SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

[Anthony Atkielski]

Matthias Buelow writes:

> This is not so much about FreeBSD, as the Unix+X11 combination in
> general.  It does not provide the fully integrated system the typical 
> end-user, coming from a Windows or Mac perspective, expects.  That it 
> nevertheless works well enough for persons with a technical or 
> academical background, and those who invest some time, is not 
> questioned.  What the Unix+X11 combination in its current blend doesn't
> provide is the one-size-fits-all solution that Windows and the Mac try
> to achieve.  That's both a good and a bad thing, imho.

Yes.  Perhaps I've not been clear, but the problems with FreeBSD as a
desktop are shared by virtually all versions of UNIX, since they all
create their GUIs in the same way.  Mac OS X is a notable exception.

> There are, of course, situations where Unix is being used as a "desktop"
> successfully.  Think about Unix workstations at universities and larger
> companies, which have been prevalent for the last 15 years.

UNIX + GUI seem to work much better when they are used as what they are:
UNIX systems with GUIs.  When someone tries to make them look and behave
like Windows, problems begin.  Highly stable GUIs have existed on UNIX
workstations for years, but they barely resemble Windows.

> Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its
> Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation.

Why not just burn taxpayer euro in a bonfire?  It would have the same
end result and it would be faster.

> What these applications have in common is, that the desktop user is
> normally different from the person maintaining the installation. This
> is different from a SOHO setup, where both are normally identical.

True, but I think other key differences are the discipline used in creating
the GUI and the end result being targetet.  Native UNIX GUIs are
carefully written and do attempt to imitate any other OS.  More recent
desktop GUIs are crazy hodgepodges hastily written that amount to
wannabe versions of Windows.

There are a lot of people who desperately want to see UNIX as a
replacement for Windows, and their desperation blinds them to the
futility of their efforts and to the endless glaring defects of their
attempts to achieve this.  But the inadequacy of what they produce is
very obvious to anyone without an emotional investment in hating
Microsoft, and so these Windows clones will never gain much currency as
the situation stands now.

-- 
Anthony