RE: Explaining FreeBSD features
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fafa Hafiz >Krantz >Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:56 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Explaining FreeBSD features > > > >Hello. > >Thank you all for everything so far. > >But I am not looking for comparisons. > >I am looking for stuff that has been written so that people can >understand. > >Let's say this: > >Multi-threaded SMP architecture capable of executing the kernel >in parallel on multiple processors, and with kernel preemption, >allowing high priority kernel tasks to preempt other kernel >activity, reducing latency. This includes a multi-threaded >network stack and a multi-threaded virtual memory subsystem. >With FreeBSD 6.x, support for a fully parallel VFS allows the >UFS file system to run on multiple processors simultaneously, >permitting load sharing of CPU-intensive I/O optimization. > >In the real world, that ought to sound more like: > >FreeBSD includes support for symmetric multiprocessing and >multithreading. This makes the kernel lock down levels of >interfaces and buffers, minimizing the chance of threads on >different processors blocking each other, to give maximum >performance on multiprocessor systems. > Fafa, I've seen these kinds of efforts before and they are all generally doomed to failure. You see, the problem is that FreeBSD is not a general computer operating system product. It is a very specific product in fact. Now, the USES that FreeBSD can be put to are VERY general. BUT, do NOT make the mistake of confusing the fact that just because FreeBSD can be put to general use, that somehow it is a general product. It is not. FreeBSD is targeted at 2 main groups of people: 1) Very knowledgeable people who are using it for personal, or in-house corporate projects. 2) Very knowledgeable people who are using it to construct turnkey systems for customers who couldn't care less what is under the hood. By contrast, Windows and Linux are in fact, general computer operating system products. They are targeted at groups #1 and #2, but they are also targeted at group #3 which are: 3) People who barely know how to push a button who have a problem they need to fix with a computer operating system, and they really don't care if they understand how the fix works as long as it works. This gives rise to a rather serious Catch-22 with FreeBSD: You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works and how computer software that runs on it works in order to get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it works. Windows and Linux solved this Catch-22 by dumbing-down the interface to their operating systems. Thus, an ignoramus can get up and running with both of these systems, and that person can remain fat, dumb, and happy, completely ignorant of what he is doing, and those systems will still work enough to get the job done. It may be a half-assed fix, but it is better than nothing. FreeBSD by contrast, long ago decided not to do this. For starters, if you dumbed-down the FreeBSD interface, then to most people FreeBSD wouldn't be any different than Linux or Windows, so why mess with it? But, most importantly, a dumbed-down interface gets in the way of a knowledgeable person, and over time becomes a tremendous liability. With FreeBSD, the only way that a newbie can break the Catch-22 is old-fashioned mental elbow grease. In short, by learning a bit at a time, expanding on that, and repeating the process. It is a long slow way to get to know anything, but once you get there, you really do know everything in intimate detail. This isn't a popular thing to tell newbies. Ted >Thanks. > >-- > >Fafa Hafiz Krantz > Research Designer @ http://www.home.no/barbershop > Enlightened @ http://www.home.no/barbershop/smart/sharon.pdf > > > >-- >___ >Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com >http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > >___ >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Explaining FreeBSD features
Ted Mittelstaedt said: > FreeBSD is targeted at 2 main groups of people: > > 1) Very knowledgeable people who are using it for personal, or > in-house corporate projects. > > 2) Very knowledgeable people who are using it to construct > turnkey systems for customers who couldn't care less what is > under the hood. > > By contrast, Windows and Linux are in fact, general computer > operating system products. They are targeted at groups #1 and > #2, but they are also targeted at group #3 which are: > > 3) People who barely know how to push a button who have a problem > they need to fix with a computer operating system, and they > really don't care if they understand how the fix works as long > as it works. > > > This gives rise to a rather serious Catch-22 with FreeBSD: > > You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works > and how computer software that runs on it works in order to > get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it > works. > > Windows and Linux solved this Catch-22 by dumbing-down the > interface to their operating systems. Thus, an ignoramus > can get up and running with both of these systems, and that > person can remain fat, dumb, and happy, completely ignorant > of what he is doing, and those systems will still work enough > to get the job done. It may be a half-assed fix, but it is > better than nothing. > > FreeBSD by contrast, long