PDA

View Full Version : Linux Too "Fat"???



AliOop
11th June 2004, 08:09 PM
Don't know where to put this. Forgive me if it's in the wrong place. Visit Osnew.com. , my farvorite sites for the latest in the OS world. And not just on Linux. Great site. Anyway, the latest topic - The Fast-Food Syndrome: The Linux Platform is Getting Fat - has generated the most feedback I've ever seen, 400 and counting. In a nutshell, it says that Linux (really the distros, not the kernel) is getting too bloated. What with all of the bells and whistles most people want in a modern OS maybe this opinion has some basis. My two machines, both older, both 550 Mhz but with different RAM can attest to what the writer of the article has stated. One PC has 128 mg of ram and the other 256. No doubt that the PC with 256 runs great. The one with less ram is sluggish.

For sometime Linux advocates have preached that ANY machine can run better and faster with Linux. That is just not so. I think such preaching does harm to our OS of choice. It turns away the newcomer who might expect to see a greater retun on an older machine running Linux than he gets running Windows. I don't think the Linux people should hold out a vision of greater preformance to the newcomers only to have their goals dashed. It does a great harm to this fine OS. Of course I'm talking about a distro that uses a DE like KDE or Gnome not something like DSL (Dam Small Linux) or Peanuts- barebones distros.

My question to this forum is two fold:

1.Do you agree with the writer? Should the programer try to' slim' down the distros and keep up the speed or should PC consumer bite the bullet and have a machine that will give them the preformance they want?

2. What can we as Fedora user do to increase the speed and usage of our PC? What services can be turned off? How can boot up time be increased? What about it folks?
What say you?

ghaefb
11th June 2004, 09:25 PM
Yes, I agree with the writer.. they should keep up the speed.

And for increasing speed and usage on fedora I usually:

1) Custom-compile kernel
2) Turn off services that I don't need
3) Use 'lighter' window manager like Fluxbox, Xfce, ...
4) Install only aplications/programms that I need

ginux
11th June 2004, 09:58 PM
I read that review (i visit that site aswell :))

I partly agree, since I'm referring not a specific distro, but to the magority (or the whole) of the flavors out there...

I really don't see that big issue, since I have choice...
If a specific distro or revision doesn't suit my needs I can change with no problems, there are a lot of other distros that would handle my specific hardware or configuration, i.e. http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

There is the risk that the new distro would need specific drivers & or special tuning, but if we look real close you'll notice that tweaking fedora/suse/mandrake is not that different from any other distro, all the files are almost there (give or take some changes ;))

Ginux

foolish
11th June 2004, 10:29 PM
You have to keep in mind that Fedora Core 2 is released in 2004. Windows XP was released in 2001. In 2001 the latest Red Hat Linux release was 7.1. Red Hat Linux 7.1 is much, much faster than windows XP.

The latest windows release, windows 2003, released the same year as Core 1, has 128 MB as minimum and 256 as reccommended, which is the same as Fedora Core 1.

The thing is, we're the latest and greatest, windows XP is old. Latest and greatest will need better specs.

But of course, we need things to work faster. Those who follow the fedora-desktop list know that there's been some work on this lately. Gnome-terminal is horrible and non-spatial nautilus is too slow.

That beeing said, I'm running my good old pentium3 733 Mhz computer with 512 MB of ram with Core 2 just fine. It feels about as snappy as my fathers brand new Windows XP box.

Ug
11th June 2004, 11:17 PM
Did anyone read Havoc Pennington's blog (http://log.ometer.com/) about it? Entitled "Backseat Coders", I do feel that Havoc has a point. There were two problems with the article, 1) the author didn't propose any practical solution, other than that we need to put a greater "emphasis on elegant design" and 2) he named and blamed a single coder to try and back up his point. I feel that its very sad, that someone should go around trying to play the blame game like that. It's completely uncalled for.

It's an interesting article, it's just a shame that it lets itself down in its vindictiveness and is fairly typical of a lot of stuff i've seen floating around the net at the moment. I also feel that of late OSNews, has gone down hill somewhat. A lot of the stuff which has been appearing on there, hasn't been of a particularly high quality. For example the rather sloppy FC2 review, "Fedora Core 2: A Lot More to Expect From It" (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7294), with its ranting about a Gnome preset.

Another poor example is the "Quick Review & Introduction to Gnome-PPP" (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7253), which is a rather pointlessly short article. The site is also suffering from quite a large troll problem as well.

I do like the site, I just feel it's in decline.

me_Max
11th June 2004, 11:28 PM
if you want speed & performance there is a nice distro, where you can choose everything you want. self-compiled.

Gentoo

;)

Nefarious
12th June 2004, 12:26 AM
I do agree that programmers should try to slim down Linux so it can run on MUCH less. But, I believe that can be accomplished, by releasing Distro's that have pre-configured installation types so you can have it automatically set up to run on less. Or just learn to -NOT- install things you don't need.

Granted, a new user shouldn't have to hack around to configure things to run better, but if you're so sick and tired of Windows and all the problems it's got? Why are you complaining that you have to learn a little to get a little... especially since(not entirely sure how many) most Linux Distros can be downloaded for free. Including most the Apps and Games and such.

I have a very, very, old P1 120, with 128 MB of RAM. I've gotten things to run on that(comparable to my 850 and my 1.3) quite well. I've had many Distro's of Linux, Windows 2k, XP, 2k AS and 2k3 all running on that old thing. Of them all, I might have had a less hassle experience with the 2k series, but after I figured out what to do on Linux to tweak it and get it to run faster, I completely got rid of Windows off all my servers and have been playing with Linux ever since. Sure, at times things may be slow and painful, but considering all I had to do was download the Linux Distro's I wanted, burn them to a CD and it had everything I wanted -right- there, who was I to complain?

Linux may not be 100% perfect yet. But seriously, look at Windows ME and XP Home... in my opinion they've gotta be the worst things ever to happen. ME was -SAD-(yes, I did use it) and XP Home was even worse. It's like they didn't learn from ME.

