No more linux for me...

[ple3003]

By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows!

Yeah...  or at least it feels like kind of bloat.
Have given it a try a few times, but it is too wierd to be something for me. Sure, it can be made to look god. Great networking capabilities, and pretty viri-free. But far too strange to be my chioce of desktop OS.

[T_Bone]

> basically use my computer for surfing and some simple
> web-design. I want a small, fast OS without web-servers,
> advanced backup utilities (I burn everything to CD), and
> three zillion other utilities that I have no use for.

Don't install the webserver, the advanced backup utilities, and the three zillion other utilities you have no use for...

That's like saying Windows is bloated because you have no need for Photoshop.... don't install Photoshop!

[amigamad]

Its not more bloated it just depends on what software you select when installing it you can have a minimal system or a bloated but usable system .


Try this one just 50 meg download live cd boots from cd http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ :-)

[ptek]

Seehund wrote:

With the Linux distros you get a bazillion of optional software packages included on the CD:s. If you don't want the web servers, backup utils et c., you don't have to install it. If you install it, you don't have to use/run it.

Well ... almost.  Linux programs have a *lot* of dependencies!  If you need to install packge X which needs some files from package Y, then you need to install Y too.

Now, if Y needs Z ... You guess !

I remember when I tried debian 3 years ago, and I just wanted to install a 200KB utility on my tiny HD:

Due to the dependecies, I lost 60MB on a snap ! Just because the 200KB utility I need to install.

That same day, I got fed up with linux.

[Tomas]

I agree that linux is far from the best OS on desktop. I certainly believe it is better than windows though, much faster on my system atleast, even my k6 450.

Remember to not install unecesarry services and programs that you will not use, removing those will highly increases both boot speed and memory.

I kinda like debian, even fast on older hw, but is a bit more complicated than mandrake and such.

You could also try knoppix, which is a live-cd distro based on debian, but includes a install script  :-)

[lempkee]

windows is bloatware .

linux is NERDware .

i dont need to relive the 80's so i stick to better options


btw why are m$ making a bloat os and call it embedded ? and why is longhorn supposed to be TERMINAL structure based ? i mean m$ have no clue about dooing non bloated stuff

[KennyR]

By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows!

I can't wait to hear the justification for this one...

Windows only comes on one CD.

[Tomas]

KennyR wrote:

By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows!

I can't wait to hear the justification for this one...

Windows only comes on one CD.

linux comes on one single floppy  ;-)

[Tomas]

I still think the best OS for x86 pcs was BEOS... booted fast, no reboots, stable and VERY user friendly, without limiting the more experienced users.

[Kronos]

@Tomas

Tried BeOS last year (one of these yellow-tab/Zeta-thingies),and can only
say,what a POS ........

1) It didn't install on the laptop,cos some smart-assume opted for
1024x768 on the installer. Connected my 18" TFT to the VGA-out, installed
changed the res (kinda hard to find), looking good and on the internal
screen. Rebooted, had 800x600, but only on the vga-connector......

2) There was some stupid "tip-of-the-day" crap,but it had no obvious way to
shut it up like the ones found in KDEor even Win98.

3) Doing that by hand affected lots of other apps...


The best PC-OS I ever came across (not counting Amithlon  ;-)  ) was QNX,
but that has even less "user-SW" than AOS....

[T_Bone]

I didn't like QNX, not because anything was "wrong" with it or anything, it just bored me.

[Plaz]

It didn't used to be. I used to use a version of slackware that did every thing I needed on a network except a GUI and it did it all in 11 meg of HD. Now the latest RH9 takes about 1.2gig? And that's for a basic install. Sure you can strip it down for less features and space, but what a pain. More and more lately I'm reminded why I like amiga.

Plaz

[Tomas]

BeOS had one flaw.. It did not have much support for hardware, but that is not reallly the fault of the OS, but the giant monopoly that microsoft has.

2) There was some stupid "tip-of-the-day" crap,but it had no obvious way to

I did not have such a problem, i have never tried yellowtab zeta though, but BeOS itself "5.0" had for sure no such problem.

The biggest strength of beos is that there was rarely/no need for reboots.. you could install a new nic card, gfx, soundcard and so on without rebooting at all!

The best PC-OS I ever came across (not counting Amithlon  ) was QNX,

I had a very different experience with QNX on x86... It sure looked nice, but locked up in less than 5minutes without any reason at all..
Though this is also probably due to lack of decent drivers due to the evil monopoly of microsoft.

[Crumb]

@mickeymick
"I can't wait to hear the justification for this one..."

well, simply try to run windows 95 on a 486/66 and then run redhat 5 for example... scary uh? not scared yet? now load openoffice in linux and office in windows...
now install mandrake suse or any distro on a 166mmx with 128MB of ram... now install windowsXP with the same config... uh windows runs faster yeah? (I say this because I have windowsXP installed on a 166mmx with 128MB without all the eye-candy and it runs far better than linux.

[fx]

I tried Windows 2000 on an old Pentium 200 with 64 MB of Ram and it was painfully slow, Debian runs fine on that setup. I ran Windows XP on a P2 333 with 128 MB Ram, it works but it's slow. Debian ran very good on that setup.

In linux it all depends on whatever Window Manager and similiar stuff you're running, on the computer with 64 MB Ram Window Maker was very nice, and on the P2 I used Gnome/SawFish.

But yes, some Linux dists. like Red Hat feels as bloated as Windows, well not really but almost. With Linux and a 2GB install you atleast get a few webbrowser, complete dev system and similiar but in Windows you get one crappy Web Browser, a crappy paint program, a crappy  Media Player and not much more worth mentioning.

[Tomas]

well, simply try to run windows 95 on a 486/66 and then run redhat 5 for example... scary uh? not scared yet? now load openoffice in linux and office in windows...

I had debian 3.0 running on my 133@200 p1 "overclocked", 64 megs of ram... It ran far better on debian than both win9x, win2k and winNT 4.0 did, i even had a bunch of servers running, web server, routing,  irc server and so on...

I am pretty sure you install the default package, which means there is loads of stuff installed that you usually have no need for... also redhat in itself seems to be slow, debian is by far faster on my systems  :-)  Also with such a low end system, it might be wise to recompile the kernel.