darren kirby writes:
I think your interpretation here is a tad glib.
I think it's right on the money. The entire Linux movement is fueled by hatred for Microsoft. And the ultimate goal of the Linux movement is to build an OS that walks, talks, and quacks like Microsoft Windows, but doesn't come from Redmond.
I do not think that the ultimate goal of the Linux movement is to
build an OS that walks, talks, and quacks, the goal of Linux is to make a OS that can do whatever you want. It can talk, walk if you need it, it can be a server if you need it. It is a matter of configuring it for your needs.
To me, that seems like a waste of time and energy.
I do not understand ...
The idea in itself of building an alternative desktop operating system is fine. But why does it have to look like Windows? The more closely a system approaches the look and feel of Windows, the less reason there is to use that system instead of Windows.
My Linux system do not look like windows, and never will. For example, many people use wmaker as a window manager, and I does not have anything to do with windows looking.
Do not generalize when you use the word Linux, not every linux distribution has got the same goals.
And why use UNIX as a basis for a desktop GUI? Just because it's there?
Because if you use a GUI ontop a better kernel, the resultint OS will be better, and again, they are free and MS is not free.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
