BSD: Relevant , Lennart Poettering Isn't Anymore
outbackdingo at gmail.com
Mon Jul 18 22:04:56 UTC 2011
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Jerome Herman <jherman at dichotomia.fr>wrote:
> On 18/07/2011 22:22, Jerry wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:44:15 -0500
>> Gary Gatten articulated:
>>> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
>>> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not
>>> much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
>>> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions
>>> of Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into
>>> the enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD
>>> did in the last 30.
>> I think the explanation is rather simple, "Give the user what he wants,
>> not what you think he wants."
> I would highly advise against doing such a thing. So much evil in "Ask me
> what you want, I will give you what you asked."
> I did this only once, some stupid foe in management asked me to activate
> and send him every little warning of anything that would happen to the
> production servers.
> I advise against it, but he insisted, I then stubbornly refused and he
> threaten to have me fired.
> So I activated the every thing SNMP trap I could think of and forwarded
> him. In the first hour, even before any backup or maintenance operation, he
> received about 10 000 mails.
> You are never going to satisfy every
>> conceivable user, so concentrate on the core users. Microsoft has done
>> that extremely well. On the latest Windows 7, getting wireless up and
>> running is the most effortless thing I have done in awhile.
> Keeping it up is a different beast, not even mentioning the constant
> disconnect/reconnect operations if by any chance you sit between two AP, you
> will learn new meanings for pain if your wifi is not natively supported by
> Most of the time Windows wifi management, and closed vendors wifi
> management do not get along too well. True there were huge progress made in
> Windows 7, but honestly I still do prefer the FreeBSD approach were I can
> choose my AP once and for all.
>> does everything but fill in the password. On FreeBSD, well lets just
>> say if that even if they had a driver for the wireless card I have
>> installed, getting it up and running would be another matter. Correct
>> me if I am wrong, but even "network manager" is not available on
>> FreeBSD is it?
> I never saw the use of the tool "network manager" under Linux. Very
> honestly I turn it off and remove it as soon as I can. The only thing it
> ever did to me is giving headaches.
> FreeBSD forces you to pick your wireless card carefully. But it is not a
> huge problem.
> I have not checked in awhile. I know that there are some
>> programs listed, but none of them work as seamlessly as Microsoft's. It
>> is a basic truism in any business that in order to beat your rival, you
>> have to produce a better product or one that costs less and
>> still maintains the same basic usability.
> FreeBSD users are expected to be able to read and to use this ability. Sure
> this does cut FreeBSD from quite a lot of potential users, but then again
> making an OS for people who do not want to read the manual is a very bad
> Simply creating a free product
>> that is not as usable is not enough. If you cannot accomplish that,
>> then at least try to create the illusion of it. FreeBSD has failed at
>> the goal also.
>> > From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems
>>>> applications just work on Linux? When I need to compile an app, it
>>>> takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD.
>>>> Granted someone more knowledgeable with FBSD, Compilers, etc. could
>>>> do it much faster than I.
>>> Anyway, if someone has a brief explanation of why Linux has
>>> apparently triumphed (in so far as installed base, desktop
>>> penetration, etc.) where so many others have failed (including IBM
>>> with OS/2) I'd be interested in hearing those thoughts.
>> OS/2 was IBM's fault from the beginning. They insisted that it be tied
>> to the 286 processor. Gates attempted to talk them out of it in a
>> famous meeting in Armonk, NY. IBM refused and effectively wrote it's own
>> death sentence with OS/2. As with any product, first impressions are
>> crucial. Their first one failed. Unfortunately, so many FOSS pundits
>> have not learned this simple lesson.
>> From Wikipedia:
>> OS/2 1.x targeted the 80286 processor: IBM insisted on supporting the
>> Intel 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, due to
>> commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2's
>> because of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2. Until release 2.0 in
>> April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not
>> benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model
>> and virtual 8086 mode features. This was especially painful in
>> providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1
>> could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including
>> expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still
>> limited to one 640KB "DOS box".
Sorry Guys...... I just had to nail down the Subject Topic and correct
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org <freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org>"
More information about the freebsd-questions