And I know people are going to say; "But I've had no problems with ME." or "If you know how to use it, XP Home is actually pretty good." I haven't met someone, face to face, who's ever said that. When people I know tell me they got a new computer and they've got XP and it's so amazing all the cool things they can do, I laugh. I can't help it. I've fixed so many computers that -ran- XP, or for some ungodly reason, ME and I managed to show them what Windows 2k has to offer. Every last one of them(including family members who I will say and have said to their faces, know nothing about computers or what's good for them) have thanked me for moving them to Win2k. They had less problems than before, but they still had problems.

But, considering their leap of faith in my ability to walk them through the problem and teach them quickly and effectively how to deal with such problems(with out the "easy to use" interface of XP) really makes you wonder; "Why on earth do they still sell XP Home on pre-built machines and how does Microsoft keep their "monopoly" on most the desktops out there?" Well, in my opinion it's clearly simple. Hardware developers don't ship Linux Drivers with their hardware. Well, that's not entirely true, -some- do. And there are also others who just -don't- develop Linux drivers period. Ah yes, let's not forget that most Companies, for Hardware or Computers, don't support Linux(or anything other than XP now adays). So, you have to -look- for help. How many people want to look for help to get their computer up and running again, when with Windows XP, you can usually call somewhere and get a step-by-step walkthrough and help with trouble shooting.

So, if more companies had Linux support, it's very possible a greater demand for Linux might arise, and then with people wanting Linux, Computer companies might start developing their own Linux Configurations for each different Computer they offer. Sure, if you were to figure it all out, I'm pretty sure that to do this, in the beginning some companies might lose a bit of money to this. But, if you consider what it might mean, no longer having to pay for HIGH Priced Windows, then when things take off, they'll probably make more money than before.

But, at the same time, to have Linux as the "preferred" choice by average desktop users might be a problem. Windows will no longer be the target of Virus developers or Spyware or anything like that, it'll be Linux. And here's the kicker, hackers and such have Source Code they can read to make their "attacks" more efficient and just that much easier. So, the question now is; "Do we really want to make Linux more user friendly?" If you ask me... I'm happy with having to tweak Linux to get it to run as fast or even faster than Windows. I mean, for an experienced Windows user it's just like making Windows run just the way you want. The only difference is that Linux takes a bit more to customize, but you have -way- more options.

BTW: For those who just finished reading this and are about to comment on the fact that some of this doesn't make sense, I can explain. I tend to ramble and go off topic once and a while. Because of this, I am not a writer of any kind. I develop. I start something, and I keep making it better. :-D

Varkk
12th June 2004, 01:26 AM
If you want a nice complete desktop OS with all the aps you need there ready then Fedora or almost any other major distro standard install is fine. If you don't have as much HDD space or CPU power or even RAM then you need to start getting into custom install jobs and not install stuff you don't need etc. With linux you can do this, you can't on most other systems available.

Jman
12th June 2004, 04:55 AM
First of all it's not specifically "Linux" that's bogging the computer down, it's the GNU/Linux operating system, plus a whole bunch of third party open source software.

This software can be removed. It is possible to strip Linux systems down to a bare minimum so they run on anything, but functionality is lost. If you want modern functionality you need the recommended system requirements.

Also, I would really like to see a responsive Win 98 system with 32 MB of RAM. I tried it on a system with about that much with poor results. Maybe this same system could be tested with Fedora Core to see any performance difference?

One last thought, let's not all jump on the author because he was critical. He was rather alarmist, but constructive criticism can help optomize Fedora for those poor Win 98 users.

RedFedora
12th June 2004, 07:34 AM
I think the article was a bit funny myself.
Having used RedHat 9 and Fedora 2, I have to say that
Fedora Core 2 uses less memory running the same apps and runs faster.
I'm guessing that this is due to some code cleaning and the 2.6 kernel.

Yes, distros (and programs in general) tend to bloat. But this is a system
configureation issue more than a programming one, I think.

hugo
13th June 2004, 03:13 AM
I don't think linux by itself is bloated, it's all the packages distros ship with it. When I first strarted with SuSE 7.2 the retail box boasted "Over 2000 packages included!" Choice is nice but I think new users tend to overestimate what they need at installation. If you have a new system I guess it doesn't really matter.
This last weekend I installed Debian on my Sun Ultra5. I installed the base system and then apt-get whatever I really needed. All in a partition less than 2Gb.

Tsunami
17th June 2004, 05:11 AM
Not bloated at all. I got a pretty ****** computer by todays standards (533mhz, 128mb PC130, don't even meet FC1 minimum requirements fully), but in comparison to my win2k installation, FC1 is a freakin' jet car.

Also, Linux won't be looking bloated at all when Longhorn come out. Don't you need a 64mb video card just to view its desktop properly? And knowing how MS likes to make half-baked unoptimized products, Longhorn will be a slowwww OS for older computers.

Thoreau
17th June 2004, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by me_Max
if you want speed & performance there is a nice distro, where you can choose everything you want. self-compiled.

Gentoo

;)

shudder

Varkk
17th June 2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by me_Max
if you want speed & performance there is a nice distro, where you can choose everything you want. self-compiled.

Gentoo

;)

gentoo you say?
Well to that I say http://funroll-loops.org/

:p

bamboo_spider
21st July 2004, 02:58 AM
Hi

I have been a long time windows users, one of those who uses - does not know how to tweak or optimize just turn on the machine and get a job done. I have seen the progression from win3.1 to win xp ofcourse on machines with higher and higher specs. The change in win OS is tremendous : the ease to set up things , to get a job done and knowing how to get it done. I ran both win Xp home and pro and win machines still surround me where I work.

Recently in June 04 after much reading and trying out some live distro's (The fact that a machine (any one almost could run on OS very well over and existing OS was amazing esp. when it had full functionality albiet at a cost of speed was enough to convined me that linux was the OS to go for.) and with some help we installed FC 1 on a Laptop (no dual boot) - the laptop specs are below.

However the difference in ease between win xp pro and FC 1 on the same machine is stark (in favor of win xp) quicker boot up, more functionality in setting up various peripherals etc. I am not quitting but yearn for the functionality of win xp , Its not easy to be not able to print, to not be able to use a chat client or to access another netwroked machine. Or to have to use a command line command to access a usb flash drive or a cd rom.

I guess its many years of windows indoctrination but somewhere Linux needs some more non geek dumb person friendliness - I saw it a bit in SUSE a live distro (9.1) and in MEPIS 1.4 , but chose Fedora Core 1 because thats what the two Linux people who helped me use. However now all alone over here in this remote part of the Himalaya without direct help to run Linux FC1 its a bit tough and a bit slow (the learning curve)

There is a case for some kind of linux thats easier to setup up and tweak without needing to know command language parameters or mathematical equation looking instructions for installing and uninstalling sample

mount -t auto /dev/sda1 /mnt/flash etc etc....
this is crazy many people will give up , not because of anyhting else but because many humans are scared of math (me too)
There are many people who might want to spend time learning but it means sacrificing some other productivity - I am interested and willing to take the pain as the gain is much more , but there are many out there for who theres no pain just the cost of the win OS.

There are other facets of linux that are extremely valuable - open source, inherently more secure, easier to distribute across a network ??, and economically very cheap but its does seem to have some distance to go before the ordinary desktop home user can consider linux an easy comparable option to windows (irrespective of machine because new entry users with a small budget can still get a configuration that runs win 2k or win xp with its heightened functionality

PLease don't mistake this as advocating for Windows, no I am a Linux fan and want this movement to exist forever.

Bamboo

Viro
22nd July 2004, 01:33 AM
However the difference in ease between win xp pro and FC 1 on the same machine is stark (in favor of win xp) quicker boot up, more functionality in setting up various peripherals etc. I am not quitting but yearn for the functionality of win xp , Its not easy to be not able to print, to not be able to use a chat client or to access another netwroked machine.

Bamboo

Windows XP doesn't support my network card, my printer, my sound card, my video card and my modem. FC2 detects all (apart from the modem which is a winmodem) of these and happily installs the drivers for them and they work pretty much out of the box. When I was running Windows, I had the fantastic experience of trying to install the drivers for some of my devices. Now my machine is an Acer and I use the drivers provided by the manufacturer. However, Windows XP refused to install the modem driver because it was unsigned (!!). After many hours, I finally managed to get it to install by disabling the option to only allow signed drivers onto the system. The point? Windows may work for some, but it doesn't work for everyone.

The Windows XP install is pretty bare. I need to spend hours after installing it to get all the apps I use on to the system. I need an office suite, something to view PDFs, IM chat programs, C++ development tools, photo editing tools, DVD player, and DVD-RW burning tools. Getting all these installed on a clean Windows XP system adds a few more hours to the total time needed before Windows XP becomes *usable*. Ever tried installing Visual Studio 2003.NET? I can install FC2 with all options in the time it takes to install VS.NET.

This isn't a knock against Windows XP. I'm just saying that WIndows XP doesn't work for everyone. For those who find that Windows XP doesn't suit their needs, its good to know there are alternatives around, like FC2.



Or to have to use a command line command to access a usb flash drive or a cd rom.

Depending on the desktop environment you use, in KDE you can create a link to the device on your desktop so you don't have to drop into command line. Though I agree with you, that should be done automatically when the installation takes place.

sailor
22nd July 2004, 10:22 AM
I believe that win xp is the best OS Microsoft has ever had...
and my FC2 blows it away in speed, looks and options...(gaming is where Win wins)
but sadly the bloat is in linux too...but I think it is more users fault than linux itself...
there are lighter choices out there.

rkl
22nd July 2004, 12:10 PM
When you run the anaconda installer on Fedora Core, one of my bugbears is that it really should have more pre-configured machine types. At the moment, it has:

Desktop
This should NOT install laptop-related services but, much to my chagrin, it does (e.g. pcmcia, cpuspeed, apmd, acpid).

Workstation
This is a fine distinction to make here - to me it implies "Desktop" + "Programming Tools", but it could mean different things to other users - might be "Desktop" + "Graphic Design Tools" to some users for instance. What surprises me is that the task bar in GNOME/KDE is NOT customised to match the machine type. For example, surely Workstation should have a terminal icon on the task bar?

Server
Perhaps the only one it gets right...oh, except for laptop services running on the server again...arrrgh !

There are some blatantly obvious options missing here:

Desktop Lite
Configure bare minimum to get X up and running with no GNOME/KDE
running (e.g. XFce, fvwm, whatever). Don't provide any icons/menus for GNOME/KDE applications and, in fact, possibly don't install them at all. GTK+/Qt libs only are OK.

Laptop
Yes, the one and only option that should run laptop services isn't presented ! It used to be available in Red Hat Linux, but why is it missing from Fedora Core?

X Terminal
Configure the machine to run as an X terminal (possibly picking up the chooser list of machines on LAN to log into). Ideal for low-powered PCs to run their X sessions from more powerful PCs (think Cygwin/X on Windows).

Firewall
Install and configure enough stuff to act as a software-based firewall device.

bamboo_spider
24th July 2004, 01:03 AM
Windows XP doesn't support my network card, my printer, my sound card, my video card and my modem. FC2 detects all

True that Win Xp does not detect all , its designed to detect those that its in favour off and many of those normal things.

I run FC1 and know that its detected something but making it work is the next very hard step . Its also a question of am I doing the thing in the manner it should be done , even in windows tweaking is required and many times it does not work, like right now I am stuck with a win 98 machine that pings a server but cannot access it , similarly with my FC1 laptop I am a step better where I can access the FC1 machine from the win netrwork though not vice versa.

[QUOTE=Viro]The Windows XP install is pretty bare. I need to spend hours after installing it to get all the apps I use on to the system. its good to know there are alternatives around, like FC2.

Thats very very true , ITS ACTUALLY ENLIGHTENING , to be able to start with a one time install and not have to then search for this software and that to just get the machine productive. Upgrades etc can keep happening. This definetely one of the reasons I opted for Linux.

I agree with rkl and sailorsgh that the users are the one who make an OS (in this case FC) what it is. Windows too suffers from the same bloat phenomenon apart from being inherently bloated in features and price

Bamboo

Viro
24th July 2004, 01:14 AM
True that Win Xp does not detect all , its designed to detect those that its in favour off and many of those normal things.


Normal? What's normal? A printer, video card, sound card and network adapter sound pretty common and normal to me.



I run FC1 and know that its detected something but making it work is the next very hard step .

Perhaps that's with your machine and I sympathise. My experience with FC2 has been very good. Apart from changing one line in the video card config, and adding a few lines to the modules config to sort out a rather odd bug with my soundcard, everything works pretty much out of the box. The only drivers I had to download were the ATI closed source drivers (for 3D gaming) and my Winmodem's drivers.

Linux has still quite a way to go before being easy enough for the masses to use. But then again, most people can't really solve Windows problems and require a knowledgable friend to stick around in case something goes wrong so perhaps Linux doesn't have that far to go...

bamboo_spider
24th July 2004, 06:43 PM
Hi Viro

Normal: Well wrongly said by me - meaning popular , that which is common and that every os is prepared for.

An example in favor of Linux is that is comes with all the drivers for many many printers : I need a print driver for a win 95 era printer and its hard to get that to run on an xp machine. The difference is that even though I have a list of many drivers for a hp 1220 c printer on my FC1 I cannot get it to work because something else I am doing is wrong. If I had the driver for the win xp the printer would be working (maybe)

In both cases somebody needs to be around and thats where history kicks in - being windows indoctrinated means that I think it may be easier (windows that is).

But hopefully not for long Lets see after 3 years if I find windows easier or linux :)

And maybe its the users that have to go that extra step rather than Linux or windows

Bamboo

necromantik
26th July 2004, 03:55 PM
Linux distributions are including a lot of crap taht aren't needed. Someone pointed out to me that fedora actually includes a lot of things that aren't needed on desktop computers. Fedora DOES, however have a program to remove unneeded packages. Luckily, I think there are plenty of minimalist distros still around. Hell, you could just download the latest kernel sources and make your own. Even before I took out unneeded packages, FC2 still ran much faster than Windows. If you think a certain distro is bloated, nobody is forcing you to use it.

bamboo_spider
26th July 2004, 07:57 PM
Maybe this is another stupid question and in the wrong forum but anyways; How does one find out what programmes are installed and what are not needed and how does one remove them.

Eg I do know that both Gnome and KDE are installed ( on purpose to try them out) now I want to remove one ?? How??

Next as this was my First instal I did an install of nearabouts 5 gb of OS and related software, again to experiment and see what I wanted , used etc now how do I go about uninstalling

Thanks

robopera
27th July 2004, 12:32 PM
Gentoo is a great distro that allows one to completely have control over the system. However, it takes a couple of light years to install.
I have used, and loved, BYW, Crux linux. It's faster than gentoo on equal hardware, and a whole lot lighter. I had a complete working system with Windowmaker and other third-party apps like xmms, mozilla, etc. in under 200MB of HDD space. It's a great distro that a person with a couple of years of linux experience can get up and running in a couple of hours. There is some tweaking involved, but the system screams at the other end of the install.

CRUX Linux

http://www.fukt.bth.se/~per/crux/

David
28th July 2004, 01:21 AM
It seems fairly obvious to me that if you want a nice home system with all the whistles and bells then it's going to be bloated whatever the system is. Linux is no exception but the difference is that you can modify Linux to your liking to make it streamlined and fast in a way that you can't with Windows or Mac. For example, the makers of LOTR didn't need to have a fancy animation letting them know that Maya was loading, but they did need to network and optimise their PCs for as fast rendering as possible.

I'd say that (in my personal experience) FC1 and Win XP are about the same speedwise. In fact, with Windows performance optimised (even though it looks butt ugly as a result... ok, it looks butt ugly anyway!) it's probably the faster of the two. But Linux is fast enough for my intended purposes and if I did want a faster OS then I'd still use Linux, I'd just get a different distro or cut down the one I already have.

crackers
4th August 2004, 03:21 AM
Psst! cavedweller - use some white-space (paragraphs), please! Such a large block of run-on text is durned hard to read for those of us with failing eyesight! (And the word is "fair" not "fare" - the latter refers to taxis and airlines. ;) )

On subject: "Bloat" is relative to whoever is using the word. Does RH/Fedora/whatever install programs that are not normally used (like bc)? Yup. Does it impact system performance? Nope - it just takes up a small fraction of disk-space. And, using yum/apt/whatever, it can be uninstalled quite easily - without impacting the system! If you try to remove, say, the Windows "finder" you can't: it's built-in and tied to the OS! I could take "find" (or slocate) off my system and it wouldn't matter (too much), but it wouldn't break the OS itself.

And comparing a base installation of any Windows OS to and Linux distribution is never a fair comparison: you do not get any applications with Windows, except those specifically tied in to the OS (like IE shudder). Every Linux distro comes with loads of applications that allows just about anyone to have a fully functional system immediately and with no extra cash outlay. Yes, you can get Windows systems with Office pre-loaded, but you're paying for it nevertheless.

bamboo_spider
4th August 2004, 10:59 AM
It wouldn't be there except my ISP uses propriotary software that has to run on windows. I guess that is the price you pay not to live in a city.


Thats interesting : We too don't live in a city and too have a VSAT internet connection (Satellite Connection) and its interesting to note that it does not work on Linux , why what sort of connection is it , the connection we have is not OS specific

Its sounds like a good idea to do that test : you are darned right Windows pacthes, updates etc make life hell , we have a limited bandwidth per day usage and the day Microsoft releases its updates all our quota gets consumed and we have a lot of irritated users with no access to the internet because Microsoft wants it all. And more frequently than once a month

cavedweller
4th August 2004, 09:25 PM
I also misspelled and (ans).....ould should have been would. Oh well I am sure there are a few more to. Oh well one of these days I will slow down and pay attention. :D

crackers
5th August 2004, 03:57 AM
There is an "edit post" function... ------------------------------------------------------- \/

:D

And thanks for the paragraphs - made it much easier to follow your logic.

Yes, for a "fair" comparison, you have to shell out a behind-load of money for the extra software, but (as you said) what do you have for that extra $$$$?

I think that part of the "bloat" problem is that some packages claim to need certain other packages (as dependencies), when, in fact, they work quite well without it - sendmail comes to mind. I don't use it, I access my mail via POP or IMAP. I don't care all that much about logrotate logs being mailed to the root user, but it's "required" so sendmail gets installed even though I specifically did not want to set up a mail server.

I actually kind of like rkl's selections - those are pretty well thought out choices. However, as I said in another thread, RH has the final say in how they perceive these setups are defined and, from their point of view, the current set is more than sufficient for a certain large percentage of installations.

cavedweller
5th August 2004, 01:00 PM
The distro is fine the way it stands. Not crazy about root mail messages at boot either, but I can live with it. That is the one thing I like about linux it is flexible. If you don't like a perticular distro try another. There are enough that most can find something to be happy with. I honestly think it is a good idea to be familiar with a couple of different flavors it gives a better perspective on likes and dislikes and can foster ideas in improving a distro.

David
5th August 2004, 06:28 PM
another point worth mentioning is, does it matter if the system's bloated when you're running a P4/athlon with possibly over 1GB of ram and gigs and gags of hd space? Do you need to squeeze every ounce of power out of your computer when all you use it for is checking your email and running the odd game?

crackers
6th August 2004, 04:31 AM
what the heck is up with the damn paperclips, dogs, cats, and wizards wanting to help you and baloons popping up wanting you to sign up for this or that MS Service or that reminding you to update, telling you .. you either are or aren't logged in. Hasn't Ms figure out people are getting tired of crap popping up all over the place.

Actually, you answered your own question: it's like TV - entertainment without substance. And most people have no idea that each one of those little cutesy things sucks up resources. I had to point out to a manager not too long ago that each one of those little "icons" in the system tray were active programs - and this guy used to be a programmer!

bamboo_spider
6th August 2004, 08:46 AM
bandwidth is rationed and starts throttling back after 500 megs usage. It kind of sucks but is better than standard dial up. I live out of range to use our wireless or DSL I had free dial up but wanted faster downloads. Peak download speed they calim is 500megs but in all actuality is 450 if lucky averages around 400.

Whoah , is that what the internet has come to

Here we are with a 30 mb per day download and upload (24 hour connection) paying close to 120 $ (US) per month with a speed of 256 kbps (mostly this) and this is extremely modern by our standards. Add to it that dial up speeds - if and when they work are 56 kbps and its a log distance call

Cavedweller you ain't :D

dickinsd
18th January 2005, 10:45 PM
I dont know if I agree with the distros getting too fat.

I was writing some notes for my own guide to installing a multiboot system, i started with windows, I did the windows install - 1 CD, I then did Office, Publisher & PSP another 3 CD's.
This is the minimum for me to consider my Windows box useful, I then have another CD for my anti virus, my CD for dreamweaver, blah, blah, blah.

My first point in my own notes was that Windows was installed with only 1 CD, however my FC2 install needed 3 CD's (as I recall) at first I was going to complain about the size of the distro, however during the install; those 3 CD's I produced a minimum system level that I consider to be useful.
It has the office, graphics program and of course the OS itself, there's no need for the anti-virus (questionable) and I only use dreamweaver as I find it easier to use when working with style sheets (backwards way of thinking - I know)
When I sat down and thought about it; FC2 took 3 CD's, Windows was no better.

Perhaps all OS's are getting bigger, but peoples expectations and demands from their systems are also increasing.
----------------------------------------------------------
Speed - probably one of the most relative "words" in the dictionary, selling Linux as something thats faster than Windows, in my opinion is a complete lie, back when I first installed Linux (Caldera) it was faster at booting up than Windows 98 was on the same piece of kit, now-a-days, Windows XP has booted, loaded my virus scanner and other security related bits and pieces much faster than the time it takes FC3 to get to the login screen - the boot-up speed of modern Linux distro's seems to be the worst thing about them at the minute.
--------------------------------------------------
However - I have been told on another forum that this is because Windows continues to load certain things in the background after it 'appears' to have finished booting, Not sure if this is an adequate response my self, but I really don't know Linux as well as I would like to, perhaps there is a lot more going on that I am aware of???
-------------------------------------------------
One question if I may - people that don't really rely on the GUI aspect of Linux, does Linux boot much faster? I remember using Solaris at uni, the system would boot-up at a fairly average speed, nothing slow, nothing outstanding. You then entered your username and password and bang you where in, but all you had was a green screen ith nothing but a mouse pointer on it, and one terminal window, from the terminal window you could call a browser or any other app you need, or if you really couldn't deal with the command line, you could right click and get a context menu that allowed you to choose from the most common apps. But Solaris is different again, I just wondered if the lack of a GUI resulted in a speed increase?

Dave

crackers
19th January 2005, 06:17 AM
I just wondered if the lack of a GUI resulted in a speed increase?
You have to put that into context - speed increase of what? You're certainly using less memory and less processor resources, so typically any application that you start will run a bit faster, since there's less resource contention. However, with the current processor speeds, memory management, and lower memory costs, the "speed increase" is marginal on a user-based system. If you're running a pure server, sure - you don't even want to install the UI systems. It's useless and unused overhead.

mlehman
21st January 2005, 01:22 AM
This discussion will go on... forever. There are Linux users that think any GUI is taking the easy way out. There are Windows users that think -> I don't want to know what's going on under the hood...just make it work.

Anyone that has worked extensively with Windows cannot be happy with that operating system environment. It is a nightmare - > perhaps like a scum that settles over a pond. If you are employed because of it... maybe that's why you like it. Linux on the other hand, has been harder for NOOB types to learn. Anyone that has had to battle rebuilding kernels, just to get a specific graphic card to work or has struggled with a printer driver, when windows offers such easy plug and play might be turned off.

But... when you look at the two distributions now... and you look at yum, atp, up2date versus windows update, and you look at the software that is available to enable SMB, NFS, Webmail, Email, Webserver, and you have an interest in the underlying uses of your computer and the reasons it is doing what it is doing... how can anyone not say Linux is the superior environment. Oh and did I forget about viruses, bots, popups, adware executables....Yikes!

Speed?... What is that? If you want speed -> buy the latest computer for $600. The fact that you can run Linux on older machines at a very reasonable speed is a credit to that operating environment.

Another point... I am constantly amazed at the Linux community. You can google just about any question about your problems, and you get real answers..not just attitude. I for one appreciate that. I have learned a great deal since I switched to Linux.

n00bee
24th January 2005, 09:18 PM
(Excuse my english)I`m new in linux comunty. Why? - Curiosity!
I`m administrating somme networks.. My first OS`s (chronologicaly) windows NT, 2000 and the last win 2003. Let me tell u. I`ts easy (domains, file, web, mail, MEDIA.... servers). In 8 years no problems ever!!! ( thx for antivir. and good firewall). I`ve never tried Linux because of company policy.
I`ve istalled Fedora Core 3 (on DVD) dual boot (Win XP SP2) on a amd xp 2800+, 512 Ram, 160GB HDD. I`m verry angry! because: if i have a problem and i search the intrenet i find alot of versions of answers 2 solve my problems and NONE WORKS. Now my only internet connection from home is a dial-up. i`ve found a lot of drives for my modem but they don`t work because of my new kernel. for fedora(i think). i`ve never found a good driver. someone told me to make my own driver. LoL. I can not do it. (I think i`ll buy a new modem. :( )
Another problem... aplications... i work alot in corel, adobe and office (presentations, access, excel). do i have an alternative? NO I DON`T!
GAMES? No way!
So, at home now i use Fedora only for ... I don`t know. :(
At work... i will install it 2 put a network on it and we will see... i don`t think it will make magik but... ("Hope die`s last") Also i have 2 books for linux.
I`ll still try 2 find a way 2 work with fedora at home. I don`t give up ! :)
Windows is much easier to use for most of computer users ( 80% ?). U can find every thing from support 2 any kind of aplications.
Windows without linux can survive...Linux without windows can not. (Sommebody said it)
If windows dies u will pay for linux and 4 every thing that linux uses and u will have the same problems. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD THAT IS GOOD IS FREE!!! If windows will be free every one will say windows is good.This worl can not survive without hakers (viruses, security). So they will attak every thing that most of the people are using.
Belive me: Windows XP SP2 win his firewall (no need 2 configure) and "bitdfefender professional plus 8" can do magik. I`m satisfied with windows but if i don`t try fedora 3 GOD wiill punish me. :)

Best regards.

linux4life
24th January 2005, 11:18 PM
(Excuse my english)I`m new in linux comunty. Why? - Curiosity!
I`m administrating somme networks.. My first OS`s (chronologicaly) windows NT, 2000 and the last win 2003. Let me tell u. I`ts easy (domains, file, web, mail, MEDIA.... servers). In 8 years no problems ever!!! ( thx for antivir. and good firewall). I`ve never tried Linux because of company policy.
I`ve istalled Fedora Core 3 (on DVD) dual boot (Win XP SP2) on a amd xp 2800+, 512 Ram, 160GB HDD. I`m verry angry! because: if i have a problem and i search the intrenet i find alot of versions of answers 2 solve my problems and NONE WORKS. Now my only internet connection from home is a dial-up. i`ve found a lot of drives for my modem but they don`t work because of my new kernel. for fedora(i think). i`ve never found a good driver. someone told me to make my own driver. LoL. I can not do it. (I think i`ll buy a new modem. :( )
Another problem... aplications... i work alot in corel, adobe and office (presentations, access, excel). do i have an alternative? NO I DON`T!
GAMES? No way!
So, at home now i use Fedora only for ... I don`t know. :(
At work... i will install it 2 put a network on it and we will see... i don`t think it will make magik but... ("Hope die`s last") Also i have 2 books for linux.
I`ll still try 2 find a way 2 work with fedora at home. I don`t give up ! :)
Windows is much easier to use for most of computer users ( 80% ?). U can find every thing from support 2 any kind of aplications.
Windows without linux can survive...Linux without windows can not. (Sommebody said it)
If windows dies u will pay for linux and 4 every thing that linux uses and u will have the same problems. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD THAT IS GOOD IS FREE!!! If windows will be free every one will say windows is good.This worl can not survive without hakers (viruses, security). So they will attak every thing that most of the people are using.
Belive me: Windows XP SP2 win his firewall (no need 2 configure) and "bitdfefender professional plus 8" can do magik. I`m satisfied with windows but if i don`t try fedora 3 GOD wiill punish me. :)

Best regards.


Tried using CrossOver Office or WINE?

OberonKenObi
3rd March 2005, 07:01 AM
Hi N00bee


I`m verry angry! because: if i have a problem and i search the intrenet i find alot of versions of answers 2 solve my problems and NONE WORKS. Now my only internet connection from home is a dial-up. i`ve found a lot of drives for my modem but they don`t work because of my new kernel. for fedora(i think). i`ve never found a good driver. someone told me to make my own driver. LoL. I can not do it. (I think i`ll buy a new modem. )


I'll bet you its a Winmodem you have, you know one of the internal modems that come with WinBoxes. You can get them to work, but it is a pain. That is not Linux's fault but rather the fault of Microsoft having a strangle hold on hardware vendors. If its external, just like Windows, Linux has a hardware compatability list, did you check it out before installing FC3?


Windows is much easier to use for most of computer users ( 80% ?). U can find every thing from support 2 any kind of aplications.

Let me just say Windows is not "easier" just more familiar. Yes you need much more support for problems in Windows. Most Linux distros (I use Fedora Core2) come with just about everything you need on 3 CD's (specific apps excepted, eg music editing etc), less need to search for more Bloatware on the net.


Windows without linux can survive...Linux without windows can not. (Sommebody said it)

Please find out who said it, I would be very interested to know...
Neither Linux or Windows shares anything, so the two are mutually exclusive.
As a side point, Windows would be naught without OS2 or Apple/Mac. A point which a certain company fails to pay homage to.
Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but makes no bones about it. They almost sound proud of it :+)


NOTHING IN THIS WORLD THAT IS GOOD IS FREE!!!

Lol, who said that Windows was good.
But seriously, its not really free $ wise its more of a state of mind n00bee, like the freedom to choose/change any/all parts of the operating system (if clever enough) or just use a tried and (relatively) true distro.

Not even gonna comment on the WinXP SP2 firewall bit, my head hurts just reading it.

Regards
Allan

BoHu
3rd March 2005, 04:42 PM
I have dual booted Windows2000 and various flavors of Linux on a dozen or so computers. In EVERY case Windows2000 was faster, regarless of processor speed or how much RAM. But I still prefer Linux anyway because I like the price :-) and because the Gnome GUI is better than windows. I just wish Gnome would fix their clipboard - closing an app should not flush the clipboard !! Whose stupid idea was that??

cardinal II
3rd March 2005, 05:45 PM
So, the question now is; "Do we really want to make Linux more user friendly?"

I agree with you somewhat, there is almost a safety in the fact that Linux is difficult to use. Instead of bagging Windows users and getting caught up in OS debates, perhaps Linux users should be quietly smiling?

I'm still a noob but learning quickly. I feel that some distro's should cater for users wanting speed or compatibility with older systems, and other distro's should make use of all the fantastic hardware available now. Linux offers so much customization, It is almost a mute point.

On a side note, what is wrong with Home XP that does not effect XP Pro?

crackers
4th March 2005, 05:38 AM
In EVERY case Windows2000 was faster, regarless of processor speed or how much RAM.
Define "faster." The problem what that statement is that the best you can do is make a subjective assessment - the two cannot be compared directly. Unless you're talking about specific benchmarks that are so well written that they won't favor one platform or another.

ltam
5th March 2005, 03:07 PM
I have dual booted Windows2000 and various flavors of Linux on a dozen or so computers. In EVERY case Windows2000 was faster, regarless of processor speed or how much RAM.

When you say W2K was faster, do you mean as a fresh install with no other software installed? Do you mean startup and shutdown of a fresh install? I've been working with Windows since its creation. After you load some new programs and run it for a while, the disk is so fragmented and there is so much junk in the system, it can hardly move. Even if you use defrag it doesn't help. You end up having to reload everything to get acceptable performance.

It's also different if you're running Win98 on a P4 as compared to FC3 on the same hardware. The footprint of the OS is different. What services do you have turned on? None on the Windows and everything on the Linux?

It depends. My bet is on Linux. :D

BoHu
5th March 2005, 04:52 PM
Define "faster."

Windows open faster. Menus are faster. Programs load quicker. But none of that matters because Bill wants $300 a copy for his OS. That's why I am using linux instead.

tejas
7th March 2005, 07:49 AM
Yeah, Linux does seem to be getting bigger these days. I think group install adds to the problem. Let me explain: I run KDE on FC2. Now, in the install, there is an option for install KDE games. I can't install only one or two games, I have to install all 20-30 games that come with FC2, even if I don't use em. This is a waste of a lot of space. This applies also for other packages, from development to something like screensavers (which have to be installed with a host of wallpapers, cursors, and other stuff I don't need)

Shadow Skill
8th March 2005, 06:03 AM
Its not a Linux problem its the problem of package maintainers and developers directly who decide that packaging everything in one thing is a good way to handle things. Linux applications do tend to open slower initially because Linux decides to reserve ram for them so that they open faster when you open them again. I will say that my Gentoo partition boots waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster than windows even if I were to exclude the lack of the ntloader tweak I forgot to add back on after it got munched cause of the dual boot. Even with the tweak I would still be waiting for the OS to finish loading while I would have already had Firefox open on Gentoo. Granted I am using XFCE4 instead of Gnome or KDE [Not exactly sure which starts faster but apps load more quickly in general with Gnome as opposed to KDE especially on FC3.] but still I can definetly see a difference in the boot time of Gentoo as opposed to XP and even FC3.

james_in_denver
8th March 2005, 06:43 AM
What do you think???

Personally, I am tired of seeing this thread pop-up so often.

What??? you want to run the most functionallly rich GUI over a network with leading edge security and applications????

Or do you want a simple plug and play web-server with nothing more than a command line????

Linux isn't too fat......

It's what you choose to do with it.......

If you think Linux is "fat", that's only because you are using it to it's full capabilities.....

And if that's the case, can you do the same things you are doing on a Window's platform????

Didn't think so.......

tashirosgt
8th March 2005, 04:14 PM
Modern hard drives are large and most programs work on an on-demand basis, so they don't load down the cpu. I think other things contribute to the sense of "bloat". The first is having to have many different programs to do specialized tasks instead of a single program. For example, email being separated from the browser. Or having to have a special program to print labels, record sound, play cds. It feels even more like bloat when there are several competing programs to do such tasks. Another thing that contributes to that bloated feeling is having programs that depend on many other pieces of software to work. (My latest encounter with this: the Bacula backup software needs an SQL server of some kind and if you want scsi tape support you may have to compile this into your kernel.) It is one of the goals of modern software to have reusable modules, but when the user is left with the burden of coordinating the re-use it gives him the impression that there are too many pieces to worry about - for example, when you are trying to fix a problem with Gnome and find you have to worry about xorg.conf or some SELinux issue.

I don't think bloat is so much a matter of the quantity of things as the fact that the individual pieces are so visibile and often so inharmoniously joined.

defkewl
6th April 2005, 01:21 PM
Perhaps the writer hasn't seen it all. Does the writer know anything about Damn Small Linux (http://damnsmalllinux.org/) ?

BoHu
6th April 2005, 02:50 PM
I've been trying some other distros lately and i have noticed that Fedora is noticeably slower than other distros. Not sure why, maybe it's just my hardware ?

tejas
6th April 2005, 06:26 PM
Bill wants $300 a copy for his OS.

You should visit India then. 75% of us Indians who use Windows at home have pirated versions, and pay zero [not that i know personally, of course]. Actually, the situation is so bad that MSN has drastically reduced the price to around 30$ for a copy of XP. But that isn't my reason for using Linux.

Linux is faster, software is cheaper, and It is much more fun. Lets face it, I recently had a browser crash. I downloaded the new Mozilla for under 10MB. Tell me, could you do that if you were running XP? And could you fit IE into 10MB? I would say not only is Linux less Space hogging than Windows, Linux applications are much smaller than their windows versions.

And one more thing. It is obv. that linux takes up a lot less RAM than your windows, and there is the added bonus of swapspace. Try this out: Load XP on a 256 MB Ram machine, and a 512 MB Ram machine. Tell me how much RAM windows is using in each case, and more important, how much it is keeping free. You might be shocked.

The only thing fat about Linux is Tux!

mbokil
6th April 2005, 06:35 PM
Linux is the opposite of fat. I like to think of it as a thin client. Try using a lightweight GUI environment such as XFCE 4.2. It is faster than Gnome or KDE. I use firefox, nautilus for file browsing and they are faster than Explorer on Windows XP. Also check your services and turn off all services you aren't using. Make sure you also have the latest video drivers. For example if you have an Nvidia chip then you will have to install the Nvidia driver. This will make the GUI's much faster.

defkewl
7th April 2005, 01:04 PM
I've been trying some other distros lately and i have noticed that Fedora is noticeably slower than other distros. Not sure why, maybe it's just my hardware ?
You're not the only one. I feel the same way. I've tried turning off several services but it's still too damn slow. Haha. Now Fedora is just an ordinary toy for me. Just for fun.

the_profiler
7th April 2005, 02:11 PM
IMO, wind0ze is fast(in boot-ups) BUT IS SLOW in the LONG RUN.. as compared to Linux -> maybe slow (because it loads the necessary stuffs) but as much as possible, it maintains a CONSTANT speed in the LONG RUN..

and that's why you can easily make Linux 24/7/30 or make it a server!

charactermatter
27th January 2007, 09:19 AM
Linux can be what you want it to be. It can be fat or thin. It can be functional for 100 users or for 1. It can have your aps or my aps or both. I think there are a lot of people who feel that the big distros are moving Linux into the mainstream and they feel like they are losing their uniqueness. The small neighborhood of linux is growing into a town. They no longer have their small clique of geeks to feel superior with. For those of us that like the full functionality and have the resources o run it, we can. If you need to strip it down then you can. I suspect that what really bothers the author is that with more and more people using Linux operating systems, he becomes less and less unique and will need to find a new identity, and a clique that's a little more exclusive.

Linux The Great
27th January 2007, 06:27 PM
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Linux is just as slow or slower than Windows XP is off their rocker. That or they are testing the speed when the machines aren't doing anything.

In Windows I saw a significant slow down in the speed of my computer after installing (YES INSTALLING) Office 2003. Having Firefox, AIM, and a music player open.... and then having to switch between those applications is an attack on my patience.

On my linux box I can run: Firefox (12 tabs open), Thunderbird, Gaim, Rhythmbox (playing music), gftp (uploading files), Kompozer, and gimp (4 images open)..... without the machine slowing down in the slightest. On top of that, I can run desktop effects and spin all of those programs around on a 3D cube. And I can do this for weeks at a time.

JN4OldSchool
27th January 2007, 08:00 PM
Linux can be what you want it to be. It can be fat or thin. It can be functional for 100 users or for 1. It can have your aps or my aps or both. I think there are a lot of people who feel that the big distros are moving Linux into the mainstream and they feel like they are losing their uniqueness. The small neighborhood of linux is growing into a town. They no longer have their small clique of geeks to feel superior with. For those of us that like the full functionality and have the resources o run it, we can. If you need to strip it down then you can. I suspect that what really bothers the author is that with more and more people using Linux operating systems, he becomes less and less unique and will need to find a new identity, and a clique that's a little more exclusive.
did you see when the first post was written? Or the last post above yours? Here it is 2 whole years later!!! And Linux is becoming even more bloated. I agree completly with what you are saying, Linux is what you want it to be. That is the wonderful, amazing part about this OS. As more people discover the joys of Linux we need to become more user friendly, more point and click, more bloated. Thats all cool. I hate to see Fedora going this way, I see this as Ubuntu's territory. Distros like PCLOS, MEPIS, SuSE and others can worry about this. Why is it so important to have "X" number of users using Fedora? I prefer we kept more of a Gentoo, Slackware mentality. We are a pillar of Linux, we are huge, we are good at what we do. Let the new peeps come in and learn under different distros then move up to Fedora. My view anyway and I know the other camp has equally persusave views and arguments. Again though, the cool thing about Linux is if I dont like what FC becomes I can always pick something a little more in my line of thinking. Or just create my own Linux OS using a project like LFS. Freedom!