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

Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC chad at
Fri Feb 11 19:28:13 PST 2005

On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Johnson David wrote:

> From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:chad at]
> >
> > Not to say that you cannot run a FreeBSD desktop.  And any efforts 
> to 
> > make that easier are applauded.  I used to run Linux on the 
> desktop[1]
> > and FreeBSD on the server.  Setting up Linux as a desktop at the time
> > (1990-2000 timeframe) was so much easier.  I don't know about now, 
> but
> > with Linux (SuSE is what I used back then) it was as easy as setting 
> up
> > Windows.
> The suitability of a system for the desktop has only a little to do 
> with installation and setup. If you're a newbie sitting at home 
> without an administrator, then by all means stick with Mac OSX.

No, I am an admin as well as a software developer and I use OS X 
because it works, and works well.  I am not bad mouthing using X (as in 
X11) for desktops.  It has its place.  I personally have no use for an 
X11 based desktop and my time is better spent doing other things.  In 
its current state, X11 based desktops require a certain amount of 
caretaking and time spent to make it work, and even then, as a general 
desktop, it does not work as well as OS X for the average user.  For 
certain people, though, it may be the better choice.

>  But the desktop market is far bigger than the newbie sitting at home. 
> You also have to consider the business desktop where you have 
> sysadmins to do the installation and setup. If you can train an admin 
> to configure (which ain't that hard), then there's no reason you 
> can't have FreeBSD and KDE/GNOME/WhateverDE on the business desktop. 
> Other than mindshare, that is.

I am all for people working on FreeBSD as a desktop.  The more 
non-Windows desktops out there the better off we all are.


More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list