Freebsd vs. linux

[Anthony Atkielski]

Ramiro Aceves writes:

> 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.

It looks an awful lot like Windows for something that should be carving
its own niche.  And it is regularly presented as "Linux instead of
Windows," which clearly implies that it's not a product in its own
world, it's something that is trying to be like Windows.  On that path
lies danger.

As for being what you need it to be, there are fundamental conflicts
between desktop and server environments, such that no OS can do both
perfectly.  You can do one extremely well, or the other extremely well,
but not both.

> I do not understand ...

A lot of kiddies spent all their time and energy bashing Microsoft and
trying to find ways to be "as good as Microsoft" without actually using
any Microsoft code.  They are in a highly destructive love/hate
relationship with the vendor, and that drives all their behavior,
whereas among normal computer users and IT professionals, wholly
different motivations and attitudes drive their behavior, in much
healthier ways.

> Because if you use a GUI ontop a better kernel, the resultint OS will be
> better ...

That depends on the type of kernel.  Some operating systems are not well
suited to single-user desktop GUI environments.

> ... and again, they are free and MS is not free.

You usually get what you pay for.

-- 
Anthony