Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Michael C. Shultz
reso3w83 at verizon.net
Sat Feb 12 13:08:15 GMT 2005
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:
> 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....."?
> > 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.
> > 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.
> On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run
> I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications
> 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
They do on NT anyways.
More information about the freebsd-questions