Re: Freebsd vs. linux

From: Bart Silverstrim (bsilver_at_chrononomicon.com)
Date: 02/16/05

  • Next message: Lowell Gilbert: "Re: Resize a ufs partition" 
    Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:45:52 -0500
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org

    On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

    > Bart Silverstrim writes:
    >
    >> "They" were an outside team that worked on VMS. "They" started NT
    >> before Windows became a marketing drone's dream. The Windows
    >> subsystem
    >> became the default subsystem after Windows 3.x took off. Originally
    >> it
    >> wasn't going to have a GUI.
    >
    > Oh well ... it's a bit late to dream about what could have been.
    >
    > As I recall, this is what caused Microsoft and IBM to part ways. IBM
    > was to collaborate on the NT project. But IBM wanted a CLI, like DOS
    > or
    > OS/2, whereas Microsoft insisted that a GUI was the wave of the future
    > on the desktop. As it turned out, Microsoft was right.

    Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI.
    They parted ways because MS was working on the Windows-centric version
    of NT behind IBM's back, realizing they had a new cash cow out of
    Windows 3.x. IBM was schnookered hook, line and sinker, and realized
    it only after MS was presenting more and more updates to their project
    with Windows API's instead of OS/2. MS wanted to split from Big Blue
    because of cultural differences and MS wanted independence from IBM,
    knowing full well that that dependence on OS/2 would be a hindrance to
    their market engine.

    Read ShowStopper!. It's an excellent history of the background of NT
    (and Cutler). You can also read the Why I Hate Microsoft rant posted
    at http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html .
    I find it an excellent read for the history in it. (And do NOT turn
    this into a OS-bashing thread. I am posting this because it has
    history in it and was well written with history and footnotes. So
    everyone stick to the facts and do NOT start the bashing crap).

    > The GUI still requires destabilizing code in the kernel. It still
    > takes
    > up space and resources.

    I'll agree there.

    > And, worst of all, on a GUI-oriented server
    > like Windows, you cannot administer the machine without using the GUI.

    True to a point. Just because you have a GUI as the primary interface
    it doesn't mean that the OS *must* have crappy administration tools.
    It is just the tendency because of the low variety of "popular" server
    OS's out there. The Mac is primarily GUI driven for it's audience and
    uses a primarily GUI paradigm, but CLI admin tools are very much
    available (and many of the Apple GUI tools act as front ends to the CLI
    tools). It's a question of design.

    >> <Xserves, etc.>
    > They're off the radar for servers. The only people who install Apple
    > servers are people who are already in love with Apple desktops.
    > They're
    > kind of the inverse of people who fall in love with server operating
    > systems and then insist on forcing them onto the desktop as well.

    Wrong-o. Xserves are wonderful for people that want integration of OS
    and hardware while at the same time are familiar with UNIX. Yes,
    there's a lot of point and click, but 90% of their tools are mirrored
    in CLI tools as well. Do more reading on how OS X works.

    >> Don't want the GUI, then install Darwin. Want GUI and remote
    >> admin/monitoring tools, use OS X Server. Don't log into it, and it'll
    >> swap out most of the "GUI" stuff to disk.
    >
    > Why not just install FreeBSD?

    Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI,
    their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua. Don't need the proprietary layer,
    then strip out Aqua/Finder/Apple tools, you've got Darwin. If you want
    to install something else, be my guest. I personally don't care what
    you're running, I was just pointing out if you want Apple stuff and
    want to keep parity with OS X without their tools, use Darwin.

    >> They most certainly profit from MCSEs.
    >
    > Yes, by training and certifying them. But after that, they're on their
    > own, and out of Microsoft's revenue stream.

    Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their
    recertification. They are human advertisements, they are MS
    evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are
    brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging
    more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS. SO that
    would mean MS profits from them and their existence and their having to
    get re-certified for their new OS's periodically. End of story.

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Lowell Gilbert: "Re: Resize a ufs partition"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Ubuntu
      ... That the purpose of the EULAs employed by Apple ... the Windows UI than between the Xerox and early Mac and Lisa systems. ... Apple didn't invent graphical user interface generally, ... Mac was introduced with its GUI. ...
      (comp.sys.mac.system)
    • Re: The Great Rake Debate- One Final Thought
      ... hw maint on an Apple costs more than it should, ... Instead of using the ubiquitus "IBM Card" they ... called Digital Group brought out a superior product also with a 100-line bus, ... of using Windows PC's, I now also have an Apple Powerbook and it is by far the ...
      (rec.gambling.poker)
    • Re: Splash Screens , how could something so basic still be hard?
      ... You say that there "is no message pump to allow for further GUI ... Note that by "there is no message pump", I mean that because of the way the code is written, no message pump is working while the "splash screen" is displayed. ... In a normal Forms app, there would be a message pump loop, and there's no reason to believe that in those examples, one doesn't exist. ... The same technique is possible in Windows, ...
      (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
    • Re: Other options - Tablet PCs
      ... Apple has its own checkered past with regards to proprietary parochialism. ... the original IBM PC. ... architecture did better for complex and character based languages than the ... Windows 2000 IME was particularly good. ...
      (sci.lang.japan)
    • Re: Wiseman and McGhie are Ranting Again
      ... >>>rest of the system by dropping Word's run time priority in stages. ... Nearly everything with a GUI has something like an event ... That part of the OS is the windows manager and is typically a ... That is your event loop. ...
      (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)