SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of, why not...

Anthony Atkielski atkielski.anthony at
Fri Feb 11 18:24:31 PST 2005

Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes:

> Anthony had the same misguided opinion in the Apache Users mailing
> list.

The market agrees with me.  Look at market penetration for FreeBSD among
servers, and among desktops, and you'll see.

> But you will find lots of people with FreeBSD on the Server and OS X on
> the desktop!

OS X is a better choice for the desktop.  UNIX itself is not an ideal
choice, but Apple has modified the OS so much for desktop use that the
UNIX underpinnings are effectively hidden for the most part.

I predict that OS X will gradually mutate into something that isn't UNIX
at all.  That's what Apple really wants over the long term.  They only
built their system on top of UNIX because they couldn't afford to write
a completely new OS of comparable quality from scratch (today, a new
desktop OS is likely to be a multibillion-dollar investment).

> Not to say that you cannot run a FreeBSD desktop.

Of course you can, just as you can run an OS/2 or BeOS desktop.  But

> And any efforts to make that easier are applauded.

Provided that efforts to make FreeBSD a better server do not suffer in
consequence.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul makes no sense.  Microsoft did
that, and now they have an OS that really isn't ideal for anything.


More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list