[转载·英文]FreeBSD is Not Windows

lsstarboy

  !=  
(FreeBSD is Not Windows)

If you've been pointed at thispage, then the chances are you're a relatively new FreeBSD userwho's having some problems making the switch from Windows toFreeBSD. This causes many problems for many people, hence thisarticle was written. Many individual issues arise from this singleproblem, so the page is broken down into multiple problemareas.

Problem #1: FreeBSD isn't exactly the same asWindows.

You'd be amazed how many peoplemake this complaint. They come to FreeBSD, expecting to findessentially a free, open-source version of Windows. Quite often,this is what they've been told to expect by over-zealous FreeBSDusers. However, it's a paradoxical hope.

The specific reasons why peopletry FreeBSD vary wildly, but the overall reason boils down to onething: They hope FreeBSD will be better than Windows. Commonyardsticks for measuring success are cost, choice, performance, andsecurity. There are many others. But every Windows user who triesFreeBSD, does so because they hope it will be better than whatthey've got.

Therein lies theproblem.

It is logically impossible forany thing to be better than any other thing whilst remainingcompletely identical to it. A perfect copy may be equal, but it cannever surpass. So when you gave FreeBSD a try in hopes that itwould be better, you were inescapably hoping that it would bedifferent. Too many people ignore this fact, and hold up everydifference between the two OSes as a FreeBSD failure.

As a simple example, considerdriver upgrades: one typically upgrades a hardware driver onWindows by going to the manufacturer's website and downloading thenew driver; whereas in FreeBSD you upgrade the port or the basesystem.

This means that a singleFreeBSD download & upgrade will give you the newest driversavailable for your machine, whereas in Windows you would have tosurf to multiple sites and download all the upgrades individually.It's a very different process, but it's certainly not a bad one.But many people complain because it's not what they're usedto.

Or, as an example you're more likely to relateto, consider Firefox: One of the biggest open-source successstories. A web browser that took the world by storm. Did it achievethis success by being a perfect imitation of IE, thethen-most-popular browser?

No. It was successful because it wasbetter than IE, and it wasbetter because it wasdifferent. It had tabbedbrowsing, live bookmarks, built-in searchbar, PNG support, adblockextensions, and other wonderful things. The "Find" functionality appeared in atoolbar at the bottom and looked for matches as you typed, turningred when you had no match. IE had no tabs, no RSS functionality,searchbars only via third-party extensions, and a find dialoguethat required a click on "OK" to start looking and a click on"OK" to clear the"Not found" error message.A clear and inarguable demonstration of an open-source applicationachieving success by being better, and being better by beingdifferent. Had FF been an IE clone, it would have vanishedinto obscurity. And had FreeBSD been a Windows clone, the samewould have happened.

So the solution to problem #1: Remember thatwhere FreeBSD is familiar and the same as what you're used to, itisn't new & improved.Welcome the places where things are different, because only heredoes it have a chance to shine.
Problem #2: FreeBSD is too different fromWindows

The next issue arises whenpeople do expect FreeBSD to be different, but find that somedifferences are just too radical for their liking. Probably thebiggest example of this is the sheer amount of choice available toFreeBSD users. Whereas an out-of-the-box-Windows user has theClassic or XP desktop with Wordpad, Internet Explorer, and OutlookExpress installed, an out-of-the-box-FreeBSD user has Gnome orKDE or Fluxbox or whatever to choose from, with vi or emacs orkate, Konqueror or Opera or Firefox or Mozilla, and so on and soforth.

A Windows user isn't used tomaking so many choices just to get up & running. Exasperated"Does there have to be so much choice?" posts are verycommon.

Does FreeBSD really have to be so different from Windows? After all,they're both operating systems. They both do the same job: Poweryour computer & give you something to run applications on.Surely they should be more or less identical?

Look at it this way: Stepoutside and take a look at all the different vehicles driving alongthe road. These are all vehicles designed with more or less thesame purpose: To get you from A to B via the roads. Note thevariety in designs.

But, you may be thinking, cardifferences are really quite minor: they all have a steering wheel,foot-pedal controls, a gear stick, a handbrake, windows &doors, a petrol tank. . . If you can drive one car, you can driveany car!

Quite true. But did you not seethat some people weren't driving cars, but were riding motorbikesinstead. . ?