ago decided not to do this. For > starters, if you dumbed-down the FreeBSD interface, then to > most people FreeBSD wouldn't be any different than Linux > or Windows, so why mess with it? But, most importantly, a > dumbed-down interface gets in the way of a knowledgeable person, > and over time becomes a tremendous liability. > I agree that these 3 groups exist and that FreeBSD is probably not appropriate for those in group #3. However, I think there is another group that is not represented here. That would be those that are not in group #3 because they DO care about understanding how things work, but are also not in groups #1 or #2 because, although they may be relatively knowledgeable about computers when compared to group #3, they have never used a non-Microsoft OS. Lets call these people group #4. I think that, although Linux aspires to group #3, it is actually from group #4 which they gain most of their "converts". The efforts that Linux has made to "dumb down" their interface make it easier for those in group #4 to understand because it is closer to what they already know. I think that projects like PCBSD are also targeting group #4 by lowering the bar for entry into the "enlightened" world of BSD. Having installed PCBSD a while back, I was impressed with the easy installation. Although I, being a somewhat experienced FreeBSD user, would prefer more control over the installation process, I feel confident in recommending PCBSD to friends in group #4. This is something I had stopped doing with FreeBSD because of the hand-holding necessary just to get it installed and configured enough to be even remotely usable by someone with their experience. > With FreeBSD, the only way that a newbie can break the Catch-22 is > old-fashioned mental elbow grease. In short, by learning a bit > at a time, expanding on that, and repeating the process. It is a > long slow way to get to know anything, but once you get there, you > really do know everything in intimate detail. > > This isn't a popular thing to tell newbies. > I agree that there is no substitute for this learning process. Perhaps the generally high level of technical knowledge of those in the FreeBSD community can be attributed more to the weeding-out process of having to break this Catch-22 than to anything else. However, I can see benefits of lowering the "cost-of-admission" a little by making the installation easier, as PCBSD has done. Making it easier for newbies to get started with this learning process will increase the number who find they have what it takes to see it through and become valuable members of the FreeBSD community. -- Warren Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: SPAM: Score 2.0: RE: Explaining FreeBSD features
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You see, the problem is that FreeBSD is not a general computer > operating system product. It is a very specific product in fact. I have to take exception to this, and your amplification of it later on. FreeBSD is a very general operating system. It may not fill the "newbie" and "casual" ecological niches, but it fills so many others that you can't consider it specific. Despite protestations to the contrary, FreeBSD does make a good desktop and workstation. It might not be suitable for a newbie's desktop, but it's been working just fine as my desktop for several years now. For a corporate office with a dedicated systems administrator, there's nothing at all stopping a successful rollout of FreeBSD on the company desktops. You are telling us not to get confused by the -use- of a system, but you're making a very similar mistake getting confused by the -users- of a system. What makes a system general or specific is its functionality and accessibility. You've split users up into two broad categories, those who are "very knowledgeable", and those who "barely know how to push a button." Are you saying that FreeBSD is unsuitable for "moderately knowledgeable" people? If so, I had better stop using it. What about people who are only "somewhat technical" but who are willing to read the documentation when they get stuck? > You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works > and how computer software that runs on it works in order to > get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it > works. I have absolutely no idea how the ULE scheduler works or what the heck a "giant lock" is that everything is trying to get out from under. Does this mean I shouldn't be using FreeBSD? David ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Explaining FreeBSD features
> Fafa, I've seen these kinds of efforts before and they are all > generally doomed to failure. > > You see, the problem is that FreeBSD is not a general computer > operating system product. It is a very specific product in fact. > > Now, the USES that FreeBSD can be put to are VERY general. BUT, > do NOT make the mistake of confusing the fact that just because > FreeBSD can be put to general use, that somehow it is a general > product. It is not. > > FreeBSD is targeted at 2 main groups of people: > > 1) Very knowledgeable people who are using it for personal, or > in-house corporate projects. > > 2) Very knowledgeable people who are using it to construct > turnkey systems for customers who couldn't care less what is > under the hood. > > By contrast, Windows and Linux are in fact, general computer > operating system products. They