Brilliant and very useful for FreeBSD, IMHO
Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg
listsub at 401.cx
Wed Apr 9 03:40:46 PDT 2003
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 07:23:31 -0500 Eric Anderson
> <anderson at centtech.com> wrote:
>> Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: [..snip..]
>>> I love FreeBSD, but not even I would get the idea to run it as
>>> a desktop. It's not good at it, and if someone asks for my
>>> opinion, I hope it never will be. Even Microsoft have realised
>>> that it takes a different os to run a server then a desktop.
>>> They have a plethora of different editions, like XP Home
>>> Edition and W2K Advanced Server. As long as FreeBSD excels on
>>> servers, chances are it will not make a perfect desktop. I say
>>> we have enough desktop os's, lets keep FreeBSD kicking ass on
>>> the servers.
>> Just for informations sake, I taught my wife to use FreeBSD as
>> her desktop OS in about 15 minutes. She got used to fluxbox and
>> used it like she has known it for years. Also, recently I showed
>> a unix "newbie" FreeBSD, and let him play with is and several
>> Linux os's, and he finally decided on FreeBSD because (in his
>> words) "it's just so simple and easy to get things done".
>> Just my $0.02.
> I Agree. FreeBSD works great for desktops/workstations. I have it
> installed on all my boxes using fluxbox.
> I managed to teach my sister to use freebsd in 30 minutes. When I
> built a comp for her a few months ago with FreeBSD 4.7 on it.
I think this entire thread boils down to how you define 'desktop'.
To me, a desktop is a computer used for surf, email, chatt, games and
similar non-serious tasks.
A computer used for programming, CAD, DTP, analyzis, monitoring or
similar is what I call a workstation, not a desktop.
A desktop user is often clueless about the inner workings of his os,
and so it should be. As long as he can get to the web, install a new
game or get his icons to display in 4 billion colors, he is satisfied.
Those are the users that need windows, not freebsd.
A workstation user has, or atleast should have, a basic understanding
of computers. He is usually able to install several os's using a
bootloader, he partitions his drives, configures and tweaks his system
and overall keep track of his software.
FreeBSD can make an excellent workstation.
I still claim that freebsd is not, and should not try to be, a good
desktop os. All replies Ive seen so far stating things like "but Ive
used freebsd as a desktop for years and I love it" are probably from
workstation users. Those that show of friends or family as examples
has always helped their loved ones to set things up or just given them
a machine where everything is preconfigured. The fact that a clueless
user can use a os that someone has spent hours setting up does not
mean the os is a good desktop. A good desktop os to me is a os where
the user himself can set things up the way he wants it, without help
from experienced users.
More information about the freebsd-advocacy