Ramiro Aceves writes: > There are not a myth, they are a fact. I have seen bluescreens > frecuently in win95 and winMillenium.
Neither of these is based on NT, and both are dead products. > Now I am out of the winbugs world since 2 years and I am very happy. Perhaps longer than that, if you think Windows 95 is still current. > Sure X is the culprit. I agree. FreeBSD is stable without the GUI. If the GUI were purely a userland program, there'd be no problem--but GUIs are never pure userland programs. > I need the GUIs for my daily work. Electronic circuit design software > requires GUI, imaging editing requieres GUI, and because of that many > people needs a GUI, but that is not a reason to use Winbugs. You have to use whatever platform supports your chosen application. > I have seen also winXP computers here at University that do very weird > things everyday. Users at universities do very weird things to their computers. In particular, university computers tend to be cesspools of viruses and worms. It's a wonder they run at all. > Why not choosing Linux or FreeBSD for the desktop? Because the leading desktop is Windows, with a quarter-million or so applications written for it. Why do things the hard way when one can do them the easy way? > I can choose a windowmanager among decens, I have many apps that > perform the same or better than the winbugs counterparts, and the best > of all, they are *free* and do not depend on any comercial enterprise. Quite a few applications for Windows are free or very inexpensive as well. > I do not need too much bells and whistles to fell confortable at the > desktop. A fluxbox window manager is perfect for me. The important > thing are the apps, not the desktop. Then why use a GUI at all? GUIs are nothing more than bells and whistles. -- Anthony _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