are targeted at groups #1 and > #2, but they are also targeted at group #3 which are: > > 3) People who barely know how to push a button who have a problem > they need to fix with a computer operating system, and they > really don't care if they understand how the fix works as long > as it works. My 11 year old sister uses KDE and OpenOffice fine on FreeBSD. I think the problem arrives when setting these things up. Once these are setup, it's almost the same as Windows in my personal opinion. I once seen an Internet Cafe using FreeBSD on about 40+ machines with KDE. Am sure these users hardly noticed the difference. We should be promoting that what can be done on Linux(in terms of desktop usage) can be done on FreeBSD. > > > This gives rise to a rather serious Catch-22 with FreeBSD: > > You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works > and how computer software that runs on it works in order to > get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it > works. I disagree. By 'intimately' do you mean the internals? > > Windows and Linux solved this Catch-22 by dumbing-down the > interface to their operating systems. Thus, an ignoramus > can get up and running with both of these systems, and that > person can remain fat, dumb, and happy, completely ignorant > of what he is doing, and those systems will still work enough > to get the job done. It may be a half-assed fix, but it is > better than nothing. > > FreeBSD by contrast, long ago decided not to do this. For > starters, if you dumbed-down the FreeBSD interface, then to > most people FreeBSD wouldn't be any different than Linux > or Windows, so why mess with it? But, most importantly, a > dumbed-down interface gets in the way of a knowledgeable person, > and over time becomes a tremendous liability. > > With FreeBSD, the only way that a newbie can break the Catch-22 is > old-fashioned mental elbow grease. In short, by learning a bit > at a time, expanding on that, and repeating the process. It is a > long slow way to get to know anything, but once you get there, you > really do know everything in intimate detail. > > This isn't a popular thing to tell newbies. > > Ted > -- - Liam J. Foy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Explaining FreeBSD features
On Mon(20)/Jun/05 - , Fafa Hafiz Krantz wrote: > > Hello. > > I am curious why it's so difficult to get a simple and straight > forward list of FreeBSD's features, that normal people can understand? > > I am trying to write one of the largest articles ever to be published > on www.PCWorld.no -- to only say good things about FreeBSD. But I want > it clear what good things to say. Will this large article reach a large audience? =) > > http://www.freebsd.org/features.html is alright, but not the best. > Using super-advanced jargons, it says what they are, but not what they do. > At least not in a way normal people can understand. > > http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/ aims more towards the general > public, and does the job a little better. How ever they don't even > mention half of FreeBSD's features. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html is very, very good. > I get the feeling though, that it ain't like that no more. > > Any idea, people? > > Thanks! > > -- > > Fafa Hafiz Krantz > Research Designer @ http://www.bleed.no > > > -- > ___ > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > ___ > freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- - Liam J. Foy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Explaining FreeBSD features
>-Original Message- >From: Liam J. Foy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:38 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Fafa Hafiz Krantz; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Explaining FreeBSD features > > >> Fafa, I've seen these kinds of efforts before and they are all >> generally doomed to failure. >> >> You see, the problem is that FreeBSD is not a general computer >> operating system product. It is a very specific product in fact. >> >> Now, the USES that FreeBSD can be put to are VERY general. BUT, >> do NOT make the mistake of confusing the fact that just because >> FreeBSD can be put to general use, that somehow it is a general >> product. It is not. >> >> FreeBSD is targeted at 2 main groups of people: >> >> 1) Very knowledgeable people who are using it for personal, or >> in-house corporate projects. >> >> 2) Very knowledgeable people who are using it to construct >> turnkey systems for customers who couldn't care less what is >> under the hood. >> >> By contrast, Windows and Linux are in fact, general computer >> operating system products. They are targeted at groups #1 and >> #2, but they are also targeted at group #3 which are: >> >> 3) People who barely know how to push a button who have a problem >> they need to fix with a computer operating system, and they >> really don't care if they understand how the fix works as long >> as it works. > >My 11 year old sister uses KDE and OpenOffice fine on FreeBSD. Your 11 year old sister didn't set it up. You did. YOU, not her, are the "customer" that FreeBSD is targeted at. >I think the >problem arrives when setting these things up. Once these are >setup, it's almost >the same as Windows in my personal opinion. I once seen an >Internet Cafe using >FreeBSD on about 40+ machines with KDE. Am sure these users >hardly noticed the >difference. > They