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

Anthony Atkielski atkielski.anthony at
Sat Feb 12 20:38:31 GMT 2005

Kevin Kinsey writes:

> I'm guessing *you* are atypical in this.

I know that I am not.  About 95% of all problems with Windows machines
are experienced by about 5% of the user base.  The rest of the world has
no problems.

> Most of our Windows boxes are rather stable. But our FreeBSD ones are
> simply rocks. It's true I can't just "pointy clicky" them into a
> usable configuration, but the software runs for as long as we wish.

All of my machines are rock stable, both FreeBSD and Windows.  FreeBSD
might win over the long run, but when both systems will run for years,
the winner isn't that important.

> That is in a rather direct opposition to the majority of our on-site
> service calls for clients, which generally have to do with
> troubleshooting software issues on Windows boxes related to "annoying
> software failures", and "pop-ups, viruses, and malware".

User errors, in other words.

> There are thousands upon thousands times thousands of relatively
> clueless users out there who do have problems with Windows whether
> they know it or not.

They would have the same problems with FreeBSD, or with any other OS.

> For my office, a FreeBSD desktop makes a good bit of sense.  I don't
> have major software issues with FreeBSD, and my unit cost is a hundred
> bucks or more less than a Windows desktop.

I'd use FreeBSD on my desktop if I could, but I can't.  I'd love to be
able to save €400 in license fees per machine and have all the source


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list