Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: whabang on September 30, 2003, 08:54:05 AM
-
By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows! :-o
-
By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows!
Wonder why those bashing linux are using it at all? :roll:
It's ain't that bad, despite that I only use it when I have to. :-)
-
Wonder why those bashing linux are using it at all?
I had to try it to get an opinion, right? :-)
-
Uh, is that possible?
-
Yes.
I assume that it can be modified, but I ain't got the time for that. :-(
-
whabang wrote:
By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows! :-o
No, Windows just hides it's bloat... Linux hangs it out for all to see..
-
@ whabang
Try Gentoo (http://www.gentoo.org/)!
-
Will do!
-
By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows!
I can't wait to hear the justification for this one...
-
Well its still got a long way to go, but its quite good if your an advanced computer user. Its a bit complicated for most people. If it ever gets past that M$ may have some serious threat on it hands. Its all about finding a build you like and cant fit to your tastes.
-
I can't wait to hear the justification for this one...
Quite simple actually,
I 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.
Not that Windows is better, at least Linux have never crashed on me. :-)
-
@Acill
Probably,
So far I've only been running Mandrake and Vector linux. I'm sure there's plenty of distros that would duit my needs better...
-
whabang wrote:
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.
Not that Windows is better, at least Linux have never crashed on me. :-)
Seems to me like you would prefer Linux then, at least from an anti-bloat perspective compared to Windows. 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. With Windows you rarely have a choice, everything is part of Windows, and you don't get a ton of apps included to choose from.
From a RAM-usage and speed perspective, I personally find a full X/GNOME/KDE install at least as lean and snappy as WinXP on the same hardware. But that by itself is maybe not a ringing endorsement... ;) A modern, graphical Linux desktop is more fun on modern hardware, just like a modern Windows version.
I usually go nuts and install everything I think I could possibly find a use for some rainy day - it doesn't waste RAM/CPU if I don't run it, and disk space is cheap... ;)
-
by whabang on 2003/9/30 8:35:19
So far I've only been running Mandrake and Vector linux. I'm sure there's plenty of distros that would duit my needs better...
Personally, I like RedHat since it can default to a fairly barebones install to moderate barebone install depending on which option you chose at install. You can add/delete apps/libs further into the install options at you wishes. I perfer, if I have a large HD, to install everything and turn off what I'm not using. It's better to have it and not use until needed then trying to get it installed with a zillion dependencies bitching about something.
As far as bloat, it's probably XWindows is doing it. This is the reason I said years ago that if Amiga had slapped on a WB on Linux kernel, we would be jamming like Mac's OSX. Linux really needs a light weight GUI system. Maybe a future AROS side project? ;)
Dammy
-
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.
-
> 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!
-
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/ (http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/) :-)
-
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.
-
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 :-)
-
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 :)
-
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. ;)
-
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 ;-)
-
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.
-
@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....
-
I didn't like QNX, not because anything was "wrong" with it or anything, it just bored me.
-
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
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
whabang wrote:
By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows! :-o
I have NO idea where you get that idea!
I have red hat and windows2000 installed on my laptop.
I only installed what i wanted and needed on the linux side. it works great and fast. yes, linux has wierd things about it, but it's more fun than windows.
i make my web pages in linux, and when i have an external modem i can go online easily.
it's not perfect and i had help ("nerd" friend. thank you!) installing it.
but, really, for BIG fun an amiga is always best! :-D
-
Tomas wrote:
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.
Aye! That was an OS of my liking...
-
By the gods! It's even more bloated than Windows!
Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, unless you're talking about the PnP capabilities of Linux, and all the chipset bugfixes compiled right into the kernel (I don't need a patch for an Intel chipset in my kernel if I'm using nForce, dammit!)
