Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Saturday 12 February 2005 04:19 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Michael C. Shultz writes:
> > That was obvious by your confusion with Firefox an opera for
> > example.
>
> What confusion?
>
> Firefox exists only for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

I politely cautioned you over the wisdom of remaining silent versus the 
embarassment of speaking out when you are clueless.  Now that we both 
have resolved whose the fool may I direct your attention to:

/usr/ports/www/firefox


> All of these 
> require a GUI to work.  I don't run a GUI on my FreeBSD machine.  The
> only browser I have installed on FreeBSD is lynx.

And you STILL think you are qualified to say it is a poor desktop?
>
> Opera has a wider selection of platforms (including FreeBSD), but
> it's still a GUI browser.
>
> > You admit you don't know what is in ports yet feel it is OK to
> > say FreeBSD is a poor desktop?
>
> I can say that based on the OS alone.

Can't you find a windows maillist somewhere? Sorry, maybe you did and 
even they give you the boot?
>
> > Ever heard the saying "better to remain silent and thought a
> > fool....."?
>
> Yes.

Un believable.

>
> > How do you know?  You just admitted you don't use what is in
> > ports...
>
> Because I've checked with the vendors for these products.  They ought
> to know.

Yes, I can see how you may feel comfortable trusting salesmen.
>
> > Why would you say FreeBSD is a poor desktop when your only desktop
> > experience is with windows?
>
> I do have desktop experience with FreeBSD.  I tried it briefly and
> abandoned it.  It was so lame compared to Windows that it didn't take
> but a day or two to realize that it was a waste of my time.  I don't
> have any emotional investment in operating systems, so I just went
> back to Windows.

Yes. Please go back to their list as well.  They miss you probably.
>
> > I don't blame you, when something goes wrong on a Windows system
> > the solution is usually to reinstall everything.
>
> No more so than with any other OS.  The main reason I disallow
> automatic updates is that I want to know exactly what is being
> installed on the machine at all times.

I'm sure you are without a clue on that issue also.
>
> > FreeBSD is a bit more robust than that.
>
> No, it's not.  It's neither better nor worse.  But in a production
> environment, you never do any updates automatically, anyway.

Oh really?
>
> > On this point I guess you'll have to take my word
> > seeing as you have no experience with FreeBSD as a desktop....
>
> Just as you've taken my word about the number of applications I run
> simultaneously on Windows?

Un like you and FreeBSD, I have years of experience with windows, I
am quite comfortable with calling your claims bullshit.
>
> > Why do you feel you are qualified to say FreeBSD is a poor desktop
> > again?
>
> Because I've used it for that purpose, along with a number of other
> operating systems.  Windows wins by a handsome margin.  The closest
> competitor is the Mac.  Nothing else is even in the running.
>
> > bullshit

Now you are reorganizing this message?? Mayl I remind you, my deceitful
little friend where the billshit really fell:

> I routinely have two dozen applications running under Windows, and
> depending on memory available and required, it can easily run several
> times that, or more.

Bullshit.


> On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run
> everything.

Bullshit

> I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications
> running.

bullshit

> I can go months without rebooting.  My NT machine has gone for nearly
> a year without a reboot.  I don't remember ever seeing a system crash
> on my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT
> system (all because of bad drivers).

bullshit. You are a flat out liar friend.
>
> I don't currently run database servers.  But database servers have a
> lot of issues relating to performance, not just file-system
> fragmentation.

They do on NT anyways.

-Mike