BSD Question's.

[Danial Thom]

--- Don Hinton <don.hinton at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:

> Hi Danial:
> 
> On Saturday 24 December 2005 10:44, Danial Thom
> wrote:
> > --- Miguel Saturnino <mags at oniduo.pt> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 07:34 -0800, Danial
> Thom
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > --- "Michael C. Shultz"
> > >
> > > <ringworm01 at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 24 December 2005 06:54,
> Daniel
> > >
> > > A.
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Andy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am sorry for the trouble you have
> had
> > >
> > > with
> > >
> > > > > Windows XP.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest that you use Linux, as
> FreeBSD
> > > > >
> > > > > really is not targeted at
> > > > >
> > > > > > people who want to use graphical user
> > > > >
> > > > > interfaces.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a few key areas FreeBSD is a better
> > >
> > > desktop
> > >
> > > > > OS than Linux:  Easier to keep
> > > > > the kernel/world and installed ports up
> to
> > >
> > > date
> > >
> > > > > for example without having
> > > > > to resort to the microsoft/Linux fixall
> > >
> > > method
> > >
> > > > > of removing and reinstalling
> > > > > everything every now and again.  Your
> > >
> > > opinion
> > >
> > > > > is correct IMO that FreeBSD
> > > > > managers put most emphasis on FreeBSD
> as a
> > > > > server and little as a desktop.
> > > > > My guess is because donations(cash) and
> > > > > hardware support for developers
> > > > > come from people who want servers while
> > >
> > > people
> > >
> > > > > who want a desktop OS tend to
> > > > > donate squat....
> > > > >
> > > > > > The linux developers really have been
> > >
> > > trying
> > >
> > > > > to make a valuable
> > > > >
> > > > > > replacement for Windows, as they
> somehow
> > >
> > > have
> > >
> > > > > experienced the same
> > > > >
> > > > > > issues with Windows (And Microsoft
> > >
> > > products
> > >
> > > > > in general) that you have.
> > > > >
> > > > > > One Linux distribution in particular
> that
> > >
> > > I
> > >
> > > > > think you might like, is
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ubuntu. You can download it at
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ubuntulinux.org/, or order a
> > > > >
> > > > > > CD (Free shipping, free CD, you pay
> > >
> > > nothing).
> > >
> > > > > Advertising Linux in a FreeBSD mailing
> > >
> > > list?
> > >
> > > > > Sounds like you may have more of
> > > > > axe to grind against the FreeBSD
> management
> > > > > folk than a desire to offer sound
> > > > > advice....
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mike
> > > >
> > > > Why not just tell the truth, which is
> that
> > > > Windows XP is the best that you can do
> for
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > desktop
> > >
> > > Well, that's your opinion. For me, FreeBSD
> is a
> > > much better desktop than
> > > Windows -- it runs solid and fast and
> enables
> > > me to be more productive
> > > in my work. Of course, what is good for me
> > > might not be so good for
> > > someone else, I guess it depends on your
> needs.
> >
> > "more productive" in what way?
> >
> > Without considering all of the programs I use
> > that only run in windows (such as my
> investment
> > analysis tools, camera interface and photo
> > editing programs), outline the "productivity"
> > advantages of FreeBSD in terms of:
> >
> > 1) Time from unwrapping the computer to
> having a
> > functional and usable system.
> 
> For me, FreeBSD is about twice as fast/easy to
> install/configure, and 
> infinitely cheaper. 
> 

Considering that WinXP usually comes on the
computer, I don't see how  "installing and
configuring FreeBSD" can be easier than having to
do nothing at all?

> > 2) General productivity advantages in a
> typical
> > day. ie: what can you do with FreeBSD that
> you
> > can't do in WinXP, and what is faster or more
> > productive in FreeBSD
> 
> Depends on what you use it for.  I'm a C++
> developer, and have a need to 
> examine/search/manipulate text files quite
> often, Windows, out of the box, is 
> inappropriate for this type of work.  I'd have
> to install all sorts of 
> applications, e.g., cygwin, et al, to get the
> applications/capabilities that 
> come "out of the box" on a typical *nix system,
> FreeBSD, Linux, etc...
> 

I'm a developer also, but I don't use the FreeBSD
desktop for this, I log into my freeBSD server
with my desktop browser or telnet/ssh.  I don't
see how such things are relevent to using one
desktop over the other.

> If, on the other hand, you are wedded to an
> application that only runs on 
> windows, then the question is moot. 
> Unfortunately, there is one windows 
> program I'm forced to use, so I have a cheap
> laptop that sits on my desk for 
> that purpose.  Though I never use it directly,
> except to reboot it when it 
> hangs, say once a week, I access it via
> rdesktop in a window from one of my 
> FreeBSD systems, typically my new HP laptop.

Being "weded to an application" and needing to do
practical things are separate matters to me. With
Windows i have choices of which apps I like
better. With Freebsd, I usually have 1 choice or
maybe no choices.

> 
> But no one can convince you of which OS you
> should use.  If you want to try 
> one, try it.  If not, don't.  I couldn't care
> less which OS other people use, 
> just as I couldn't care less which car you
> drive.

I don't expect you to care, but saying you
"prefer FreeBSD" and saying "FreeBSD is better"
are different animals. I just wanted to know what
you could do with FreeBSD that you can't do with
Windows. I already know what I can do with
Windows that I can't do with FreeBSD.

DT




	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/