So far, I've tried 8 distributions of Linux. All of them I found unsuitable for my needs because they were slow and didn't detect my hardware correctly, and xFree86 is a joke when it comes to stability. Still, all distros give you options on what to put on when you're installing. You don't have to have the webserver installed. I believe there's a few 50-100 Meg distros of Linux out there. Of course, if all you do is browse the Internet, Windows will suit you fine... or even a Mac.
What I wish a lot more people realized is that "Linux" is just a kernel. It's all the other stuff piled on top that leads to the bloat. The GNU shell and utilities aren't bad for bloat, but are pretty poorly designed for ordinary people. XFree86 isn't very nice, and whether it's easy to configure depends largely on what kind of hardware you're using.
It'd be nice to see a distro of Linux with an entirely new shell and GUI. I like Linux as a kernel, but I hate the way the whole system is put together as a desktop, which is why I think Linux will never gain a foothold in the PC market. Probably just as well. Linux people like doing things their own way.
As for Windows, if you're sick of the bloat of XP, I hightly recommend Windows2000. It's much smaller, and stability is top notch. You just have to give up some of your older games. So long as it runs Buggers, Dungeon Keeper, and Porsche Unleashed (with the ACT patch), I'm happy with it. :-D
-
Disable the eyecandy, the option of seeing directories as web-pages, animation in menus etc and you will see that it runs far better than linux.
Of course if your time has no value you can spend your life customizing and recompiling linux to make it run more or less decently.
Sadly linux apps and the OS itself sucks and openoffice crawls...
-
For me, Linux just isn't as responsive as windoze :-o Yes, I might be using KDE, but thats comparable to the windows shell.
I have very little experience of OS architecture, but to me, parts of a modern GNU/Linux distro seems to me to be a mishmash - yes, I've also been through dependency hell! :madashell:
Finally, i hate the way that the heavyweight desktop environments (Gnome and KDE) claim to be really innovative - but all they do is copy windows :roll: For instance, I'm convinced that there are better ways to organise programs than a "Start" menu - KDE and Gnome devs had the chance to innovate, and decided to clone explorer instead :-(
-
Finally, i hate the way that the heavyweight desktop environments (Gnome and KDE) claim to be really innovative - but all they do is copy windows For instance, I'm convinced that there are better ways to organise programs than a "Start" menu - KDE and Gnome devs had the chance to innovate, and decided to clone explorer instead
This is one of my biggest problems with Linux, and people who herald Linux as the OS that will destroy Windows. Fact is, many of these people have no originality whatsoever. They're cloning windows to make people think that is *IS* Windows, and maybe that will convince people to use their crummy desktops. What we really need is a new set of utilities to make up for the deficiencies in the system. Instead, we get... well, I'm still upset that RedHat 5 was basicly a PIXEL-PER-PIXEL COPY of Windows 95, right down to the shape, size, and colors of the window gadgets. They even put "START" on the Start Menu! I mean, COME ON. The only thing that was different was the organization of Start Menu items, or rather, the lack of organization. I actually got rid of RedHat 5 faster than any other distro because it left such a bad impression on me.
Even the AmigaDE mock-up screen shots look like some original thought went into them. Linux people really don't seem to be very interested. But, what do you expect from people doing stuff for free? They do only what interests them, and not "customers", which is why I'm not a big fan of free software, anyway.
-
I 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.
I've never seen a Linux distro installer that you couldn't choose to install totally unnecessary stuff.
X however, is a valid target for "bloatware" criticisms. How many typical Windows users need a GUI interface that can run over TCP/IP?
-
I think Linux is good, especially for server. I love Gentoo, it is really optimal! :-)
-
yeah, would be nice to see some alternative to xfree86 someday...
-
but all they do is copy windows
It sure goes the completly other way too... Take for example the linux login managers, XP one is starting to really look like the ones on linux. Also the new start menu feature"that multiple opened programs/folders end up under same button" that is in XP, seems to have been stolen from KDE. KDE had this feature before XP. WinNT, 2k/xp has alot of bsd code underneat also.
