SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
chad at shire.net
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 shire.net]
> > Not to say that you cannot run a FreeBSD desktop. And any efforts
> > make that easier are applauded. I used to run Linux on the
> > 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,
> > with Linux (SuSE is what I used back then) it was as easy as setting
> > 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 X.org (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