This is probably going beyond the scope of on-topic here, but just to touch on 
a few things ...

On Monday 19 July 2004 02:20 am, Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > Also, FreeBSD isn't really a desktop OS. I'm not
> > sure if you're being precise with that word, but, although it works very
> > well as a workstation, it's not designed for what many home users do with
> > their desktop systems. You can use big window managers like KDE and
> > Gnome, but it's not necessarily designed for
> "desktop OS" and "windowslike OS" is a big difference. so desktop os
> doesn't have to mean KDE or gnome, which - except some nice graphics -
> doesn't have any really useful features. i use fvwm2 and icewm as it gives
> enough needed without taking lots of cpu power and RAM

Maybe I should clarify. What I mean is that, when people refer to a desktop 
type of OS, they're usually meaning something like Win, Mac, some 
"user-friendly" distros of Linux like SuSE, etc. A workstation OS is 
generally meant to be something used for work (which can mean many things, 
but it usually doesn't mean games and multimedia, unless it's a system used 
to make those), while a desktop OS is generally meant to be something used at 
home for entertainment, games, web and email, etc., but not development or 
other work. A workstation can be any of a number of OSes, including FreeBSD, 
Win2k, many distros of Linux, Mac, Solaris, and many more. Most workstations 
have some sort of window manager (or in the case of Win, it's not a choice), 
as do desktop systems. On my FreeBSD workstation I switch between KDE and 
IceWM, depending on what I want to do at the time. I differ with your opinion 
of KDE, as I find KMail to be one of the best gui email clients I've used, 
though some of the rest of the stuff doesn't matter to me that much. I can 
also use KMail in any other window manager, but it does tend to be a resource 
hog because of the way KDE is designed. Like I said, my choice of wm depends 
on what I'm doing at the time.

> anyway - good use of FreeBSD (or other unix) is to be a server with
> graphics terminals (X terminals) connected through ethernet. then it could
> be managed only in one place by qualified admin, while used by many
> people.

Well, sure, this is one use. I use it for a workstation, but I'm planning on 
setting up FreeBSD on some other machines as servers, though not in the way 
you describe. I'm not in a multi-user environment at home where my FreeBSD 
workstation is, so your example isn't relevant to me.

> definitely more stable, more easy to use and much cheaper (both
> hardware and TCO) than hundreds of winputers requiring operator
> intervention every few days at average.

Yes, definitely.

> and no chance for end user to break whole system with clicking wrong icon.

Well, I've broken a couple of things in learning FreeBSD but managed to fix 
them. It's not a big deal. That's part of the learning experience.

- jt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to