did. That Internet Cafe met group #2. They constructed a turnkey system for their customers to use. >We should be promoting that what can be done on Linux(in terms >of desktop usage) >can be done on FreeBSD. > Absolutely. Just understand that the only people that this message does any good with are the more intelligent members of the computing public who are sick and tired of Windows and are ready to go to a real operating system. The average wanna-be power user does not have the patience or intelligence or whatever to read through a lot of instructions first, instead he just wants it to work like Windows - ie: stick in the install CD and be led by the hand through the setup process and end up with a cookie-cutter desktop like what everyone else has. >> >> >> This gives rise to a rather serious Catch-22 with FreeBSD: >> >> You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works >> and how computer software that runs on it works in order to >> get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it >> works. > >I disagree. By 'intimately' do you mean the internals? > No. I am using the word as a convenient label meaning "understanding that inside the CPU there's this thing called a processor that runs machine instruction code that is compiled from software written in a language called C, yadda yadda yadda..." In other words, you have to be the kind of person that is willing to sit down and read the instructions FIRST before plugging it in and snapping switches on. And even doing that you won't understand all the instructions until after you have turned it on and worked with it a little bit. Most consumers today (at least in the US) are used to every product they encounter, from a toaster to a car to a VCR, being built to be operated by the average 8 year old, so they are pretty lazy. Hell, a lot of products don't even come with instructions anymore since just about everyone that got the product immediately threw the instructions in the garbage. Linux today is written for these people, FreeBSD isn't. And, no amount of articles and how to guides is going to change that. Ted ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Explaining FreeBSD features
Hi, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Let's say this: Multi-threaded SMP architecture capable of executing the kernel in parallel on multiple processors, and with kernel preemption, allowing high priority kernel tasks to preempt other kernel activity, reducing latency. This includes a multi-threaded network stack and a multi-threaded virtual memory subsystem. With FreeBSD 6.x, support for a fully parallel VFS allows the UFS file system to run on multiple processors simultaneously, permitting load sharing of CPU-intensive I/O optimization. In the real world, that ought to sound more like: FreeBSD includes support for symmetric multiprocessing and multithreading. This makes the kernel lock down levels of interfaces and buffers, minimizing the chance of threads on different processors blocking each other, to give maximum performance on multiprocessor systems. The same old question pops up: what is the target audience. You see, the problem is that FreeBSD is not a general computer operating system product. It is a very specific product in fact. What is then the difference to Windows in this case? FreeBSD is targeted at 2 main groups of people: FreeBSD is used by the two groups. But it is not said that it could not be used by the third group. 3) People who barely know how to push a button who have a problem they need to fix with a computer operating system, and they really don't care if they understand how the fix works as long as it works. I do not think that it the design of Windows which makes it target. It is the kind of support people with no knowledge get which makes it. This gives rise to a rather serious Catch-22 with FreeBSD: You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works and how computer software that runs on it works in order to get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it works. I do not think so. If people with no knowledge would get proper answers when they run into problems instead of the hint to read the manual would help a lot here. Those people will end in your group 2 which got the system setup by someone else. Windows and Linux solved this Catch-22 by dumbing-down the interface to their operating systems. Thus, an ignoramus can get up and running with both of these systems, and that person can remain fat, dumb, and happy, completely ignorant of what he is doing, and those systems will still work enough to get the job done. It may be a half-assed fix, but it is better than nothing. What is the difference to FreeBSD if the system is running once? FreeBSD by contrast, long ago decided not to do this. For starters, if you dumbed-down the FreeBSD interface, then to most people FreeBSD wouldn't be any different than Linux or Windows, so why mess with it? But, most importantly, a dumbed-down interface gets in the way of a knowledgeable person, and over time becomes a tremendous liability. There is no need for an interface like this if the people starting with no computer knowledge would get proper help just to get the machine up and running. With FreeBSD, the only way that a newbie can break the Catch-22 is old-fashioned mental elbow grease. In short, by learning a bit at a time, expanding on that, and repeating the process. It is a long slow way to get to know anything, but once you get there, you really do know everything in intimate detail. Let it tell me this way. I have a neighbour who has a Ph.D. in biology. If she would give me the same answer when it comes to gardening, I would stop gardening as I do not want to know the background. All I want to know is how I can get rid of a special kind of pest. Erich ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Explaining FreeBSD features
