FreeBSD and hardware??

Jeremy Chadwick koitsu at
Tue Nov 18 07:10:50 PST 2008

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:40:09PM +0100, Manfred Usselmann wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:13 +0100 (CET)
> Wojciech Puchar <wojtek at> wrote:
> > >> usage or need.
> > >
> > > You seem to be reserving FBSD only for the experts. I wouldn't be
> > > here
> > 
> > is someone that simply use unix an expert?
> > 
> > no.
> > 
> > 
> > > By constantly repeating that UNIX is no Windows replacement you are
> > 
> > and i will repeat it because it's true. it's every other unix
> > replacement.
> > 
> > as linux tries for many years to be windows replacement - it's both
> > low end unix and low end windows replacement, "windows for poor".
> This is nonsense. The Windows interface itself is quite limited and not
> very powerful. Compared e.g. with the old OS/2 desktop, which was
> really powerful, flexible (and object oriented). How disappointed I was
> when Win/95 came out being an OS/2 user at that time. From what I have
> read even the user interface of Mac OS X is much better that Windows
> although they have a much smaller market share. Anyhow, of course you
> can fully replace Windows with a unix(-like) system and a suitable
> desktop enviroment (e.g. KDE, Gnome, XFCE). It depends on your specific
> requirements and if applications exist which do what you need. But
> saying that GUI's under Unix are per se inferior is just spreading FUD.
> Leave that to MS. ;-)
> Just a small example, how limited Windows really is: Even today it is
> not possible to configure the standard interface of Windows XP (Luna)
> in any other color than blue, olive green and silver. LOL.
> The only advantage Windows has is that many people are used to it.

I am one of the few UNIX administrators who prefers to use Windows (XP
or 2K; cannot stand Vista) as a desktop/workstation operating system.
If we really want to talk about all the reasons why I abhor X, we can
discuss them some other time, because ultimately they don't (and
shouldn't) matter.  Why?  Because each person should conclude what works
best for them, depending upon whatever their needs are.

I have a lot of reasons for loathing X.  A *lot*.  I've spent a lot of
time (and even money; anyone remember AccelX back in the 90s?  Yep, I
bought it) trying to adapt over the years, and I cannot.  I'm not going
to provide details because it'll just induce more parking lot burn-outs
and that's not what I want.

Comparatively: I have co-workers who love X and KDE, and hate Windows --
and I have co-workers who absolutely love OS X's GUI, and hate X and
Windows.  (In fact, the few OS X users I know get quite irate when they
find some OS X program actually relies on X11).

The only time I curse Windows is when CMD.EXE or command-line utilities
come into play.  Anyone who's used *IX will know what I mean by this.
PowerShell/Monad is a joke, Cygwin is an atrocity, 4NT/4DOS is too
quirky, and *IX application ports often have too many bugs (either not
handling NTFS filenames correctly (resorting to 8.3 format), or having
filesize limitations due to the porter doing it wrong; 2GB limits are
found in common programs including Win32 wget).

Every operating system/GUI/environment has its share of quirks.  It just
depends on which ones you can tolerate.  I can tolerate some of Windows'
quirks (sans "focus stealing", although I'm told KDE applicationg are
starting down this road too), but cannot with X or OS X.  I suppose it's
because I've a mental stigma; I associate *IX and UNIX with servers, and
I likely always will.  *IX/UNIX on the desktop is a crazy idea to me.

That's all I have to say on the matter; I won't reply here on out.

| Jeremy Chadwick                                jdc at |
| Parodius Networking              |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.              PGP: 4BD6C0CB |

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list