-
@ alx
Finally, i hate the way that the heavyweight desktop environments (Gnome and KDE) claim to be really innovative - but all they do is copy windows
I think maybe you ought to read up on your GUI history. In short, everyone has copied from everyone at some point. And if you think Windows is the most innovative one, you're very much mistaken :-)
-
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.
At least in MS Windows’s OLE (clip board objects) like services is unified…
a crappy Media Player
Why Windows Media Player 8 (or Media Player 9 for that matter) defined as crap in your view?
Is there a superior all-in-one media player for Linux or a collection shovel-ware?
one crappy Web Browser
IF that was the case, 90 percent of world’s desktop users should select another browser.
-
Why Windows Media Player 8 (or Media Player 9 for that matter) defined as crap in your view?
It cannot even play svcds in right aspect ratio, it also pretty slow. However i like Windows Media Player 6.4, the gui is small and plays nearly every format correctly as long as you have the codec.
Nothing beats xine and mplayer on linux though.
-
Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, unless you're talking about the PnP capabilities of Linux, and all the chipset bugfixes compiled right into the kernel (I don't need a patch for an Intel chipset in my kernel if I'm using nForce, dammit!)
I tried the "so-call" MS Windows XP buster “Lindows 4.0” on ASUS A7N8X Deluxe** (nForce II 400 Ultra) and I don’t get sound (so much for hype(sigh)).
**“ASUS A7N8X Deluxe” has both NVidia Sound Storm and Realtek ALC650 20bit audio solutions. Realtek’s ALC650 sound chip can be use as alternative audio solution (IF Sound Storm driver is not available).
PS I recall Linux may have a new driver model to be release in the future. It stated to be WDM like installation (i.e. load and run)…
-
It cannot even play svcds in right aspect ratio, it also pretty slow.
In regards to speed, it's dependent on hardware and driver interactions (I have no speed problems running Mpeg 1 on following hardware;
1. Celeron 433Mhz, Intel 440ZX, NVidia TNT2, PC100 192MB RAM.
2. Athlon XP 3200+, nForce II 400 Ultra, NVidia Geforce 4 TI 4600 VIVO, PC3200 1GB RAM (also tested with 512Mb).
3. Athlon XP 1800+/2000+, VIAKT133A, NVidia Geforce 2 MX/400, PC133 640 MB RAM.
I haven’t tested Mpeg 1 on following HW recently (but I know they work fine with Mpeg 1/VCDs).
1. Intel Pentium 4, i850, 1 GB PC800 RDRAM (main development server).
2. Intel Celeron 300A, SIS BX Pro, SIS6236, 128Mb RAM (unused box).
Usually, Video cards (boxed retail) includes PowerDVD OEM e.g. as in Leadtek products.
However i like Windows Media Player 6.4, the gui is small and plays nearly every format correctly as long as you have the codec.
One could type "Mplayer2" on Start->Run mini-command-line (includes in XP)...
-
Why Windows Media Player 8 (or Media Player 9 for that matter) defined as crap in your view?
I say Windows Media Player 8 and 9 sucks because they're totally bloated, on a slow computer (p2 333, 128MB) it takes a long time to start and plays lot's of video files choppy (except MPEG1 and low quality DivX). The older versions of Media Player is a bit better since they won't take ages to start but they video playback doesn't seem to differ. Anyway on this very same computer running Linux and MPlayer almost any media file I have tried playing runs perfectly fine.
I must point out I heard MPlayer for Windows is as good as the Linux version which furthermore points out that M$ Media Player suckss.
Is there a superior all-in-one media player for Linux or a collection shovel-ware?
MPlayer is all in one, and I haven't stumbled across one single video-file it can't handle.
one crappy Web Browser
IF that was the case, 90 percent of world’s desktop users should select another browser.
Yes they should (Mozilla Firebird or Opera) and another OS for that matter. Not necessarily Linux though, it's far from perfect and you should have time to configure it and learn what's going on. But if you have alot of time to spend it's nice.