Switching from one version ofWindows to another is like switching from one car to another. Win95to Win98, I honestly couldn't tell the difference. Win98 to WinXP,it was a bigger change but really nothing major.

But switching from Windows toFreeBSD is like switching from a car to a motorbike. They may bothbe OSes/roadvehicles. Theymay both use the same hardware/roads. They may both provide an environment for you to runapplications/transport you from A to B. But they use fundamentallydifferent approaches to do so.

Windows/carsare not safe fromviruses/theft unless youinstall an antivirus/lock thedoors. FreeBSD/motorbikes don't haveviruses/doors, so areperfectly safe without you having to install an antivirus/lock anydoors.

Or look at it the other wayround:

FreeBSD/carswere designed from theground up for multiple users/passengers. Windows/motorbikes were designed forone user/passenger. EveryWindows user/motorbikedriver is used to being in full control of his computer/vehicle at all times. AFreeBSD user/car passengeris used to only being in control of his computer/vehicle when logged in as root/sitting in thedriver's seat.

Two different approaches tofulfilling the same goal. They differ in fundamental ways. Theyhave different strengths and weaknesses: A car is the clear winnerat transporting a family & a lot of cargo from A to B: Moreseats & more storage space. A motorbike is the clear winner atgetting one person from A to B: Less affected by congestion anduses less fuel.

There are many things thatdon't change when you switch between cars and motorbikes:You still have to put petrol in the tank, you still have to driveon the same roads, you still have to obey the traffic lights andStop signs, you still have to indicate before turning, you stillhave to obey the same speed limits.

But there are also many thingsthat do change: Car drivers don't have to wear crashhelmets, motorbike drivers don't have to put on a seatbelt. Cardrivers have to turn the steering wheel to get around a corner,motorbike drivers have to lean over. Car drivers accelerate bypushing a foot-pedal, motorbike drivers accelerate by twisting ahand control.

A motorbike driver who tries tocorner a car by leaning over is going to run into problems veryquickly. And Windows users who try to use their existingskills and habits generally also find themselves having manyissues. In fact, Windows "Power Users" frequently have moreproblems with FreeBSD than people with little or no computerexperience, for this very reason. Typically, the most vehement"FreeBSD is not ready for the desktop yet" arguments comefrom ingrained Windows users who reason that if theycouldn't make the switch, a less-experienced user has no chance.But this is the exact opposite of the truth.

So, to avoid problem #2: Don'tassume that being a knowledgeable Windows user means you're aknowledgeable FreeBSD user: When you first start with FreeBSD, youare a novice.

Problem #3: Culture shockSubproblem #3a: Thereis a culture

Windows users are more or lessin a customer-supplier relationship: They pay for software, forwarranties, for support, and so on. They expect software to have acertain level of usability. They are therefore used to havingrights with their software: They have paid for technical supportand have every right to demand that they receive it. They are alsoused to dealing with entities rather than people: Their contractsare with a company, not with a person.

FreeBSD users are in moreof a community. They don't have to buy the software, they don'thave to pay for technical support. They download software for free& use instant messaging and web-based forums to get help. Theydeal with people, not corporations.

A Windows user will not endearhimself by bringing his habitual attitudes over to FreeBSD, toput it mildly.

The biggest cause of frictiontends to be in the online interactions: A "3a" user new to FreeBSDasks for help with a problem he's having. When he doesn't get thathelp at what he considers an acceptable rate, he starts complainingand demanding more help. Because that's what he's used to doingwith paid-for tech support. The problem is that thisisn't paid-for support. This is a bunch of volunteers whoare willing to help people with problems out of the goodness oftheir hearts. The new user has no right to demand anything fromthem, any more than somebody collecting for charity can demandlarger donations from contributors.

In much the same way, a Windowsuser is used to using commercial software. Companies don't releasesoftware until it's reliable, functional, and user-friendly enough.So this is what a Windows user tends to expect from software: Itstarts at version 1.0. FreeBSD software, however, tends to getreleased almost as soon as it's written: It starts at version 0.1.This way, people who really need the functionality can get it ASAP;interested developers can get involved in helping improve the code;and the community as a whole stays aware of what's goingon.

If a "3a" user runs intotrouble with FreeBSD, he'll complain: The software hasn't met hisstandards, and he thinks he has a right to expect that standard.His mood won't be improved when he gets sarcastic replies like"I'd demand a refund if I were you"

So, to avoid problem #3a:Simply remember that you haven't paid the developer who wrote thesoftware or the people online who provide the tech support. Theydon't owe you anything.

Subproblem #3b: New vs. Old

FreeBSD pretty much started out life as ahacker's hobby. It grew as it attracted more hobbyist hackers. Itwas quite some time before anybody but a geek stood a chance ofgetting a useable FreeBSD installation working easily. FreeBSDstarted out "By geeks, forgeeks." And even today, the majority of established FreeBSDusers are self-confessed geeks.

And that's a pretty good thing: If you've gota problem with hardware or software, having a large number of geeksavailable to work on the solution is a definite plus.

But FreeBSD has grown up quite a bit since itsearly days. The latest release is easier to install than ever,there are even versions that live on CDs and detect all yourhardware for you without any intervention. It's becomeattractive to non-hobbyist users who are just interested in itbecause it's virus-free and cheap to upgrade. It's not uncommon forthere to be friction between the two camps. It's important to bearin mind, however, that there's no real malice on either side: It'slack of understanding that causes the problems.

Firstly, you get the hard-core geeks who stillassume that everybody using FreeBSD is a fellow geek. This meansthey expect a high level of knowledge, and often leads toaccusations of arrogance, elitism, and rudeness. And in truth,sometimes that's what it is. But quite often, it's not: It'selitist to say "Everybodyought to know this". It's not elitist tosay "Everybody knowsthis" - quite the opposite.

Secondly, you get the new users who'retrying to make the switch after a lifetime of using commercialOSes. These users are used to software that anybody can sit down& use, out-of-the-box.

The issues arise because group 1 is madeup of people who enjoy being able to tear their OS apart andrebuild it the way they like it, while group 2 tends to beindifferent to the way the OS works, so long as it does work.

A parallel situation that can emphasize theproblems is Lego. Picture the following:

New: Iwanted a new toy car, and everybody's raving about how great Legocars can be. So I bought some Legos, but when I got home, I justhad a load of bricks and cogs and stuff in the box. Where's mycar??

Old: Youhave to build the car out of the bricks. That's the whole point ofLegos.

New: What??I don't know how to build a car. I'm not a mechanic. How am Isupposed to know how to put it all together??

Old: There'sa leaflet that came in the box. It tells you exactly how to put thebricks together to get a toy car. You don't need to know how, youjust need to follow the instructions.

New: Okay, Ifound the instructions. It's going to take me hours! Why can't theyjust sell it as a toy car, instead of making you have to buildit??

Old: Becausenot everybody wants to make a toy car with Legos. It can be madeinto anything we like. That's the whole point.

New: I stilldon't see why they can't supply it as a car so people who want acar have got one, and other people can take it apart if they wantto. Anyway, I finally got it put together, but some bits come offoccasionally. What do I do about this? Can I glue it?

Old: It's Lego. It's designed tocome apart. That's the whole point.

New: But Idon't want it to comeapart. I just want a toy car!

Old: Then why on earth did you buy a box ofLegos??

It's clear to just about anybody that Legosare not really aimed at people who just want a toy car. You don'tget conversations like the above in real life. The whole point ofLegos are that you have fun building it and you can make anythingyou like with it. If you've no interest in building anything, Legosare not for you. This is quite obvious.

As far as the long-time FreeBSD user isconcerned, the same holds true for FreeBSD: It's an open-source,fully-cusomizeable set of software. That's the whole point. If youdon't want to hack the components a bit, why bother to use it?

But there's been a lot of effort lately tomake FreeBSD more suitable for the non-hackers, a situation that'snot a million miles away from selling pre-assembled Lego kits, inorder to make it appeal to a wider audience. Hence you getconversations that aren't far away from the ones above:Newcomers complain about the existence of what the establishedusers consider to be fundamental features, and resent having theread a manual to get something working.  Butcomplaining that software has too many configuration options;or that it doesn't work perfectly out-of-the-box; is likecomplaining that Legos can be made into too many models, and notliking the fact that it can be broken down into bricks and builtinto many other things.

So, to avoid problem #3b: Just remember thatwhat FreeBSD seems to be now is not what FreeBSD was in the past. Thelargest and most necessary part of the FreeBSD community, thehackers and the developers, like FreeBSD because they can fit it together theway they like; they don't like it in spite of having to do all the assemblybefore they can use it.

