Michal Varga wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 10:51 -0700, Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Michal Varga<varga.mic...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here too. How is "desktop support" on FreeBSD lacking?
I realize a desktop means many things to many people, but the biggest
thing holding me back from using FreeBSD on a desktop is flash
support. I spent a little time trying to follow online instructions
and I didn't get anything working.
Lack of Flash support - a proprietary closed exploit-ridden hellhole -
sorry, I mean - "application" - that's in no way tied to FreeBSD and
controlled by a legendarily uncompetent company that blantantly refuses
to release a FreeBSD version of this very fine and awesome rootkit (a
good decision that one can only support, so really, what's the issue) is
hardly something that could even remotely be FreeBSD's fault. I mean,
this is what we're talking about:
http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=adobe+flash
But even in a completely hypothetical scenario where Flash wouldn't be
the world's most famous never-ending exploit carnival in the entire
existence of the universe, how that makes FreeBSD less desktop friendly
or less desktop capable? Adobe decided to not release their software on
FreeBSD (again, thank you Adobe, that's a thousand less attack vectors
daily to worry about), but there is no issue with FreeBSD with regard to
that, isn't it? This isn't the case that "FreeBSD broke the Flash" (ok,
this isn't funny anymore), there was never any FreeBSD Flash in the
first place. So no FreeBSD issue exists, or at least I can't see it, or
maybe I simply don't get something here.
There is also no Microsoft Windows Management Console for FreeBSD, does
it make FreeBSD lacking, insufficient, or broken in some specific server
area?
1. Lack of good flash support is most definitely not FreeBSD's fault.
But if you want easy to use flash support, you don't care who's fault it
is, you just care where you can get it.
2. I have found i386 flash support works well on FreeBSD. But on the
amd64, my experience was that it was very flaky. (But I do agree that
Windows is also flaky.)
3. Whether or not the use wants the ability to install a proprietary
closed exploit-ridden hellhole depends upon what they want. If they
want to go to movie web sites and view the latest trailers complete with
all the flashy add ons, then FreeBSD is not the way to go. Of course,
if your idea of a good desktop experience is as a software development
environment, or to write math papers in latex, or to check email with
little to no risk of acquiring the latest virus, FreeBSD wins out hands
down.
Stephen
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