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:05:32 -0700 "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fafa Hafiz > >Krantz > >Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:56 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Explaining FreeBSD features > > > > > > > >Hello. > > > >Thank you all for everything so far. > > > >But I am not looking for comparisons. > > > >I am looking for stuff that has been written so that people can > >understand. > > > >Let's say this: > > > >Multi-threaded SMP architecture capable of executing the kernel > >in parallel on multiple processors, and with kernel preemption, > >allowing high priority kernel tasks to preempt other kernel > >activity, reducing latency. This includes a multi-threaded > >network stack and a multi-threaded virtual memory subsystem. > >With FreeBSD 6.x, support for a fully parallel VFS allows the > >UFS file system to run on multiple processors simultaneously, > >permitting load sharing of CPU-intensive I/O optimization. > > > >In the real world, that ought to sound more like: > > > >FreeBSD includes support for symmetric multiprocessing and > >multithreading. This makes the kernel lock down levels of > >interfaces and buffers, minimizing the chance of threads on > >different processors blocking each other, to give maximum > >performance on multiprocessor systems. > > > > Fafa, I've seen these kinds of efforts before and they are all > generally doomed to failure. > > You see, the problem is that FreeBSD is not a general computer > operating system product. It is a very specific product in fact. > > Now, the USES that FreeBSD can be put to are VERY general. BUT, > do NOT make the mistake of confusing the fact that just because > FreeBSD can be put to general use, that somehow it is a general > product. It is not. > > FreeBSD is targeted at 2 main groups of people: > > 1) Very knowledgeable people who are using it for personal, or > in-house corporate projects. > > 2) Very knowledgeable people who are using it to construct > turnkey systems for customers who couldn't care less what is > under the hood. > > By contrast, Windows and Linux are in fact, general computer > operating system products. They are targeted at groups #1 and > #2, but they are also targeted at group #3 which are: > > 3) People who barely know how to push a button who have a problem > they need to fix with a computer operating system, and they > really don't care if they understand how the fix works as long > as it works. > > > This gives rise to a rather serious Catch-22 with FreeBSD: > > You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works > and how computer software that runs on it works in order to > get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it > works. Nah, you can be willing to learn as well. FreeBSD was my first venture in to the world of UNIX. My choice was I found finding info on it easier than Linux and I had some one willing to teach me. > Windows and Linux solved this Catch-22 by dumbing-down the > interface to their operating systems. Thus, an ignoramus > can get up and running with both of these systems, and that > person can remain fat, dumb, and happy, completely ignorant > of what he is doing, and those systems will still work enough > to get the job done. It may be a half-assed fix, but it is > better than nothing. Not in the case of FreeBSD. In the case of FreeBSD, it would be a bad idea. It would result in a lot of badly supported users. It can be done, but with a system based on FreeBSD, with a something layed over it to help those people out. Ignorant useless users should be supported by commercial ventures, not community ones. They will just drag the community down with their weight if they don't help out. > FreeBSD by contrast, long ago decided not to do this. For > starters, if you dumbed-down the FreeBSD interface, then to > most people FreeBSD wouldn't be any different than Linux > or Windows, so why mess with it? But, most importantly, a > dumbed-down interface gets in the way of a knowledgeable person, > and over time becomes a tremendous liability. > > With FreeBSD, the only way that a newbie can break the Catch-22 is > old-fashioned mental elbow grease. In short, by learning a bit > at a time, expanding on that, and repeating the process. It is a > long slow way to get to know anything, but once you get there, you > really do know everything in intimate detail. I found the handbook to be useful in this area. ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Explaining FreeBSD features
