Freebsd vs. linux

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
> 
> 
>>The main difference between a desktop and a server is a server
>>needs beefy disk I/O or beefy CPU power or both, while a desktop
>>needs beefy video and can often make due with piss-poor disk I/O.
> 
> 
> A desktop also needs a GUI, whereas a server is better off without it.
> 
> 
>>While a desktop is USUALLY optimized for the video, and saves
>>money by using poor I/O, and a server vis-versa, if you had unlimited
>>funds you could certainly put a hardware RAID card on your desktop
>>and have an equivalent to the server.
> 
> 
> There's still the GUI issue, though.
> 

That's a matter of point of view. If the user using FBSD uses a WM of 
his/her choice, and they are happy with the way if works - there isn't 
an issue.

As for me, I have FBSD 5.3 as a desktop and as servers here. Windows is 
completely out of the mix. My WM does exactly what I expect it to do.

I am able to use the ports to do the work needed. I am able to use Word 
and Excel file with zero issues.

My email is flawless (to me) and it does exactly what I wand and need it 
to do - so, there are many of us where a "GUI" under FBSD isn't an issue.

It's not fair to make a blanket comment as you have done. Now if it was 
phrased more like,

To me, there's still the GUI issue, though.

Then there is merit. You simply can't make a blanket comment. It does 
not apply.
-- 
Best regards,
Chris

Never offend people with style
when you can offend them with substance.