Freebsd vs. linux
ea1abz at wanadoo.es
Sun Feb 13 12:40:07 GMT 2005
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> darren kirby writes:
>>I think your interpretation here is a tad glib.
> I think it's right on the money. The entire Linux movement is fueled by
> hatred for Microsoft. And the ultimate goal of the Linux movement is to
> build an OS that walks, talks, and quacks like Microsoft Windows, but
> doesn't come from Redmond.
I do not think that the ultimate goal of the Linux movement is to
build an OS that walks, talks, and quacks, the goal of Linux is to make
a OS that can do whatever you want. It can talk, walk if you need it, it
can be a server if you need it. It is a matter of configuring it for
> To me, that seems like a waste of time and energy.
I do not understand ...
> The idea in itself of building an alternative desktop operating system
> is fine. But why does it have to look like Windows? The more closely a
> system approaches the look and feel of Windows, the less reason there is
> to use that system instead of Windows.
My Linux system do not look like windows, and never will. For example,
many people use wmaker as a window manager, and I does not have anything
to do with windows looking.
Do not generalize when you use the word Linux, not every linux
distribution has got the same goals.
> And why use UNIX as a basis for a desktop GUI? Just because it's there?
Because if you use a GUI ontop a better kernel, the resultint OS will be
better, and again, they are free and MS is not free.
More information about the freebsd-questions