Freebsd vs. linux

[Anthony Atkielski]

Ramiro Aceves writes:

> There are not a myth, they are a fact. I have seen bluescreens
> frecuently in win95 and winMillenium.

Neither of these is based on NT, and both are dead products.

> Now I am out of the winbugs world since 2 years and I am very happy.

Perhaps longer than that, if you think Windows 95 is still current.

> Sure X is the culprit.

I agree.  FreeBSD is stable without the GUI.  If the GUI were purely a
userland program, there'd be no problem--but GUIs are never pure
userland programs.

> I need the GUIs for my daily work. Electronic circuit design software
> requires GUI, imaging editing requieres GUI, and because of that many
> people needs a GUI, but that is not a reason to use Winbugs.

You have to use whatever platform supports your chosen application.

> I have seen also winXP computers here at University that do very weird
> things everyday.

Users at universities do very weird things to their computers.  In
particular, university computers tend to be cesspools of viruses and
worms.  It's a wonder they run at all.

> Why not choosing Linux or FreeBSD for the desktop?

Because the leading desktop is Windows, with a quarter-million or so
applications written for it.  Why do things the hard way when one can do
them the easy way?

> I can choose a windowmanager among decens, I have many apps that
> perform the same or better than the winbugs counterparts, and the best
> of all, they are *free* and do not depend on any comercial enterprise.

Quite a few applications for Windows are free or very inexpensive as
well.

> I do not need too much bells and whistles to fell confortable at the
> desktop. A fluxbox window manager is perfect for me. The important
> thing are the apps, not the desktop.

Then why use a GUI at all?  GUIs are nothing more than bells and
whistles.

-- 
Anthony