Freebsd vs. linux

[Ramiro Aceves]

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 
your needs.


> 
> 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.