But I shouldn't really say anything, I'm using XP myself atm, all because of those damn games.
-
@Hammer
Why Windows Media Player 8 (or Media Player 9 for that matter) defined as crap in your view?
Please... On p4 it takes 3 hours to open a media player, and 3 more to open a movie. MP9 (or 8) is super-bloated. All that different GUIs and shaped windows... Who need that? What about the thing that Media Player is sending data to Microsoft (autoupdating... right) with the list of recently opened files? :) To just create a playlist you need ages. I know that if you are familiar with it, you will not have a problem, but after a first try, I was dissapointed, and after a second, while I was waiting to open a movie, I know that I need MP6.4 back. It's still there, but having problems with wmv files. There is a replacement for MP, called Media Player Classic, latest version 6.4.6.5, and it rocks. I'm sure that you have your opinion about MP, but it's not always like it seems. ;)
Take care,
levelLORD
-
In regards to speed, it's dependent on hardware and driver interactions (I have no speed problems running Mpeg 1 on following hardware
Forgot to state that it was the startup time i meant. I think it is very slow to startup, compared to other mediaplayers.
-
Media player 6.4 is, without doubt, the best version. The new ones are slow. Personally, I prefer Winamp 2.91...
About Linux being bloated:
I chose Easy-to-install versions as I don't have much experience with Linux. Nex time I'll try with one of the more advanced distros and "Linux for dummies" in my hand... :-D
-
Tomas wrote:
In regards to speed, it's dependent on hardware and driver interactions (I have no speed problems running Mpeg 1 on following hardware
Forgot to state that it was the startup time i meant. I think it is very slow to startup, compared to other mediaplayers.
It loads about 1 second(s) when using my PC (2) (click from XP's quick launch icon bar)....
-
another OS for that matter.
Note that software investment protection may be the overriding factor in the selection of MS Windows.
it's far from perfect and you should have time to configure it and learn what's going on
That’s a presumptuous POV. I have already configured Mandrake Linux 9.0 for my liking (use as a secondary development server).
-
I've used Debian/GNU Linux as my only full time OS for over 2 years on 3 PCs. Like others, my switch came "out of the blue" when I desperately had to print an assignment, and Win98SE with all the latest patches gave up the ghost - simply because I changed IP address (or at least, that was the last thing I did before it stopped booting).
I was dual booting debian at the time; it took me about an hour to work out how to get programs to print in linux (I had never attempted printing in linux); apt-get install cupsys; apt-get install xpp. Configure. It worked. Luckily I was using OpenOffice on the windows side.
About package dependancies: that is the nature of Linux and probably OSS in general. Reuseable code. Shared libraries. Massive amounts of Infrastructure are there for developers, allowing endless possiblities with little effort. This is important, since most OSS apps only have 1 to 3 active developers.
Many applications are simply a perl or python script - they might call wxWindows or GTK wrappers to get a GUI, use the cdrecord/readcd CLI programs to read/write to CD-Rs, use mkisofs to build an image from a user selected path and voila - you could have a CD burning program in probably less than 50KiB.
The cdrecord developers will support new CDRW drives, so you could write to DVD drives in the future. The mkisofs people will build in DVD fs support. The wxWindows/GTK people will keep refining their GUI toolkits to support different environments (for example, there's a text mode version of GTK, and wxWindows people are working on a self hosted embedded version that doesn't need X or a window manager). The Perl/Python interpreter/compiler will get new architecture support (Athlon64, for ex.?) and performance enhancments.
So in this little example our hypothetical cd burning app will recieve many new enhancments with little or no effort on our own part. Plus, in contrast to for ex. the Nero people in Win32 land, all we did is a GUI and some glue to some already very mature CD software, whereas the Nero guys would have written .vxds, drudged through the MS Windows DDK (not for the faint of heart!), poured over ISO specs on file systems, SCSI emulation over IDE, dozens of hours of testing.... then Adaptec EasyCD Creator would have done this themselves, then B's recorder people would have done it as well, all re-inventing the wheel over and over!
