narvi at haldjas.folklore.ee
Tue Mar 9 06:50:24 PST 2004
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Willie Viljoen wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 March 2004 15:13, someone, possibly Narvi, wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 dashevil at sympatico.ca wrote:
> > > I am against Joe Sixpack using FreeBSD. The reason I would argue for a
> > 8-(
> > so you would freebsd always be a fringe os?
> It's not a fringe OS anyway. Why does an OS have to be used by Joe Schmo and
> Harry Desktop in order to be a mainstream OS?
> Computer don't just come in desktops you know, some of us actually like using
> them for servers. As far as its use in the server market goes, FreeBSD, IMHO,
> has Windows and Linux well and truly outgunned.
Not in numbers by any means.
> Together with NetBSD and OpenBSD, the *BSD family infact, is in many cases
> considered and used as a viable alternative to Solaris.
And like with Solaris, if anything, the marketshare is decreasing.
> That's what KDE and GNOME are for, to add desktops to UNIX operating systems,
> the operative word being "add". UNIXes were never meant to be desktops.
> Adding a desktop to a UNIX is a great idea as it opens up UNIX to a new
> market, but that's still no case for turning UNIX itself into a desktop
> If that happens, FreeBSD would probably lose out all the market share it has
> built up in the server market, since nobody wants to install a 300MB GUI in a
> thin server.
Huh? you are completely off your rocker - being able to do a desktop
install - and having the OS behave rationaly in a desktop environment does
not in any way maen that it needs to always install X. It means no more or
less that when on a desktop machine, the OS should behave apprropriately,
including automaticly detectinga nd loading sound, finding mouse, having a
resonable set of desktop apps installed, using a printing system and so
> Please, before you write off an OS, consider all possible uses for it. If you
> must, atleast rephrase and call it a "fringe desktop."
> If being useful for one specific thing is all we can classify an OS's worth
> by, then let's turn it around and look at the server market, then by your
> argument, Windows becomes a fringe OS :-)
Windows is not a fringe server OS - do you know what percenatge of
worldwide servers - whetever web or not are running windows? This is not
1995 any more.
> Willie Viljoen
> Freelance IT Consultant
> 214 Paul Kruger Avenue
> South Africa
> +27 (51) 522 15 60
> +27 (82) 404 03 27
> will at unfoldings.net
More information about the freebsd-advocacy