On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Jerome Herman <jher...@dichotomia.fr>wrote:
> On 18/07/2011 22:22, Jerry wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:44:15 -0500 >> Gary Gatten articulated: >> >> <snip> >>> >>> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when >>> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not >>> much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc. >>> >>> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions >>> of Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into >>> the enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD >>> did in the last 30. >>> >> I think the explanation is rather simple, "Give the user what he wants, >> not what you think he wants." >> > I would highly advise against doing such a thing. So much evil in "Ask me > what you want, I will give you what you asked." > I did this only once, some stupid foe in management asked me to activate > and send him every little warning of anything that would happen to the > production servers. > I advise against it, but he insisted, I then stubbornly refused and he > threaten to have me fired. > So I activated the every thing SNMP trap I could think of and forwarded > him. In the first hour, even before any backup or maintenance operation, he > received about 10 000 mails. > > You are never going to satisfy every >> conceivable user, so concentrate on the core users. Microsoft has done >> that extremely well. On the latest Windows 7, getting wireless up and >> running is the most effortless thing I have done in awhile. >> > Keeping it up is a different beast, not even mentioning the constant > disconnect/reconnect operations if by any chance you sit between two AP, you > will learn new meanings for pain if your wifi is not natively supported by > windows. > Most of the time Windows wifi management, and closed vendors wifi > management do not get along too well. True there were huge progress made in > Windows 7, but honestly I still do prefer the FreeBSD approach were I can > choose my AP once and for all. > > > Windows >> does everything but fill in the password. On FreeBSD, well lets just >> say if that even if they had a driver for the wireless card I have >> installed, getting it up and running would be another matter. Correct >> me if I am wrong, but even "network manager" is not available on >> FreeBSD is it? >> > I never saw the use of the tool "network manager" under Linux. Very > honestly I turn it off and remove it as soon as I can. The only thing it > ever did to me is giving headaches. > FreeBSD forces you to pick your wireless card carefully. But it is not a > huge problem. > > > I have not checked in awhile. I know that there are some >> programs listed, but none of them work as seamlessly as Microsoft's. It >> is a basic truism in any business that in order to beat your rival, you >> have to produce a better product or one that costs less and >> still maintains the same basic usability. >> > FreeBSD users are expected to be able to read and to use this ability. Sure > this does cut FreeBSD from quite a lot of potential users, but then again > making an OS for people who do not want to read the manual is a very bad > idea. > > Simply creating a free product >> that is not as usable is not enough. If you cannot accomplish that, >> then at least try to create the illusion of it. FreeBSD has failed at >> the goal also. >> >> > From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems >>> >>>> applications just work on Linux? When I need to compile an app, it >>>> takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD. >>>> Granted someone more knowledgeable with FBSD, Compilers, etc. could >>>> do it much faster than I. >>>> >>> Anyway, if someone has a brief explanation of why Linux has >>> apparently triumphed (in so far as installed base, desktop >>> penetration, etc.) where so many others have failed (including IBM >>> with OS/2) I'd be interested in hearing those thoughts. >>> >> OS/2 was IBM's fault from the beginning. They insisted that it be tied >> to the 286 processor. Gates attempted to talk them out of it in a >> famous meeting in Armonk, NY. IBM refused and effectively wrote it's own >> death sentence with OS/2. As with any product, first impressions are >> crucial. Their first one failed. Unfortunately, so many FOSS pundits >> have not learned this simple lesson. >> > > >> From Wikipedia: >> >> OS/2 1.x targeted the 80286 processor: IBM insisted on supporting the >> Intel 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, due to >> commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2's >> because of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2.[16] Until release 2.0 in >> April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not >> benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model >> and virtual 8086 mode features. This was especially painful in >> providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1 >> could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including >> expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still >> limited to one 640KB "DOS box". >> >> >> Sorry Guys...... I just had to nail down the Subject Topic and correct it.... > > ______________________________**_________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions<http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-** > unsubscr...@freebsd.org <freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org>" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