I could go on but I've ranted enough for now... essentially, package dependancies should in theory REDUCE bloat, for ex. there should be only one libpng.so library that ALL apps use to open PNGs, there should be no duplication of functionality. Of course, that doesn't happen, there are competing libs for similar functions, eg. SDL/Allegro etc., GTK/wxWindows/QT etc., xdm/gdm/kdm etc. the list goes on.
Anyway. I bet I could set up a decent Debian install with Moz/OpenOffice/printing/networking/Gnome 2/xine/mplayer/balsa and friends in 200MiB just using apt-get remove to cut the crap...
- Paul
-
@Waccoon:
slow and didn't detect my hardware correctly, and xFree86 is a joke when it comes to stability. Still, all
X is unstable? I use my computer *very* heavily (I have no life) and leave my Gnome 2.2 session logged in for over a week until I decide to try a new kernel compile or something. I've only ever had to restart X when some stupid libsvga game steals keyboard/mouse input, or once when VMWare did the same.
Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, unless you're talking about the PnP capabilities of Linux, and all the chipset bugfixes compiled right into the kernel (I don't need a patch for an Intel chipset in my kernel if I'm using nForce, dammit!)
Yeah, PnP sucks, so does being your own UNIX admin when all you want to do is get some work done/watch some movies (which is the biggest reason most people don't stick with linux, IMHO). But I'm curious - what distro do you use that compiles-in some obscure intel patch; and if it is really so obscure as to be impossible to removed at compile time (ie. not loadable module), how do you expect that particular distro's kernel to boot on anything other than your computer, since this is obviously a work-around that must be enabled very early in the boot sequence? Wouldn't Windows have similar unnecessary hw-workarounds in it's kernel? There is an alternative of course - compile your OWN kernel without that support, but I would imagine you wouldn't possibly miss a few KiB, surely... :-P
- Paul
-
So in this little example our hypothetical cd burning app will recieve many new enhancments with little or no effort on our own part. Plus, in contrast to for ex. the Nero people in Win32 land, all we did is a GUI and some glue to some already very mature CD software, whereas the Nero guys would have written .vxds,
Please recall ASPI driver access for NT 5.x. Note that .VXD class drivers can't be applied for the current MS Windows 2K/XP/2K3....
-
@crumb:
Of course if your time has no value you can spend your life customizing and recompiling linux to make it run more or less decently.
Sadly linux apps and the OS itself sucks and openoffice crawls...
Yes OpenOffice 1.0.x crawls, but OOo 1.1rc5 is the fastest I've seen yet. 1.0.x took *years* to save a big document, 1.1 drastically improves start time (but not enough) and doc load/save time (also not enough, but at least now it's quite usable).
OpenOffice uses bugger-all of the Linux API infrastructure that is there. It's a bit like Mozilla. It uses its own entirely self-contained architecutre for everything from the GUI down to the String handling.
It is its own operating system.
It is not a good example of a lean, mean Linux app. that uses all the nifty shared libraries that I was talking about. Abiword and GNUmeric might be the next best thing.
As for the Linux kernel sucking, it's about using the right tool for the job. Embedded applications? Definately. Free, open source, rock solid, flexible, small footprint. Server/storage farms? Routers? File server? Web server? Application Server? Yes. The Linux kernel scales up fairly well from what I've read. Engineering workstation? Probably, if you have a dedicated admin or a support contract. Business desktop? There's nothing intrinsically limiting about the Linux kernel here, except that it is a Unix clone so you need in-house or contracted Linux expertise.
As for the GNU fluff around the kernel, it's great for non-desktop things. Engineering workstations? Yes, Linux is solid, has good SMP and support for lots of memory and huge files, but it might not be the best for the user (I think it is though, over the Sun CDE anyway, I've only ever used an IBM AIX app over SSH/X so can't really comment there, haven't used anything IRIX).