Problem #4: Designed for thedesigner

In the car industry, you'll very rarely findthat the person who designed the engine also designed the carinterior: It calls for totally different skills. Nobody wants anengine that only lookslike it can go fast, and nobody wants an interior that workssuperbly but is cramped and ugly. And in the same way, in thesoftware industry, the user interface (UI) is not usually createdby the people who wrote the software.

In the FreeBSD world, however, this is not somuch the case: Projects frequently start out as one man's toy. Hedoes everything himself, and therefore the interface has no need ofany kind of "userfriendly" features: The user knows everything there is toknow about the software, he doesn't need help. Vi is a good exampleof software deliberately created for a user who already knows howit works: It's not unheard of for new users to reboot theircomputers because they couldn't figure out how else to get out ofvi.

However, there is an important differencebetween a FOSS programmer and most commercial software writers: Thesoftware a FOSS programmer creates is software that he intends touse. So whilst the end result might not be as 'comfortable' for thenovice user, they can draw some comfort in knowing that thesoftware is designed by somebody who knows what the end-users needsare: He too is an end-user. This is very different from commercialsoftware writers, who are making software for other people to use: They arenot knowledgeableend-users.

So whilst vi has an interface that ishideously unfriendly to new users, it is still in use today becauseit is such a superb interface once you know how it works. Firefoxwas created by people who regularly browse the Web. The Gimp wasbuilt by people who use it to manipulate graphics files. And soon.

So FreeBSD interfaces are frequently a bit ofa minefield for the novice: Despite its popularity, vi should neverbe considered by a new user who just wants to quickly make a fewchanges to a file. And if you're using software early in itslifecycle, a polished, user-friendly interface is somethingyou're likely to find only in the "ToDo" list: Functionality comesfirst. Nobody designs a killer interface and then tries to addfunctionality bit by bit. They create functionality, and thenimprove the interface bit by bit.

So to avoid #4 issues: Look for softwarethat's specifically aimed at being easy for new users to use, oraccept that some software that has a steeper learning curve thanyou're used to. To complain that vi isn't friendly enough for newusers is to be laughed at for missing the point.

Problem #5: The myth of "user-friendly"This is a big one. It's a very big term in the computing world,"user-friendly". It's even the name of a particularly goodwebcomic. But it's a bad term.
The basic concept is good: That software be designed with theneeds of the user in mind. But it's always addressed as a singleconcept, which it isn't.
If you spend your entire life processing text files, your idealsoftware will be fast and powerful, enabling you to do the maximumamount of work for the minimum amount of effort. Simple keyboardshortcuts and mouseless operation will be of vital importance.
But if you very rarely edit text files, and you just want towrite an occasional letter, the last thing you want is to strugglewith learning keyboard shortcuts. Well-organized menus and clearicons in toolbars will be your ideal.
Clearly, software designed around the needs of the first userwill not be suitable for the second, and vice versa. So how can anysoftware be called "user-friendly", if we all have differentneeds?
The simple answer: User-friendly is a misnomer, and one thatmakes a complex situation seem simple.
What does "user-friendly" really mean? Well, in the context inwhich it is used, "user friendly" software means "Software that can be used to a reasonablelevel of competence by a user with no previous experience ofthe software." This has the unfortunate effect ofmaking lousy-but-familiar interfaces fall into the category of"user-friendly".
Subproblem #5a: Familar is friendlySo it is that in most "user-friendly" text editors & wordprocessors, you Cut and Paste by using Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V. Totallyunintuitive, but everybody's used to these combinations, so theycount as a "friendly" combination.
So when somebody comes to vi and finds that it's "d" to cut, and"p" to paste, it's not considered friendly: It's not what anybodyis used to.
Is it superior? Well, actually, yes.
With the Ctrl-X approach, how do you cut a word from thedocument you're currently in? (Nousing the mouse!)
From the start of the word, Ctrl-Shift-Right to select theword.
Then Ctrl-X to cut it.The vi approach? dwdeletes the word.
How about cutting fivewords with a Ctrl-X application?
From the start of the words, Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-XAnd with vi?
d5w
The vi approach is far more versatile and actuallymore intuitive: "X" and "V" are not obvious or memorable "Cut"and "Paste" commands, whereas "dw" to delete aword,and "p" to put it back isperfectly straightforward. But "X" and "V" are what we all know, sowhilst vi is clearly superior, it's unfamiliar. Ergo, it isconsidered unfriendly. On no other basis, pure familiarity makes aWindows-like interface seem friendly. And as we learned in problem#1, FreeBSD is necessarily different to Windows. Inescapably,FreeBSD always appears less "user-friendly" than Windows.
To avoid #5a problems, all you can really do is try and rememberthat "user-friendly"doesn't mean "What I'm usedto": Try doing things your usual way, and if it doesn'twork, try and work out what a total novice would do.
Subproblem #5b: Inefficient is friendlyThis is a sad but inescapable fact. Paradoxically, the harderyou make it to access an application's functionality, thefriendlier it can seem to be.
This is because friendliness is added to an interface by usingsimple, visible 'clues' - the more, the better. After all, if acomplete novice to computers is put in front of a WYSIWYG wordprocessor and asked to make a bit of text bold, which is morelikely:

• He'll guess that "Ctrl-B" is the usualstandard
  

• He'll look for clues, and try clicking on the "Edit" menu. Unsuccessful, he'll trythe next likely one along the row of menus: "Format". The new menu has a    "Font" option, which seemspromising. And Hey! There's our "Bold" option. Success!
  

Next time you do any processing, try doing every job via themenus: No shortcut keys, and no toolbar icons. Menus all the way.You'll find you slow to a crawl, as every task suddenly demands amultitude of keystrokes/mouseclicks.
Making software "user-friendly" in this fashion is like puttingtraining wheels on a bicycle: It lets you get up & runningimmediately, without any skill or experience needed. It'sperfect for a beginner.But nobody out there thinks that all bicycles should be sold withtraining wheels: If you were given such a bicycle today, I'll wagerthe first thing you'd do is remove them for being unnecessaryencumbrances: Once you know how to ride a bike, training wheels areunnecessary.And in the same way, a great deal of FreeBSD software isdesigned without "training wheels" - it's designed for users whoalready have some basic skills in place. After all, nobody's apermanent novice: Ignorance is short-lived, and knowledge isforever. So the software is designed with the majority inmind.
This might seem an excuse: After all, MS Word has all thefriendly menus, and it hastoolbar buttons, and ithas shortcut keys. . . Best of all worlds, surely?Friendly andefficient.
However, this has to be put into perspective: Firstly, thepracticalities: having menus and toolbars and shortcuts and allwould mean a lot of coding, and it's not like FreeBSD developersall get paid for their time. Secondly, it still doesn't reallytake into account serious power-users: Very few professionalwordsmiths use MS Word. Ever meet a coder who used MS Word? Comparethat to how many use emacs & vi.
Why is this? Firstly, because some "friendly" behaviour rulesout efficient behaviour: See the "Cut&Copy" example above. Andsecondly, because most of Word's functionality is buried in menusthat you have to use: Onlythe most common functionality has those handy little buttons intoolbars at the top. The less-used functions that are still vitalfor serious users just take too long to access.
Something to bear in mind, however, is that "training wheels"are often available as "optional extras" for FreeBSD software: Theymight not be obvious, but frequently they're available.
Take mplayer. You use it to play a video file by typingmplayer filename in aterminal. You fastforward & rewind using the arrow keys and thePageUp & PageDown keys. This is not overly "user-friendly".However, if you instead type gmplayer filename, you'll get thegraphical frontend, with all its nice, friendly , familiarbuttons.
Take ripping a CD to MP3 (or Ogg): Using the command-line, youneed to use cdparanoia to rip the files to disc. Then you needan encoder. . . It's a hassle, even if you know exactly how touse the packages (imho).So download & install something like Grip. This is aneasy-to-use graphical frontend that uses cdparanoia and encodersbehind-the-scenes to make it really easy to rip CDs, and even hasCDDB support to name the files automatically for you.
The same goes for ripping DVDs: The number of options to pass totranscode is a bit of a nightmare. But using dvd::rip to talk totranscode for you makes the whole thing a simple, GUI-based processwhich anybody can do.
So to avoid #5b issues: Remember that "training wheels" tend tobe bolt-on extras in FreeBSD, rather than being automaticallysupplied with the main product. And sometimes, "training wheels"just can't be part of the design.
Problem #6: Imitation vs. ConvergenceAn argument people often make when they find that FreeBSD isn'tthe Windows clone they wanted is to insist that this is whatFreeBSD has been (or should have been) attempting to besince it was created, and that people who don't recognise this andhelp to make FreeBSD more Windows-like are in the wrong. They drawon many arguments for this:

FreeBSD has gone fromCommand-Line- to Graphics-based interfaces, a clear attempt to copyWindows

Nice theory, but false: The original X windowing system wasreleased in 1984, as the successor to the W windowing system portedto Unix in 1983. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. Windows didn'treally make it big until version 3, released in 1990 - by whichtime, X windows had for years been at the X11 stage we use today.FreeBSD itself was only started in 1993 (and has direct lineagegoing as far back as the 1970s). So FreeBSD didn't create aGUI to copy Windows: It simply made use of a GUI that existed longbefore Windows.

Windows 3 gave way to Windows 95 -making a huge level of changes to the UI that Microsoft has neverequalled since. It had many new & innovative features: Drag& drop functionality; taskbars, and so on. All of which havesince been copied by FreeBSD, of course.

Actually. . . no. All the above existed prior to Microsoftmaking use of them. NeXTSTeP in particular was a hugely advanced(for the time) GUI, and it predated Win95 significantly - version 1released in 1989, and the final version in 1995.

Okay, okay, so Microsoft didn'tthink up the individual features that we think of as the WindowsLook-and-Feel. But it still created aLook-and-Feel, and FreeBSD has been trying to imitate that eversince.

To debunk this, one must discuss the concept of convergentevolution. This is where two completely different andindependent systems evolve over time to become very similar. Ithappens all the time in biology. For example, sharks and dolphins.Both are (typically) fish-eating marine organisms of about the samesize. Both have dorsal fins, pectoral fins, tail fins, and similar,streamlined shapes.
However, sharks evolved from fish, while dolphins evolved from aland-based quadrupedal mammal of some sort. The reason they havevery similar overall appearances is that they both evolved to be asefficient as possible at living within a marine environment. At nostage did pre-dolphins (the relative newcomers) look at sharks andthink "Wow, look at those fins. They work really well. I'll tryand evolve some myself!"
Similarly, it's perfectly true to look at early FreeBSD desktopsand see FVWM and TWM and a lot of other simplistic GUIs. And thenlook at modern FreeBSD desktops, and see Gnome & KDE with theirtaskbars and menus and eye-candy. And yes, it's true to say thatthey're a lot more like Windows than they used to be.
But then, so is Windows: Windows 3.0 had no taskbar that Iremember. And the Start menu? What Start menu?
FreeBSD didn't have a desktop anything like modern Windows.Microsoft didn't either. Now they both do. What does this tellus?
It tells us that developers in both camps looked for ways ofimproving the GUI, and because there are only a limited number ofsolutions to a problem, they often used very similar methods.Similarity does not in any way prove or imply imitation.Remembering that will help you avoid straying into problem #6territory.
Problem #7: That FOSS thing.Oh, this causes problems. Not intrinsically: The software beingfree and open-source is a wonderful and immensely important part ofthe whole thing. But understanding just how different FOSS is fromproprietary software can be too big an adjustment for some peopleto make.
I've already mentioned some instances of this: People thinkingthey can demand technical support and the like. But it goes farbeyond that.
Microsoft's Mission Statement is "A computer on every desktop" - withthe unspoken rider that each computer should be running Windows.Microsoft and Apple both sell operating systems, and both do theirutmost to make sure their products get used by the largest numberof people: They're businesses, out to make money.
And then there is FOSS. Which, even today, is almost entirelynon-commercial.
FreeBSD was not created by a company, and is not maintained bypeople out to make a profit with it. The GNU tools were not createdby a company, and are not maintained by people out to make a profitwith them. The X11 windowing system. . . well, the most popularimplementation is xorg right now, and the ".org" part should tell you all youneed to know. Desktop software: Well, you might be able to make acase for KDE being commercial, since it's Qt-based. But Gnome,Fluxbox, Enlightenment, etc. are all non-profit. There are people out to sell FreeBSD, butthey are very much the minority.
Increasing the number of end-users of proprietary software leadsto a direct financial benefit to the company that makes it. This issimply not the case for FOSS: There is no direct benefit to anyFOSS developer in increasing the userbase. Indirect benefits, yes:Personal pride; an increased potential for finding bugs; morelikelihood of attracting new developers; possibly a chance of agood job offer; and so on.
