Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors

[prad]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:58:14 -0700
Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:

> So . . . are you saying that increased support for 3D accelerated
> graphics is not an "improvement", and should therefore not be
> considered a worthy goal?
> 
no. access to hardware probably is a worthy goal, however, you need
people to write the software and it's up to the freebsd team(s) to
determine if 3d graphics is or is not worthy, isn't it?

> This is completely orthogonal to the question of whether people who
> express a desire for better support for desktop functionality should
> be excoriated publicly on this mailing list, and spanked for having
> the audacity to want to migrate from MS Windows to FreeBSD for use as
> a desktop OS.
> 
this is a pretty nice list and i haven't found much spanking going on
here.

> I agree that desktop usage should not take priority over more
> fundamental quality concerns in FreeBSD development.  Telling people
> to stick it in their ear when they say it would be nice to have Flash
> support is not related to the ability to prioritize development
> goals, though.
> 
i agree that telling people to "stick it in their ear" is not nice, but
i don't recall anyone doing so. unfortunately, if i ask for evidence
regarding this, you'll probably just tell me to RTFML as you did in
your other reply.

> Desire for better desktop functionality doesn't have to equate to
> wanting desktop-oriented development to "control the reins of
> development" for the whole system.  Why the hell do you seem to think
> it does?
>
i don't know why you think that's what i think. what i said was that
was a concern. i certainly do know that in other areas
(computer education for instance), user convenience has destroyed
technical know-how (specifically, at some schools when the graphic
interface emerged in the 80s, word-processing dominated programming and
the some schools lost their thinkers). microsoft's catering to user
desires has produced some rather inferior software too.

may be it doesn't have to be that way, but often there is a price to be
paid for 'convenience'.

> Hell, I think the more server-oriented development
> philosophy of FreeBSD is actually a big part of the reason it works
> so well as a desktop OS! Maintaining a more server-oriented
> development philosophy in *no way* precludes giving some attention to
> strictly desktop-related functionality, though.
>
perhaps, but if you have a server-oriented philosophy, why would you
give much attention to desktop-related functionality?

i recall on the openbsd elist a couple of years ago people asking what
wm is best. most of the answers went something like - the default twm
(i think that's what it was) or fluxbox was "all i need". 
 
> Pretending the two are incompatible goals, as a few notable people
> here seem to want to do, is counterproductive in my opinion.
>
not necessarily. one group is saying we have a great os, so it would be
even better if it could accommodate some of the fancy stuff that the
kdes and gnomes etc offer even more. the other group is saying why
bother, because who really needs it and if they want it they can get it
elsewhere. i think the concern of the latter group is by no means
illegitimate, because time and resources aren't unlimited.

on the otherhand, as i vaguely recall on a flash thread, someone said
no one is stopping anyone from writing a better flash for freebsd if
they really want to. i think it is ok to ask, but i don't think it is
ok to expect. for me, freebsd is a gift and i don't have any
expectations from those who put the effort and skill into creating any
opensource initiative.


-- 
In friendship,
prad

                                      ... with you on your journey
Towards Freedom
http://www.towardsfreedom.com (website)
Information, Inspiration, Imagination - truly a site for soaring I's