June 11th, 2004, 12:38 PM
The Fast-Food Syndrome: The Linux Platform is Getting Fat
Consider these memory requirements for Fedora Core 2, as specified by Red Hat: Minimum for graphical: 192MB and Recommended for graphical: 256MB Does that sound any alarm bells with you? 192MB minimum? I've been running Linux for five years (and am a huge supporter), and have plenty of experience with Windows, Mac OS X and others. And those numbers are shocking -- severely so. No other general-purpose OS in existence has such high requirements. Linux is getting very fat.
Linux Needs Diet, Page 1/2
I appreciate that there are other distros; however, this is symptomatic of what's happening to Linux in general. The other mainstream desktop distros are equally demanding (even if not as much as Fedora, for example Arch Linux or Slackware run Gnome on 128 MB, but not very comfortably when you load 2-3 apps at the same time), desktops and apps are bloating beyond control, and it's starting to put Linux in a troublesome situation. Allow me to elaborate.
A worrying tale
Recently, a friend of mine expressed an interest in running Linux on his machine. Sick and tired of endless spyware and viruses, he wanted a way out -- so I gave him a copy of Mandrake 10.0 Official. A couple of days later, he got back to me with the sad news I was prepared for: it's just too slow. His box, an 600 MHz 128MB RAM system, ran Windows XP happily, but with Mandrake it was considerably slower. Not only did it take longer to boot up, it crawled when running several major apps (Mozilla, OpenOffice.org and Evolution on top of KDE) and suffered more desktop glitches and bugs.
The Two Page Article
This came from the Lockergnome newsletter. A really good read about how Linux has bloated itself out until the minimum requirements have to a degree exceeded that of Windows XP.
June 11th, 2004, 13:23 PM
When it comes to desktop PC Linux is on the long road to nowhere! They should've spent their time hiding all the command line crap behind a "Click Here" to install button.
Linux is like buying a brand new modern car and still having to use a hand crank from the 20's to get it started, then double clutching while you shift the non-sync transmission....wasn't so bad if it's a nice fast little sports car you jump in every now & then for a thrill, but jumping in a big fat slow diesel truck ? no thanks.
June 11th, 2004, 13:40 PM
Linux has changed dramatically. I think it is because they are going away from the command line and more into the point and click that the bloat comes into play.
Right now, nearly everything has an RPM. RPM being the executable. YOu click and it installs. That is if the dependencies are being met. With windows you have 1 OS, in a couple flavors. SO it is very simple to get software out. BUt with Linux you have tons and tons of distros. Some use the same install format while others take a different route to get to the same conclusion.
I think of windows as an overpriced generic, whereas Linux takes on a free or near free specialty market. With windows it is expensive, easy and simple. Sometimes too simple, thus the term generic.
Linux has some more ground to gain with software and even hardware installation to target desktop users. But the core of Linux, is not the desktop, but rather the corporate world, with the servers, web, ftp, and so on. That is where the business of Linux picks up and where it has dominated MS for a long time.
I like using Linux. For some reason, it just feels good to install it for the first time, and have office apps, adobe, 3 browsers, tons of games, scientific tools, web servers, FTP servers, and tons and tons of free open source software that works.
You get everything you need directly from the OS disks. That is not the case with Microsoft. You pay for nearly everything. You want office, you pay $500. You want a cd burning application, you pay (windows media player sucks DRM anyone?)
I could sit and write about the good and the bad, but overall, I think it's important to remember that eventually MS is going to make it so that the end user has no control whatsoever over their operating system, that is when Linux is going to shine.
Linux is like a get out of jail free card, once you get trapped in the nonsense one would call a EULA, or better a sign your life and rights away at the click of a mouse.
Can you install your XP on 5 machines at home without paying a license fee each time (legally?)... I think not (same goes for their office suite).
Regardless, Linux does have issues and you pointed one great one out FG. Software installation is not as simple as it should be, though, in time I hope it will.
June 11th, 2004, 13:58 PM
Thats the only thing I have against Linux, plus the fact certain hardware companies don't support it with good drivers.
Originally Posted by Big Booger
Anyway i was just trying to get you going BB nice response, you always make it hard to argue