Business desktop? Probably no, unless you are a _very_ large corporation who can afford good responsive knowledgable admins prepared to do probably more testing/tweaking work than what would be necessary with a Sun setup.
Then we get to home users. Home users generally don't want to be Unix sysadmins. They want to play games and watch movies.
On the kernel side, that means prompt, direct, serious investment from hardware vendors into writing decent drivers, quickly, that properly utilise the hardware. Just like the Windows efforts. This isn't happening now, it isn't going to happen soon, if ever.
@alx:
Finally, i hate the way that the heavyweight desktop environments (Gnome and KDE) claim to be really innovative - but all they do is copy windows
On the GNU fluff side (Gnome and friends), the GUI design is acceptable. When the Gnome people say they are being innovative, they don't necessarily mean the GUI design. They are also talking about the technical side. The API, the internel design. For me, if there is any innovaiton in the GNOME project, that is where it is happening. It frustrates me that people write off something because they can't see beyond the surface. If they don't want to see beyond the surface, they aren't really qualified to write it off, now are they?
And finally, on the home user's desktop experience side, there will ALWAYS be problems. GNU/Linux distros are a clone of the Unix environment. This environment assumes a certain amount of technical knowledge. Assumptions like basic understanding of permissions, groups, file system layout, networking protocols, file system types, mount points, scripting, user account administration, package managment, how the kernel works (loading drivers), bootloaders (setting up a new kernel with LILO).
You could say MacOS X has solved these things. But the money in Linux is not on the home users's desktop, so these issues aren't going to be addressed for quite some time, if ever. The best that I am hoping for is Linux being adopted on the corporate desktop, and POS.
-
@waccoon
gadgets. They even put "START" on the Start Menu! I mean, COME ON. The only thing that was different was the organization of Start Menu items, or rather, the lack of organization. I actually got rid of RedHat 5 faster than any other distro because it left such a bad impression on me.
(sigh). Redhat is not a good example of what can be done with Linux. Redhat bastardises most of the GNU software they package. They put their logo in the buttons, they even hack up their own dist. of gcc. Of all the distros I've seen, I hate Redhat the most. I hate it. I hate it.
I HATE REDHAT. For some reason whatever they have done to Gnome 2 in Redhat 9 simply brings a P4 2GHz to it's knees. It has an outrageous "typical" install. It's RPM based. God I hate RPMs with vengence. Perhaps I should change my nick to redrumtahder :-). Any RPM based distro leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because of the dependancy nightmares. I've been meaning to try gentoo some time, but haven't got around to it...
They do only what interests them, and not "customers", which is why I'm not a big fan of free software, anyway.
I'm sorry, but I think you are seriously mistaken. Why do you think that Redhat did that EXACT COPY of Win95? Have you even been on any of the OSS mailing lists? Their entire focus is on users. There are heavy flamewars on project decisions, one side arguing a technical point of view, the other a user's point of view. Do you know why Gnome and KDE desktop environments are so popular? It's what the users are choosing!!! It's what YOU the USER is CHOOSING. Users do not like change. They want to press F5 and have a window refresh. They want to press F2 and have a file be renamed. When they press alt-tab, they want to switch apps. Most are too scared to use multiple desktops, and there are only so many ways to launch an app that doesn't involve a start menu/dock/desktop icon!
In the case of the Gnome/KDE projects, it is the USER's fault for how closely they resemble windows. These projects exist entirely for the users. I am totally bamboozled as to how you can possibly think otherwise. Without a userbase, there is no point to Gnome/KDE. These projects struggle against (or "with", if you would prefer) each other for wider user acceptance. The result is what YOU the USERS have created for yourselves, from all the feedback project members get, feature requests, comments, etc.
They do only what interests them, and not "customers", which is why I'm not a big fan of free software, anyway.