Hi, Vulpes Velox wrote: Ignorant useless users should be supported by commercial ventures, not community ones. They will just drag the community down with their weight if they don't help out. This would be the real tough one. There should also be a way to write some kind of descripton for the people between. I found the handbook to be useful in this area. Yes, if you understand it. It is written be serious IT professionals for serious IT professionals. Even a serious none IT professional has problems understanding it. Our problem is that we all do not know the people who would speak the language none IT professionals understand. The original writer sounds like being skilled enough to have serious try on this one if he gets the information he needs for this. Erich ___ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Explaining FreeBSD features
>-Original Message- >From: Warren Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:17 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Fafa Hafiz Krantz; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Explaining FreeBSD features > > >Ted Mittelstaedt said: >> FreeBSD is targeted at 2 main groups of people: >> >> 1) Very knowledgeable people who are using it for personal, or >> in-house corporate projects. >> >> 2) Very knowledgeable people who are using it to construct >> turnkey systems for customers who couldn't care less what is >> under the hood. >> >> By contrast, Windows and Linux are in fact, general computer >> operating system products. They are targeted at groups #1 and >> #2, but they are also targeted at group #3 which are: >> >> 3) People who barely know how to push a button who have a problem >> they need to fix with a computer operating system, and they >> really don't care if they understand how the fix works as long >> as it works. >> >> >> This gives rise to a rather serious Catch-22 with FreeBSD: >> >> You need to really understand intimately how FreeBSD works >> and how computer software that runs on it works in order to >> get it to work well enough for you to learn intimately how it >> works. >> >> Windows and Linux solved this Catch-22 by dumbing-down the >> interface to their operating systems. Thus, an ignoramus >> can get up and running with both of these systems, and that >> person can remain fat, dumb, and happy, completely ignorant >> of what he is doing, and those systems will still work enough >> to get the job done. It may be a half-assed fix, but it is >> better than nothing. >> >> FreeBSD by contrast, long ago decided not to do this. For >> starters, if you dumbed-down the FreeBSD interface, then to >> most people FreeBSD wouldn't be any different than Linux >> or Windows, so why mess with it? But, most importantly, a >> dumbed-down interface gets in the way of a knowledgeable person, >> and over time becomes a tremendous liability. >> > >I agree that these 3 groups exist and that FreeBSD is probably not >appropriate for those in group #3. However, I think there is another >group that is not represented here. That would be those that are not in >group #3 because they DO care about understanding how things >work, but are >also not in groups #1 or #2 because, although they may be relatively >knowledgeable about computers when compared to group #3, they have never >used a non-Microsoft OS. Lets call these people group #4. > That group isn't targeted by FreeBSD or Linux which is why I didn't include it. In fact there are several other groupings of non-Windows operating system consumers that you could make. For the sake of discussion, your group #4 is too broad. Rather, group 4 is divided into the knowledgeable non-UNIX users (4a) and the wannabe non-UNIX users (4b). >I think that, although Linux aspires to group #3, it is actually from >group #4 which they gain most of their "converts". The efforts >that Linux >has made to "dumb down" their interface make it easier for >those in group >#4 to understand because it is closer to what they already know. > The Windows users that Linux 'converts' are pretty much 4b users. These are people who consider themselves power users, and know just enough to be dissatisfied with Windows. But, they will not make the effort needed to really understand how something works. Linux allows them to use a non-Windows OS without really understanding it, which is what they want. The 4a users, by contrast, may be attracted to Linux initially due to the ease-of-entry issue your bringing up. But they try it and find out that it's dumbed-down interface gets in the way just as much as the Windows dumbed-down interface. That's where I think the majority of new FreeBSD converts come from - people that started with Windows, outgrew it, tried Linux for a while and got disgusted with the hand-holding, then went to FreeBSD and never looked back. >I think that projects like PCBSD are also targeting group #4 by lowering >the bar for entry into the "enlightened" world of BSD. Having installed >PCBSD a while back, I was impressed with the easy installation. > Although >I, being a somewhat experienced FreeBSD user, would prefer more control >over the installation process, I feel confident in recommending PCBSD to >friends in group #4. This is something I had stopped doing with FreeBSD >because of the hand-holding necessary just to get it installed and >configured enough to be even remotely usable by someone with their >experience. > The question you have to ask is: are your Group 4b friends who end up liking PCBSD eventually graduating to the full FreeBSD system? If they aren't, then PCBSD isn't meeting a goal of acting as a transition from Windows to FreeBSD. Now maybe PCBSD is going to have an independent future in it's own right, if so more power to it. But how will that help FreeBSD? > >I agree that there is no substitute for this learning proc
