On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:49 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:13:39PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:51 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > >> > > > >> by not being linux at all. > > > > > > > > FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is > > > FreeBSD isn't both desktop or server system. it is just unix - it depends > > > from the user how it's being used. > > > > True. But looking at it from a newbie point of view the statement helps > > give it perspective. I have to translate for people all the time and I > > know this works. > > > > We all know that FreeBSD whoops linux's ass, but as to how it does this > > is beyond most newer users. :P > > The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to > use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this > from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best > "desktop" OS I've ever had the pleasure to use. >
Me too. But you have to be more enabled to get a lot of the software the is wanted on a desktop system working. Case in point: Gnome is not automatically installed (or kde or any other wm). Web browsing can be tricky because you have to get wrappers for plugins and so on. For you and me- we don't mind because we know the result will be fantastic, but others who just want to get on with it it can be a pain. Therefore, I'd say a desktop version of FreeBSD would be better described as a workstation. Considering we're comparing to Ubuntu, I'd say thats a fair statement. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"