalling the lot, but I cannot get past a feeling that there must be
something seriously wrong with that approach.
>
>> If I need to get under the hood for any reason,
>> even to indulge my curiosity, then I have to
>> get past all the bondage and discipline built
>> into Windows.
>
> Most users never want to get under the hood.
True. That is why FreeBSD uses root versus any other user for administrative
tasks. "Normal users" should not need to have any knowledgde of what is going
on inside the computer - below KDE or whatever - they should only have to deal
with the programs they need, to get their work done. Ti