- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why Linux has failed on the desktop: kernel developer Con Kolivas
|
|
|
Comments (74)
54 earlier comments in the full thread.
From my experience (running on a K6-2 300Mhz 192M machine), the best is elive (http://www.elivecd.org) with low requirements running enlightenment (which I like much better than xfce) and a quite decent elive control panel to configure most of the things. The look is very good and best part is that it is Debian.
Only issue could be that the release version is not free -- requires some donation. So you could try the last development version live CD and if you like it then get the release version.
Only issue could be that the release version is not free -- requires some donation. So you could try the last development version live CD and if you like it then get the release version.
Sorry, wrong thread!!
Quoting: I know, but others sounded, at least to, like they are and might have been unintentionally.
Intentionally in my case. If you can't accept that the opposition does something better, then you will never fix the what needs to be fixed. Also because it brought people who know about things I don't know out of the woodwork.
>Intentionally in my case.
And mine too.
And mine too.
Quoting:Intentionally in my case.In that case, I don't agree with your assessment that Windows is snappier.
I use XP at work and Linux at home. In my opinion and in general, I find XP to be slower than Linux and at times is annoying like heck. I think you are unjustly exaggerating just to drive your point. There is no need for that really and there is no need to blame it specifically on the kernel.
Quoting:If you can't accept that the opposition does something better, then you will never fix the what needs to be fixed.
Tracyann: Did you read my post about how good services and threading work on Windows NT? I do call them as I see them even if the opposition was better.
Beside, the kernel developers are constantly working on improving it. The fast cycle of releasing patches and the new scheduler in specific are obvious proof. I believe there is no need for "Windows does this and that better than Linux" especially when it is not substantiated and purely subject.
> In my opinion and in general, I find XP to be slower than Linux
That's my experience also. I've found that an initial install of Windows 2000 on the same hardware seems almost as fast as Linux, but it starts slowing down almost immediately, and within a few months it's much slower. I find XP to be slightly slower than 2000. I haven't tried Vista, but from what I've heard, it would be far slower than XP.
I think some of this is distro specific. Slackware based distros (which is what I use) just seem to be faster than most of the others out there, so I've never noticed the slowness the others are reporting.
That's my experience also. I've found that an initial install of Windows 2000 on the same hardware seems almost as fast as Linux, but it starts slowing down almost immediately, and within a few months it's much slower. I find XP to be slightly slower than 2000. I haven't tried Vista, but from what I've heard, it would be far slower than XP.
I think some of this is distro specific. Slackware based distros (which is what I use) just seem to be faster than most of the others out there, so I've never noticed the slowness the others are reporting.
It takes a lot of CPU cycles to feed the botnets.
LOL @ tuxchick.
You have a way with words.
You have a way with words.
After all these discussions, I did load Vector Linux. It is pretty snappy -- no more so than Debian or Slackware. LILO didn't pick up my Xubuntu partition, so I'll have to deal with that next week. Also, I couldn't seem to mount my USB flash drive. Again, I didn't have a lot of time, and the online man pages for Vector that held the answer to my questions were down. I'm probably going to throw ZenWalk on there, or even Slackware again -- there's a lot to like in Slackware for older hardware, especially running Xfce or Fluxbox.
I took a peek at Edelstein's article on optimizing Linux for the desktop. How many 2-year-old articles have that kind of staying power? He mentions a GNOME feature that preloads part of OpenOffice. If you are a heavy user of OO, that's great. Otherwise it's a waste of system resources. OO does preload to some extent in Windows, but it is user-configurable, if I am correct.
The thread is so long now, I don't know if anybody mentioned turning off non-essential services that start up at boot.
And as far as things like MS Office and IE being "snappy" in Windows, a lot of that is due to key components for those applications being included in the kernel. It's more evident for IE than for MS Office, but the OS does seem to favor those apps. Also, the GNOME loader for
I took a peek at Edelstein's article on optimizing Linux for the desktop. How many 2-year-old articles have that kind of staying power? He mentions a GNOME feature that preloads part of OpenOffice. If you are a heavy user of OO, that's great. Otherwise it's a waste of system resources. OO does preload to some extent in Windows, but it is user-configurable, if I am correct.
The thread is so long now, I don't know if anybody mentioned turning off non-essential services that start up at boot.
And as far as things like MS Office and IE being "snappy" in Windows, a lot of that is due to key components for those applications being included in the kernel. It's more evident for IE than for MS Office, but the OS does seem to favor those apps. Also, the GNOME loader for
Quoting:Did you read my post about how good services and threading work on Windows NT? I do call them as I see them even if the opposition was better.
Yes I did, the "you" in my statement would better read as "one", as in "If one can't accept..........", it wasn't an attack on anything you, or anyone else had said.
The simple fact is that in most of the time the user experience of the desktop is superior on the Windows desktop. Yes I can and do, often push the Windows desktop to the point where it chokes, and the experience deteriorates markedly, while no matter how hard I push the Linux desktop it continues to give the same less then perfect experience that never gets any worse.
> it continues to give the same less then perfect experience that never gets any worse.
You have a better experience than I do. I find that to be mostly true, but memory starvation can really s-l-o-w my systems down.
Still, mostly, they hold up TONS better to abuse than Windows.
Maybe the appropriate automotive comparison is a pickup truck and something like a Toyota Corolla/Honda Civic, etc.
The little care looks nice when you're sitting in it, feels good and works well. It feels nice and zippy. Steering is light and controls responsive. Driving in traffic is a breeze. Drop half a ton of crap on it, and, well, it still looks pretty good, aside from any squishing that may occur, but it ain't moving much. You certainly want to avoid the uphills.
The pickup truck may be nice and shiny, but, no matter what you do, it's still, well, a pickup truck. Power assists may help the steerting, but it lacks the precision of a little zipmobile. Ride is, umm, trucklike. It's got a bigger motor than the little car, but isn't as quick because of the weight it pulls around. As a car, the truck isn't terrible, but it isn't wonderful, either. Drop half a ton of crap on it and little changes. You'll feel the load. The ride might actually improve. Overall, it isn't terrible, but it isn't wonderful.
You have a better experience than I do. I find that to be mostly true, but memory starvation can really s-l-o-w my systems down.
Still, mostly, they hold up TONS better to abuse than Windows.
Maybe the appropriate automotive comparison is a pickup truck and something like a Toyota Corolla/Honda Civic, etc.
The little care looks nice when you're sitting in it, feels good and works well. It feels nice and zippy. Steering is light and controls responsive. Driving in traffic is a breeze. Drop half a ton of crap on it, and, well, it still looks pretty good, aside from any squishing that may occur, but it ain't moving much. You certainly want to avoid the uphills.
The pickup truck may be nice and shiny, but, no matter what you do, it's still, well, a pickup truck. Power assists may help the steerting, but it lacks the precision of a little zipmobile. Ride is, umm, trucklike. It's got a bigger motor than the little car, but isn't as quick because of the weight it pulls around. As a car, the truck isn't terrible, but it isn't wonderful, either. Drop half a ton of crap on it and little changes. You'll feel the load. The ride might actually improve. Overall, it isn't terrible, but it isn't wonderful.
Abe, beware! You said:
That's exactly what Linus said about ck-patches, and the reason not to offer the staircase scheduler as an option in the mainline-Linux-kernel. No matter how they argued about substantiated or not, ck-users still felt ck-linux was snappier, which is why people use ck-sources and they're happy. You can't deny those users by saying they 'are going through experiences that don't exist in the real physical world but only in their head'. We have to accept user experiences, even if we can't measure them, and we should care about them.
We should care if ck-users say ck-patches make Linux feel snappier, and in the same way we should care if people say Windows XP feels snappier than vanilla-Linux.
Of course, being snappy isn't a significant difference when it comes to productivity, in my opinion, so in an objective way, snappiness is not an issue at all. I mean, what are five seconds more of startup time for OOo, and fifteen seconds in startup time more in Linux than in Windows, when in Windows you have to spent hours to keep the system clean from mal/ad/crap/cripple/spyware, viruses and worms, and re-patch your patches? Well, I can tell, from an objective viewpoint, this lack of snappiness in Linux is totally insignificant compared to the waisted time in Windows.
However, it are the objective 'small' issues which can be in a subjective manner quite big. For example, when saving in AutoCAD over a network, I have to wait about four seconds before my drawing is saved. I save about once every five minutes or so. That is totally insignificant compared to my style of drawing: Sometimes, I could have saved a quarter of work by thinking better before starting to draw, reading the assignment better before starting to draw (which would save my quarters of drawing the wrong aspects because I didn't read the assignment but only looked at the drawings), or using the mirror feature more than I do, in which case I only would have drawn instead of two sides. So, you could say those four seconds lack of snappiness are totally insignificant in an objective way. Than you'd be right.
Nonetheless, you can't guess how frustrated I am every time I'm waiting for the d*rn file to save. Those five seconds feel like eternity for some reason, and I get p*ssed of much more, than when realizing I could have saved a quarter by drawing in a different way.
So what I'm saying is this: When it comes to user experience, you can't deny subjective feelings. Even more than that: the subjective feelings are what makes the user experience (which by the way is the general theorem of marketing if you'd ask me: Even if your product s*cks in an objective way, relate it to the positive feelings user may experience with the product in a subjective way, than you will get it sold)
Quoting:I believe there is no need for "Windows does this and that better than Linux" especially when it is not substantiated and purely subject.
That's exactly what Linus said about ck-patches, and the reason not to offer the staircase scheduler as an option in the mainline-Linux-kernel. No matter how they argued about substantiated or not, ck-users still felt ck-linux was snappier, which is why people use ck-sources and they're happy. You can't deny those users by saying they 'are going through experiences that don't exist in the real physical world but only in their head'. We have to accept user experiences, even if we can't measure them, and we should care about them.
We should care if ck-users say ck-patches make Linux feel snappier, and in the same way we should care if people say Windows XP feels snappier than vanilla-Linux.
Of course, being snappy isn't a significant difference when it comes to productivity, in my opinion, so in an objective way, snappiness is not an issue at all. I mean, what are five seconds more of startup time for OOo, and fifteen seconds in startup time more in Linux than in Windows, when in Windows you have to spent hours to keep the system clean from mal/ad/crap/cripple/spyware, viruses and worms, and re-patch your patches? Well, I can tell, from an objective viewpoint, this lack of snappiness in Linux is totally insignificant compared to the waisted time in Windows.
However, it are the objective 'small' issues which can be in a subjective manner quite big. For example, when saving in AutoCAD over a network, I have to wait about four seconds before my drawing is saved. I save about once every five minutes or so. That is totally insignificant compared to my style of drawing: Sometimes, I could have saved a quarter of work by thinking better before starting to draw, reading the assignment better before starting to draw (which would save my quarters of drawing the wrong aspects because I didn't read the assignment but only looked at the drawings), or using the mirror feature more than I do, in which case I only would have drawn instead of two sides. So, you could say those four seconds lack of snappiness are totally insignificant in an objective way. Than you'd be right.
Nonetheless, you can't guess how frustrated I am every time I'm waiting for the d*rn file to save. Those five seconds feel like eternity for some reason, and I get p*ssed of much more, than when realizing I could have saved a quarter by drawing in a different way.
So what I'm saying is this: When it comes to user experience, you can't deny subjective feelings. Even more than that: the subjective feelings are what makes the user experience (which by the way is the general theorem of marketing if you'd ask me: Even if your product s*cks in an objective way, relate it to the positive feelings user may experience with the product in a subjective way, than you will get it sold)
Hans --
You get it! You get it! You get it!
Users' interactions with their tools are not a Frederick Taylor exercise. The human element is large and has as much to do with productivity as keystrokes and total processing time.
Happy people tend to be more productive. Frustrated ones less so.
You get it! You get it! You get it!
Users' interactions with their tools are not a Frederick Taylor exercise. The human element is large and has as much to do with productivity as keystrokes and total processing time.
Happy people tend to be more productive. Frustrated ones less so.
Agreed
As a coincidence to this thread, I've been involved in mailing-list conversation with some friends -- serious Unix heads that include a Linux kernel contributor -- that was spurred by a local school district's letter to parents that they should get Microsoft Office 2007 for their kids. This is Batavia, Illinois, and the notice drew the attention of Slashdot.
The interesting part of the discussion was frustration by several of us with the Linux desktop. One of us had abandoned it for a Mac two years ago, and a couple of us have favorable impressions. The truth, whether any ubergeeks want to admit it, is that the Linux desktop is functional, stable, easier to use than ever -- and not very satisfying. I referred to "snappiness" in this thread, my mailing-list mate refers to smoothness. Compared to his Mac, the Linux desktops just seem cruder.
Of course, compared to the Mac, pretty much all desktops seem cruder.
The interesting part of the discussion was frustration by several of us with the Linux desktop. One of us had abandoned it for a Mac two years ago, and a couple of us have favorable impressions. The truth, whether any ubergeeks want to admit it, is that the Linux desktop is functional, stable, easier to use than ever -- and not very satisfying. I referred to "snappiness" in this thread, my mailing-list mate refers to smoothness. Compared to his Mac, the Linux desktops just seem cruder.
Of course, compared to the Mac, pretty much all desktops seem cruder.
"Of course, compared to the Mac, pretty much all desktops seem cruder."
If there were no benefit to vertically-integrated systems, there wouldn't be vertically-integrated systems.
The entire Mac (even using the BSD core kernel) is written by a relatively small group of people who are very well integrated. They have a plan, and they have _COMPLETE_ control over what hardware the software runs on.
Myself, I consider the conflicts and competition between (just for example) KDE and GNOME to be a GoodThing(tm, reg us pat off) because it motivates improvement on both (all) sides. Such a vertically integrated system as Apple doesn't have that direct feature-for-feature competition.
However, they have a goal and no hesitation to leave out what they believe does not need to be there in order to reach that goal. Compare this to KDE's "everything and complete control of the kitchen sink too" and of course KDE looks clunky.
Compare the "user interface" of a Mercedes Benz with the same user experience in a full-sized Kentworth long-haul tractor. Which is going to be "smoother", which is going to seem "cruder"?
I'm a bit of a bigot myself. I've used Macs, they're just a bit too polished, a bit to abstracted for me. I _want_ to be able to have the fine grained control when I want it. I happen to enjoy changing my own oil, knowing the pressure in my own tires.
I've used Windows, every version except VISTA (which I powered up for only long enough to make a system restore disk before I erased it with extreme prejudice, just in case), and every argument against the Linux desktop experience are problems I've had with Windows at one time or another.
But here's why this thread is important: With Linux, we can FIX it. We can have some effect on what is done to solve these problems of perception. Windows? Mac? Forget it, because they are someone else's visions of what they want.
With Linux, we have met the community and they is us.
(apologies to Pogo)
If there were no benefit to vertically-integrated systems, there wouldn't be vertically-integrated systems.
The entire Mac (even using the BSD core kernel) is written by a relatively small group of people who are very well integrated. They have a plan, and they have _COMPLETE_ control over what hardware the software runs on.
Myself, I consider the conflicts and competition between (just for example) KDE and GNOME to be a GoodThing(tm, reg us pat off) because it motivates improvement on both (all) sides. Such a vertically integrated system as Apple doesn't have that direct feature-for-feature competition.
However, they have a goal and no hesitation to leave out what they believe does not need to be there in order to reach that goal. Compare this to KDE's "everything and complete control of the kitchen sink too" and of course KDE looks clunky.
Compare the "user interface" of a Mercedes Benz with the same user experience in a full-sized Kentworth long-haul tractor. Which is going to be "smoother", which is going to seem "cruder"?
I'm a bit of a bigot myself. I've used Macs, they're just a bit too polished, a bit to abstracted for me. I _want_ to be able to have the fine grained control when I want it. I happen to enjoy changing my own oil, knowing the pressure in my own tires.
I've used Windows, every version except VISTA (which I powered up for only long enough to make a system restore disk before I erased it with extreme prejudice, just in case), and every argument against the Linux desktop experience are problems I've had with Windows at one time or another.
But here's why this thread is important: With Linux, we can FIX it. We can have some effect on what is done to solve these problems of perception. Windows? Mac? Forget it, because they are someone else's visions of what they want.
With Linux, we have met the community and they is us.
(apologies to Pogo)
Quoting:...With Linux, we have met the community and they is us.
Well said Bob.
I wouldn't take a Mac over Linux for the same reasons.
Quoting:With Linux, we can FIX it.Couple weeks ago, my wife mentioned to me that Frank & Claire (both are doctors) are very depressed and didn't sleep last night trying to revive their Mac. Frank needed it badly to get his files to make a presentation at a conference. His backup on a 2nd USB drive wasn't any good or incomplete. He had similar situation before and he ended up sending to some outfit to recover. It cost him $1,500. to recover about 70% for the files and took 3 weeks.
They asked If I can help, I said I will try but can't promise anything.
Well, Linux to the rescue. I downloaded Debian PPC 4.0 (I never used before) and created a boot CD. Guess what, They thought I was genius after recovering all his files (With his help since I wasn't familiar with the Mac). It did take me sometime to figure out things, but I did it. His hard drive was pretty much at it last leg.
That was not the first incident, about a year ago, another friend had a problem with his Windows XP hard drive signature. Linux was the hero also.
Now, about the Mac "smoothness", in my very brief exposure to the Mac, I really thought it was funky.
Says dinotrac:
I moved across the country in my little Honda Civic CRX. It was packed to the limit: I could see out the mirrors, and barely see out the rear windows. It may have been "half a ton of crap," what with the books and computers and monitors. Oh, and I had a few clothes in there, too. ;-)
Truth is, that cross-country trip was a better ride than nearly any other I've taken in it. The extra mass hid the bumps in the road a lot better, I could still accelerate going uphill (thanks to the engine's power curve), and I actually got improved fuel economy with the prevailing tailwind. Normally I get 42 MPG on the highway, but over this trip I got 46 MPG. I ran the figures 3 times to make sure I did them right.
That was a year and a half ago, when the engine had ~244,000 miles on it. It now has over a quarter-million.
Would I prefer to have moved in a pickup truck? I doubt it. Even with having shipped the less fragile stuff, I used a lot less fuel than a truck would have used. The cost savings alone with my little car's fuel usage offset the shipping cost of what I didn't carry.
Now, back on-topic, I guess the moral of my story would be: Under the right circumstances, and with a good handler, a "weak" system can still have some surprising abilities. Yet M$ would have us believe that, if it isn't the latest and shiniest hardware, it isn't worth having. Phooey on them.
No, let me re-word that. M$ would have us believe that, if you don't have the latest and shiniest hardware, you aren't worth having as a customer. You might actually make them look bad.
Quoting:The little care looks nice when you're sitting in it, feels good and works well. It feels nice and zippy. Steering is light and controls responsive. Driving in traffic is a breeze. Drop half a ton of crap on it, and, well, it still looks pretty good, aside from any squishing that may occur, but it ain't moving much. You certainly want to avoid the uphills.I'm going to go a little off-topic, and who knows, it may actually help the discussion.
I moved across the country in my little Honda Civic CRX. It was packed to the limit: I could see out the mirrors, and barely see out the rear windows. It may have been "half a ton of crap," what with the books and computers and monitors. Oh, and I had a few clothes in there, too. ;-)
Truth is, that cross-country trip was a better ride than nearly any other I've taken in it. The extra mass hid the bumps in the road a lot better, I could still accelerate going uphill (thanks to the engine's power curve), and I actually got improved fuel economy with the prevailing tailwind. Normally I get 42 MPG on the highway, but over this trip I got 46 MPG. I ran the figures 3 times to make sure I did them right.
That was a year and a half ago, when the engine had ~244,000 miles on it. It now has over a quarter-million.
Would I prefer to have moved in a pickup truck? I doubt it. Even with having shipped the less fragile stuff, I used a lot less fuel than a truck would have used. The cost savings alone with my little car's fuel usage offset the shipping cost of what I didn't carry.
Now, back on-topic, I guess the moral of my story would be: Under the right circumstances, and with a good handler, a "weak" system can still have some surprising abilities. Yet M$ would have us believe that, if it isn't the latest and shiniest hardware, it isn't worth having. Phooey on them.
No, let me re-word that. M$ would have us believe that, if you don't have the latest and shiniest hardware, you aren't worth having as a customer. You might actually make them look bad.
OK, I compiled ck-sources. Actually, it was no-sources-2.6.20, an overlay available for (amongst others I believe) Gentoo, based on the -mm, -ck and -love patchsets, including Con's newest scheduling (Rotating Staircase Deadline Scheduler, RDSL for short. Don't ask me what it means by the way. I'll try it and let you folks know if I experience any difference. I hope it does. Probably I can't measure it, but it should 'feel' smoother / snappier, not? The sad thing is, my computer (the one I'm on now) isn't very old, it has got a Sempron 2600 and 768M RAM, but I could underclock and downgrade RAM maybe.
The only thing I'd need is a 'random kernel chooser' in GRUB to make this test 'trustworthy' and less subjective. Any suggestions on how to do this? Probably I could use an initrd to do this, but I have bad experiences using initrd's, because they are a lot of work to make, and most of the times they don't do the things I'd like them to do. However, performing a 'blind' test seems like a fine job for the holidays which I'm having now.
In the meantime, to keep you busy, please read http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-May/0005... , about a kernel-patchset developer / maintainer frustrated with the Linux kernel. Sounds familiar, not? Remember, this 'dev' posted this about a month before Con ventilated his critics about the kernel.
The only thing I'd need is a 'random kernel chooser' in GRUB to make this test 'trustworthy' and less subjective. Any suggestions on how to do this? Probably I could use an initrd to do this, but I have bad experiences using initrd's, because they are a lot of work to make, and most of the times they don't do the things I'd like them to do. However, performing a 'blind' test seems like a fine job for the holidays which I'm having now.
In the meantime, to keep you busy, please read http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-May/0005... , about a kernel-patchset developer / maintainer frustrated with the Linux kernel. Sounds familiar, not? Remember, this 'dev' posted this about a month before Con ventilated his critics about the kernel.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I know, but others sounded, at least to, like they are and might have been unintentionally.
You brought a very important point about using services that MS started with NT. NT wasn't a bad kernel, on the contrary, it had a really good kernel. After all, it was the inception of the guy who was the main architect of VMS. Services on a VMS server, that used to be called detached background processes, were also the work horse on VMS. They handled application interface and user requests via memory mailbox (now we know them as threads).
Combined with efficient threading, NT kernel was a pretty fast and capable system as a server. Services are very fast and clean processes with minimal resource requirements. I don't know much about the internals of Linux, but if it could have such easy and clean processes and better threading, it will blow Windows out of the water on both the server and desktop side.