Freebsd vs. linux

[Ramiro Aceves]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ramiro Aceves writes:
> 
> 
>>Yes, but some OSes are famous for their "blue screens"
> 
> 
> None that I'm aware of.  Blue screens are more of a popular myth
> invented by people who hate Microsoft than a reality.  I saw occasional
> BSODs long ago when there were driver problems or hardware problems on
> servers, but I haven't seen a blue screen in years now.


There are not a myth, they are a fact. I have seen bluescreens
frecuently in win95 and winMillenium. Now I am out of the winbugs world
since 2 years and I am very happy.

> 
> 
>>One day FreeBSD 5.3 completely crashed when doing something in X-window
>>System on an old pentium 75MHz.
> 
> 
> I've had FreeBSD hang while trying to use X servers, but I never could
> establish whether the OS itself had frozen or whether it was just the
> interface.  It happened often enough that it was one of the reasons why
> I abandoned any attempt to use a GUI.

Sure X is the culprit.

> 
> 
>>Sometimes I get my Debian box crashed in my 1200 MHz AMD when I watch TV
>>card in X-window and move windows (I do not know if it is a matter of 
>>bttv driver or X-window System bug, but it is anoying).
> 
> 
> Notice that these both happen with GUIs.  One reason is that GUIs put
> hooks into the operating system that destabilize it.  It's a very high
> price to pay just to see pretty pictures on the screen, in my view.
> 

I need the GUIs for my daily work. Electronic circuit design software
requires GUI, imaging editing requieres GUI, and because of that many
people needs a GUI, but that is not a reason to use Winbugs.


> 
>>On the other had, when I used Windows I had daily crashes :-)
> 
> 
> Every instance of daily crashes I've seen in NT-based versions of
> Windows has been the result of bad drivers, bad hardware, or user
> errors.


I have seen also winXP computers here at University that do very weird
things everyday.


> 
> 
>>Cant find this on my english dictionary( I do not know what it means)
> 
> 
> Hype is exaggerated promotion without fact-based, objective
> justification.

Thank you very much. I understand now.

> 
> 
>>I choosed Linux cause I think it was better than the windozes.
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe how this could be true for desktop use.  Each time
> I ask for specifics, I'm given a list of things that aren't true, such
> as the recurring claim of "daily crashes," when in fact it's extremely
> rare for NT-based versions of Windows to ever crash at all.

Why not choosing Linux or FreeBSD for the desktop? I can choose a
windowmanager among decens, I have many apps that perform the same or
better than the winbugs counterparts, and the best of all, they are
*free* and do not depend on any comercial enterprise. I do not need too
much bells and whistles to fell confortable at the desktop. A fluxbox
window manager is perfect for me. The important thing are the apps, not
the desktop.

> 
> 
>>If an OS does not have the "third party apps", it is not useful for
>>most of us.
> 
> 
> That alone is one reason why Windows will probably remain king for the
> forseeable future.
> 

It is a matter of time, the problem is that we will not be alive to see
it. :-(


Ramiro.