I should shutup, but I'm still shocked. With OSS, "They" and "Them" are also the users. If a user-developer finds existing apps are insufficient, they add the features they want or start from scratch. I'll admit, far too many times I have seen non-developers request a feature or made a request only to be met with a "do it yourself" response. The problem, of course, is that most developers don't have time, are already overcommitted and working by themselves. Luckily though, the maintainer still has their enthusiasm they had when they started/took over a project and if something is interesting/important enough it will get done.
To contrast to the Win32 world, I'd like to know what makes you think commercial Win32 developers listen more to user feature requests than OSS developers.
As far as innovation goes, windows bores the hell out of me. There are many fascinating Linux projects that I don't think have windows equivilents. Distributed High Performance Computing: http://www.openmosix.org; a professional low latency audio server that can run dozens of audio channels at once (JACK): http://jackit.sourceforge.net/; a Finite Element Method program that can solve Partial Differential Equations for 2D/3D problems (freefem): http://www.freefem.org/; a 3D space simulation with over 100000 objects complete with orbit patterns etc. (celestia):http://www.shatters.net/celestia/.
- Paul
-
Please recall ASPI driver access for NT 5.x. Note that .VXD class drivers can't be applied for the current MS Windows 2K/XP/2K3....
Okay, so they are called VDDs or something else these days, but Nero/Adaptect still provide their own ASPI drivers.
I'm sure you understand my point though :-P
- Paul
-
In fact, you are right, most Linux distributions are bloated, so are the BSDs. But linux users have completly different motivs for using their OSs than amigans. They look for freedom of the code, for usability and for cheap software that works.
Im sure lot's of them would change for a light weight, quick response system with the feel that you are in control if they could without having to back down from their favourite motivs of above. But now you have to pay for an amiga system and you don't get all that functionality you do with a bloated Unix system, and once something doesn't work you can't fix it but have to hope for someone else to do it so that you can buy the new version.
That leaves only us that really really love the amigas advantages and are willing to suffer the consequences of our choise to stick around.
/Roos
-
r_o_o_s wrote:
That leaves only us that really really love the amigas advantages and are willing to suffer the consequences of our choise to stick around.
/Roos
What about the Linux users who buy an A1/AmigaOS4 anyway (like me!)? I'm sure many A1/AOS4 buyers won't be entirely ditching Windows, just like the Linux using A1/AOS4 buyers won't be ditching Linux :-) Except, of course, the A1 users who were forced into using Linux... perhaps *they* will ditch Linux :-P
- Paul
-
It loads about 1 second(s) when using my PC (2) (click from XP's quick launch icon bar)....
over 3 seconds on my old XP2100+, 512mb sdram, asus a7v133 kt133a. The hd it runs from is not the very fastest, but damn . even wmp6.4 starts up much quicker on the same system.
Mine also does it in a sec, if i load it first, so that it is stored in memory.
But anyway 7.x, 8.x and 9.x all sucks since they cant handle svcds correctly. I also miss the keyboard keys for functions, like volume control, pause and so on.
-
@csirac_:
we'll saying that linux sucks isn't true, I agree, as a server it's one of the best oses you can get (Although some people say *BSD is better I don't care much... it's a unix and it's not friendly to the user...)
But I don't need a server... I want a desktop OS, not a server OS. BeOS is nice as a desktop OS if we forget hardware recognition and drivers...
IMHO the OS must be customizable, but the user must not be forced to recompile, etc when he adds new hardware... if I select an incorrect driver in X it will fall down. If I don't have a mouse connected it won't work. At least with Windows, BeOS and AmigaOS I don't have that problems. I don't feel the need of keeping in my memory hundreds of command line commands... we are in the XXI century... if my gfx card isn't configured correctly I shouldn't need to edit any text file or recompile the kernel. Would you imagine your grandfather recompiling the kernel to install a new device? I don't want to go back to the 70s... green text screens don't turn me on :-D