[openbeos] Re: Hi I am new and I have questions
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:52:46 -0500
>>Poor you :-)
>
>Why poor? you should really emphsize the ";-)" more in this sentence ....
He probably should have, but I certainly understood it, and I think that most
people did. ;-)
I mean - this is a BeOS related list... ;-) ;-) ;-)
>The only advantage i have found from user-view is the blazingly fast gui.
>and thats a HUGE advantage. For example the networking is rather poor in
>BeOS...
You know, people keep saying that... And I guess from a certain point of view,
it is
probably true. I know the technical aspects of it... But let me just ask...
Unless you are writing a web server (i.e. apache) or admin'ing a network (and
need traceroute),
who cares? I mean - I use Win2K at work (poor me) and R5 here. I can't detect
any reasonable difference
between the two for networking. Both get me my email, both surf web sites. Both
do what *AVERAGE*
users want. In fact, as a desktop OS, I can't think of too much that I would do
to improve
R5's networking. Now, sure, as a coder, I want it to work with select. And
needing to start additional
threads can make my code a little tougher to write. But it isn't as bad as
people seem to think, IMHO.
I think that time is *WAY* better spent thinking about new features and such
than dwelling on this.
>Maybe it's because (as i see it) linux is more meant for
>networked-PCs/serrvers and BeOS is multimedia/desktop-only...
Exactly. If there is a downfall to Linux, it will be in the fact that there is
no one to say "no". Sure, Linus runs the kernel. But there is no overarching
vision
for the WHOLE system. Linux doesn't have a stated goal of "We will be the best
server OS" or "we will be a desktop OS" or "we will run everywhere". There is a
lot of
energy in the Linux community that is flowing into stuff that either never
happens or
no one cares about.
*PERSONALLY*, I think that if the Linux community ever really wanted to get
serious
about an alternative to Windows, they would ... come here. Why? Simple. Despite
some
implementation issues, I think that most people would agree that BeOS is one of
the, if not
the best desktop experience ever. I have used about everything out there
(except OSX).
And the desktop experience is why I am here. That and the API.
>But to mention it again: the fast gui is the reason why i use BeOS, and it
>is the reason why i use windows. I haven't found a fast, good looking gui
>for *nix.
>If there would be a decent gui i think much more people would use linux.
>But what to do if the X architecture is pretty much the only one available
>for graphics on *nix?
There are a *TON* more reasons. How about the nice configuration? You can set
up and run
BeOS for years without ever editing a configuration file. How about boot time?
How about never
needing to fsck or defrag your hard drive. How about workspaces (Windows
doesn't have this) or
a standard, decent look and feel (which X doesn't have). And don't even get me
started on the API.
BeOS is still, IMHO, the place to be. And not just for one reason, but for 20
or more. Does that mean
that we do not still have challenges and issues? Heck no. This is not the
Promised Land. Not yet. But
this is better than (if you will pardon the metaphor) Microsoft Egypt or the
wandering in the Linux desert.
Other related posts:
