Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Am 12.02.2005 um 00:00 schrieb Johnson David: From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Because FreeBSD is a server, not a desktop. Agree and disagree. While FreeBSD is well suited for the server, it's also well suited for the desktop. That doesn't mean that we should be stressing the desktop to those shopping for servers, instead it means that we shouldn't be telling those shopping for desktops to go use Linux instead. How many business will be running Linux on the desktop but FreeBSD on the server? None! Currently Windows rules the desktop world, even for diehard Unix shops. But that will not last forever. We need to start thinking about the desktop today. We need to stop the official discouragement of desktop FreeBSD. I agree with you, David, that although FreeBSD is primarily a server OS right now the desktop should not be forgotten. So how about a www.serverfreebsd.com and a www.desktopfreebsd.com? You get the best of both worlds that way. I would not make completely separate sites. Maybe IMHO make two separate big areas you can choose on the start page of the website but make one entry point so people immediately can see that FreeBSD can be used for both. Alternatively one could make links from the single freebsd.com (or whatever its name will be) to these two sites you propose. Stephan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Jeremy C. Reed wrote: (Nevertheless, it is not time to advertise FreeBSD as a desktop alternative.) This is not so much about FreeBSD, as the Unix+X11 combination in general. It does not provide the fully integrated system the typical end-user, coming from a Windows or Mac perspective, expects. That it nevertheless works well enough for persons with a technical or academical background, and those who invest some time, is not questioned. What the Unix+X11 combination in its current blend doesn't provide is the one-size-fits-all solution that Windows and the Mac try to achieve. That's both a good and a bad thing, imho. There are, of course, situations where Unix is being used as a desktop successfully. Think about Unix workstations at universities and larger companies, which have been prevalent for the last 15 years. Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. What these applications have in common is, that the desktop user is normally different from the person maintaining the installation. This is different from a SOHO setup, where both are normally identical. mkb. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Matthias Buelow writes: This is not so much about FreeBSD, as the Unix+X11 combination in general. It does not provide the fully integrated system the typical end-user, coming from a Windows or Mac perspective, expects. That it nevertheless works well enough for persons with a technical or academical background, and those who invest some time, is not questioned. What the Unix+X11 combination in its current blend doesn't provide is the one-size-fits-all solution that Windows and the Mac try to achieve. That's both a good and a bad thing, imho. Yes. Perhaps I've not been clear, but the problems with FreeBSD as a desktop are shared by virtually all versions of UNIX, since they all create their GUIs in the same way. Mac OS X is a notable exception. There are, of course, situations where Unix is being used as a desktop successfully. Think about Unix workstations at universities and larger companies, which have been prevalent for the last 15 years. UNIX + GUI seem to work much better when they are used as what they are: UNIX systems with GUIs. When someone tries to make them look and behave like Windows, problems begin. Highly stable GUIs have existed on UNIX workstations for years, but they barely resemble Windows. Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. Why not just burn taxpayer euro in a bonfire? It would have the same end result and it would be faster. What these applications have in common is, that the desktop user is normally different from the person maintaining the installation. This is different from a SOHO setup, where both are normally identical. True, but I think other key differences are the discipline used in creating the GUI and the end result being targetet. Native UNIX GUIs are carefully written and do attempt to imitate any other OS. More recent desktop GUIs are crazy hodgepodges hastily written that amount to wannabe versions of Windows. There are a lot of people who desperately want to see UNIX as a replacement for Windows, and their desperation blinds them to the futility of their efforts and to the endless glaring defects of their attempts to achieve this. But the inadequacy of what they produce is very obvious to anyone without an emotional investment in hating Microsoft, and so these Windows clones will never gain much currency as the situation stands now. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. Why not just burn taxpayer euro in a bonfire? It would have the same end result and it would be faster. Well, if you just run a set of 1-3 applications, and don't do anything else with the computer, there shouldn't be much of a difference. Think, for example, of the software that the clerks feed applications for driving licenses or passports into. That's (most likely) one do-it-all software running on the terminal-like PC all the time. Or a secretary, using some kind of office software (I don't know if they consider OpenOffice). Apart from making a political statement, the advantage is of course being independent from the Microsoft update cycle. Of course whether it's cheaper having the inhouse staff or a consulting firm update the Linux desktops needs to be evaluated first (and I'm sure they did). Another point, as far as I got it, was security, i.e., higher resilience towards worms and viruses. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Jeremy C. Reed writes: Being able to run a desktop for over a hundred days without reboots, without annoying continuous software failures, without worry of malicious (or anoying) pop-ups, virus, and malware, and being able to quickly do my desktop work is a good reason to use an open source Unix desktop. Except that Windows does all of this. My XP and NT desktops will run until I reboot them, which often means months at a time. If I chose not to reboot them, they'd run for years (the NT code base is extremely stable). I haven't experienced any annoying software failures under Windows. I have no problems with pop-ups, viruses, or malware. The only virus I've ever experienced was an Apache virus on my FreeBSD machine, ironically, and that was because the Apache server had a bug and the server _must_ service ports that are open to the world (there's nothing I can do to protect the system in such a case). Windows viruses and other problems can be avoided by firewalls and safe computing; it isn't even necessary to run an antivirus product. Time between boots is similar for both the Windows and FreeBSD systems, but neither system actually requires a boot at such frequent intervals. I usually boot FreeBSD when I have to power-cycle the hardware, or when I make a change that is exposed at boot time and I wish to make sure that the system actually will boot (such as a change in rc.conf). A common reason for booting is installation of software on both platforms; FreeBSD doesn't require it, but I boot anyway to make sure nothing in the boot process has been misconfigured, and many Windows applications insist on it, even though the OS itself does not. I'm guessing *you* are atypical in this. Most of our Windows boxes are rather stable. But our FreeBSD ones are simply rocks. It's true I can't just pointy clicky them into a usable configuration, but the software runs for as long as we wish. That is in a rather direct opposition to the majority of our on-site service calls for clients, which generally have to do with troubleshooting software issues on Windows boxes related to annoying software failures, and pop-ups, viruses, and malware. And reboots with Win XP are probably about 1/3 lower (guesstimate) than they were with the 9x products. But, there were *many* back then. The other day we gained a client who had been sold a rather new M$ Server product. It was set up to be their PDC, but there were some issues. One of these issues was that the NIC it was connected to the network with was set to use DHCP ! We reconfigured the interface, and, true to form, You must reboot your computer for the changes to take effect. I would argue that you are not Joe User, because this is not necessarily his experience, even with XP. Nor Jane User either. Newer Microsoft products are more stable than their predecessors, but there is no comparison between them and the stability and security of FreeBSD in our experience. The fact that Windows XP is more stable than their previous products is known, but another chunk of evidence indicates that issues with that OS, as Jeremy described, are still well in evidence. There are thousands upon thousands times thousands of relatively clueless users out there who do have problems with Windows whether they know it or not. For my office, a FreeBSD desktop makes a good bit of sense. I don't have major software issues with FreeBSD, and my unit cost is a hundred bucks or more less than a Windows desktop. But, in that, *we* are atypical, I suppose. Kevin Kinsey DaleCo, S.P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Matthias Buelow writes: Well, if you just run a set of 1-3 applications, and don't do anything else with the computer, there shouldn't be much of a difference. True, if those applications run identically on both platforms. Apart from making a political statement, the advantage is of course being independent from the Microsoft update cycle. The disadvantage is that you need orders of magnitude more technical expertise in-house to support the OS. A serious problem will arise if the city wants to install a new application and it runs only on Windows. Another point, as far as I got it, was security, i.e., higher resilience towards worms and viruses. Except that this isn't the case. Most of the stuff I see on bugtraq these days references versions of UNIX, particularly Linux. UNIX has traditionally been a less tempting target, but it is not a less vulnerable target. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Kevin Kinsey writes: I'm guessing *you* are atypical in this. I know that I am not. About 95% of all problems with Windows machines are experienced by about 5% of the user base. The rest of the world has no problems. Most of our Windows boxes are rather stable. But our FreeBSD ones are simply rocks. It's true I can't just pointy clicky them into a usable configuration, but the software runs for as long as we wish. All of my machines are rock stable, both FreeBSD and Windows. FreeBSD might win over the long run, but when both systems will run for years, the winner isn't that important. That is in a rather direct opposition to the majority of our on-site service calls for clients, which generally have to do with troubleshooting software issues on Windows boxes related to annoying software failures, and pop-ups, viruses, and malware. User errors, in other words. There are thousands upon thousands times thousands of relatively clueless users out there who do have problems with Windows whether they know it or not. They would have the same problems with FreeBSD, or with any other OS. For my office, a FreeBSD desktop makes a good bit of sense. I don't have major software issues with FreeBSD, and my unit cost is a hundred bucks or more less than a Windows desktop. I'd use FreeBSD on my desktop if I could, but I can't. I'd love to be able to save 400 in license fees per machine and have all the source code. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Jerry McAllister wrote: Matthias Buelow writes: And your point is..? I can see that FreeBSD marketing has a long way to go. To where?FreeBSD is not marketed in any particular way - on purpose. No one wants to do it, so no one will do it. jerry I want to, and frequently do, market FreeBSD. I can tell you that the website and the community is not much help when trying to sell FreeBSD to the un-enlightened. When trying to sell it in commercial companies boardrooms, I make damn sure not to mention Beastie and usually never even show them the official webpage. -- R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Because FreeBSD is a server, not a desktop. Agree and disagree. While FreeBSD is well suited for the server, it's also well suited for the desktop. That doesn't mean that we should be stressing the desktop to those shopping for servers, instead it means that we shouldn't be telling those shopping for desktops to go use Linux instead. How many business will be running Linux on the desktop but FreeBSD on the server? None! Currently Windows rules the desktop world, even for diehard Unix shops. But that will not last forever. We need to start thinking about the desktop today. We need to stop the official discouragement of desktop FreeBSD. So how about a www.serverfreebsd.com and a www.desktopfreebsd.com? You get the best of both worlds that way. David ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 11, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Johnson David wrote: From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Because FreeBSD is a server, not a desktop. Agree and disagree. While FreeBSD is well suited for the server, it's also well suited for the desktop. Anthony had the same misguided opinion in the Apache Users mailing list. That doesn't mean that we should be stressing the desktop to those shopping for servers, instead it means that we shouldn't be telling those shopping for desktops to go use Linux instead. How many business will be running Linux on the desktop but FreeBSD on the server? None! But you will find lots of people with FreeBSD on the Server and OS X on the desktop! Not to say that you cannot run a FreeBSD desktop. And any efforts to make that easier are applauded. I used to run Linux on the desktop[1] and FreeBSD on the server. Setting up Linux as a desktop at the time (1990-2000 timeframe) was so much easier. I don't know about now, but with Linux (SuSE is what I used back then) it was as easy as setting up Windows. Chad [1] and Windows 2000 :-( and Mac OS 8/9 and Rhapsody and the beta for OS X ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Johnson David wrote: Currently Windows rules the desktop world, even for diehard Unix shops. But that will not last forever. We need to start thinking about the desktop today. We need to stop the official discouragement of desktop FreeBSD. MacOS X is the Desktop BSD. It is available today, and it works better than anything else at being a desktop. Considering the sorry state of integrated desktops on Unix today (i.e., Gnome and KDE) and compare it with Windows, do you really think that will convince any Windows user? Windows really is bad enough already, why should they change for a much worse user interface. For those of us that have been using X11 with various window managers for the last decade or more, that isn't an issue -- we're used to a different way of working, but those Windows types expect quite different things, which they'll only find in MacOS, outside of Windows, for the forseeable future. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Matthias Buelow writes: MacOS X is the Desktop BSD. It is available today, and it works better than anything else at being a desktop. Considering the sorry state of integrated desktops on Unix today (i.e., Gnome and KDE) and compare it with Windows, do you really think that will convince any Windows user? Windows really is bad enough already, why should they change for a much worse user interface. For those of us that have been using X11 with various window managers for the last decade or more, that isn't an issue -- we're used to a different way of working, but those Windows types expect quite different things, which they'll only find in MacOS, outside of Windows, for the forseeable future. Yes! So it's best to forget the battles one has lost, and concentrate on the battles that one can still win. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 03:14 +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote: Johnson David wrote: Currently Windows rules the desktop world, even for diehard Unix shops. But that will not last forever. We need to start thinking about the desktop today. We need to stop the official discouragement of desktop FreeBSD. MacOS X is the Desktop BSD. It is available today, and it works better than anything else at being a desktop. Does it work on my intel hardware? Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 11, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Robert Marella wrote: On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 03:14 +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote: Johnson David wrote: Currently Windows rules the desktop world, even for diehard Unix shops. But that will not last forever. We need to start thinking about the desktop today. We need to stop the official discouragement of desktop FreeBSD. MacOS X is the Desktop BSD. It is available today, and it works better than anything else at being a desktop. Does it work on my intel hardware? Not in public it doesn't. That is irrelevant to the discussion. FreeBSD does not work on my PPC HW either. Chad ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Robert Marella wrote: MacOS X is the Desktop BSD. It is available today, and it works better than anything else at being a desktop. Does it work on my intel hardware? And your point is..? mkb. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Robert Marella writes: Does it work on my intel hardware? Two basic responses, one right, one wrong: Wrong: Of course it does, you idiot! Don't you know anything about hardware? Right: FreeBSD easily supports the full range of Intel microprocessors and virtually all Intel motherboards and chipsets, directly out of the box. It also takes advantage of most Intel-specific hardware enhancements where applicable, for better performance. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: Not in public it doesn't. That is irrelevant to the discussion. FreeBSD does not work on my PPC HW either. Score: 12 out of 100. The meeting is over, and a security guard will show you the door. Try again. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Matthias Buelow writes: And your point is..? I can see that FreeBSD marketing has a long way to go. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 04:34 +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote: Robert Marella wrote: MacOS X is the Desktop BSD. It is available today, and it works better than anything else at being a desktop. Does it work on my intel hardware? And your point is..? mkb. Market share! What percentage of the desktops are intel/AMD based? If MacOS X is _THE_ Desktop BSD, can it be ported/converted to the majority of the installed desktops? If not, can someone/some_company/some_group do to intel/AMD desktops what Apple did to MacOS X? I know the driving force of FreeBSD is toward servers. Apple was able to make it a desktop OS. I like it as a desktop OS on my intel hardware but I have a lot of time to spend. Even with the time, I still can't get everything to work as I would like. If it was a better desktop OS more people would notice it and would recognize the name FreeBSD. When I tell most people that I do not use MS Windows, I get a blank look and then they ask what I do use. I usually say I use a form of UNIX called FreeBSD. The first thing out of their mouth is, Oh, Linux!. I then go on to tell them about FreeBSD as their eyes glaze over. That's my point! Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Feb 11, 2005, at 8:49 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: Not in public it doesn't. That is irrelevant to the discussion. FreeBSD does not work on my PPC HW either. Score: 12 out of 100. The meeting is over, and a security guard will show you the door. Try again. Dude, get a life. This is not a formal presentation to an IT department. This is an unofficial, freely used by all, who are all volunteers, mail list. I wish the security guard would show you to the door. Chad ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Anthony Atkielski wrote: That depends on the OS to which you compare it. In isolation, FreeBSD works on the desktop, just as most UNIX operating systems do, but in comparison to Windows or the Mac, it's a rather sorry excuse for a desktop. But no OS can do it all, no matter how religiously its proponents might believe otherwise. I guess this depends on how desktop is defined. Being able to run a desktop for over a hundred days without reboots, without annoying continuous software failures, without worry of malicious (or anoying) pop-ups, virus, and malware, and being able to quickly do my desktop work is a good reason to use an open source Unix desktop. I guess Mac OS X can meet these goals. But can't meet the need to be able to use a good functional desktop on old, out-dated, slow hardware. (Nevertheless, it is not time to advertise FreeBSD as a desktop alternative.) Jeremy C. Reed BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Matthias Buelow writes: And your point is..? I can see that FreeBSD marketing has a long way to go. To where?FreeBSD is not marketed in any particular way - on purpose. No one wants to do it, so no one will do it. jerry -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