But FreeBSD doesn't make money from increased FreeBSDusage. Richard Stallman doesn't get money from increased GNU usage.All those servers running OpenBSD and OpenSSH don't put a pennyinto the OpenBSD project's pockets. And so we come to the biggestproblem of all when it comes to new users and FreeBSD:
They find out they're not wanted.
New users come to FreeBSD after spending their lives using an OSwhere the end-user's needs are paramount, and "user friendly" and "customer focus" are consideredveritable Holy Grails. And they suddenly find themselves using anOS that still relies on 'man' files, thecommand-line, hand-edited configuration files, and Google. Andwhen they complain, they don't get coddled or promised betterthings: They get bluntly shown the door.
That's an exaggeration, of course. But it is how a lot of potential FreeBSDconverts perceived things when they tried and failed to make theswitch.
In an odd way, FOSS is actually a very selfish developmentmethod: People only work on what they want to work on, when theywant to work on it. Most people don't see any need to make FreeBSDmore attractive to inexperienced end-users: It already doeswhat they want it todo, why should they care if it doesn't work for otherpeople?
FOSS has many parallels with the Internet itself: You don't paythe writer of a webpage/thesoftware to download and read/installit. Ubiquitousbroadband/User-friendly interfaces are of no great interestto somebody who already  has broadband/knowshow to use the software. Bloggers/developers don't need tohave lots of readers/usersto justify blogging/coding. Thereare lots of people makinglots of money off it, but it's not by the old-fashioned"I own this and you have topay me if you want some of it" method that most businessesare so enamoured of; it's by providing services like tech-support/e-commerce.
FreeBSD is not interested in market share. FreeBSD does nothave customers. FreeBSD does not have shareholders, or aresponsibility to the bottom line. FreeBSD was not created to makemoney. FreeBSD does not have the goal of being the most popular andwidespread OS on the planet.
All the FreeBSD community wants is to create a really good,fully-featured, free operating system. If that results in FreeBSDbecoming a hugely popular OS, then that's great. If that results inFreeBSD having the most intuitive, user-friendly interface evercreated, then that's great. If that results in FreeBSD becoming thebasis of a multi-billion dollar industry, then that's great.
It's great, but it's notthe point. The point is tomake FreeBSD the best OS that the community is capable of making.Not for other people: For itself. The oh-so-common threatsof "FreeBSD will never takeover the desktop unless it does such-and-such" are simplyirrelevant: The FreeBSD community isn't trying to take over the desktop. Theyreally don't care if it gets good enough to make itonto your desktop, solong as it stays good enough to remain on theirs. The highly-vocal MS-haters,pro-FreeBSD zealots, and money-making FOSS purveyors might be loud,but they're still minorities.
That's what the FreeBSD community wants: an OS that can beinstalled by whoever really wants it. So if you're consideringswitching to FreeBSD, first ask yourself what you really want.
If you want an OS that doesn't chauffeur you around, but handsyou the keys, puts you in the driver's seat, and expects you to know what to do:Get FreeBSD. You'll have to devote some time to learning how to useit, but once you've done so, you'll have an OS that you can makesit up and dance.
If you really just want Windows without the malware and securityissues: Read up on good security practices; install a goodfirewall, malware-detector, and anti-virus; replace IE with amore secure browser; and keep yourself up-to-date with securityupdates. There are people out there (myself included) who've used Windowssince 3.1 days right through to XP without ever being infected witha virus or malware: you can do it too. Don't get FreeBSD: It willfail miserably at being what you want it to be.
If you really want the security and performance of a Unix-basedOS but with a customer-focussed attitude and an world-renownedinterface: Buy an Apple Mac. OS X is great. But don't get FreeBSD:It will not do what you want it to do.
It's not just about "Whyshould I want FreeBSD?". It's also about "Why should FreeBSD want me?"






http://vtbsd.net/notwindows.html

lsstarboy

偶然看到这篇文章，感觉说的很不错，希望英文好的同学能给翻译一下。

BSDtoy

FreeBSD无法取代Windows的原因究竟是什么？
http://bbs.chinaunix.net/thread-3725693-1-1.html

蛮多肉

英文翻译了

味道就变了

zymh_zy

里面用的英文也很简单易懂，凑合着看吧。也不必要要翻译成中文。。