SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
hoe-waa at hawaii.rr.com
Sat Feb 12 03:58:13 GMT 2005
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 04:34 +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Robert Marella wrote:
> >>MacOS X is the "Desktop BSD". It is available today, and it works
> >>better than anything else at being a "desktop".
> > Does it work on my intel hardware?
> And your point is..?
What percentage of the desktops are intel/AMD based? If MacOS X is _THE_
Desktop BSD, can it be ported/converted to the majority of the installed
desktops? If not, can someone/some_company/some_group do to intel/AMD
desktops what Apple did to MacOS X?
I know the driving force of FreeBSD is toward servers. Apple was able to
make it a desktop OS. I like it as a desktop OS on my intel hardware but
I have a lot of time to spend. Even with the time, I still can't get
everything to work as I would like.
If it was a better desktop OS more people would notice it and would
recognize the name FreeBSD.
When I tell most people that I do not use MS Windows, I get a blank look
and then they ask what I do use. I usually say I use a form of UNIX
called FreeBSD. The first thing out of their mouth is, "Oh, Linux!".
I then go on to tell them about FreeBSD as their eyes glaze over.
That's my point!
More information about the freebsd-questions