LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: UNIX is better than WINDOWS
what?HELLO.i am UNIX. the best! 605 68.52%
whooa, wait a minute. Windows is BETTER than UNIX 48 5.44%
hoo-boy..i don't like both. 64 7.25%
errr...i don't know, what is UNIX afterall? 11 1.25%
windows?never heard of it... 155 17.55%
Voters: 883. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
  Search this Thread
Old 05-17-2010, 06:08 PM   #3421
Kenny_Strawn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: /usa/ca/orange_county/lake_forest
Distribution: ArchBang, Google Android 2.1 + Motoblur (on Motortola Flipside), Google Chrome OS (on Cr-48)
Posts: 1,791
Blog Entries: 62

Rep: Reputation: 56

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
of course you can theme XP without separate programs.
http://www.instantfundas.com/2008/07...indows-xp.html
Yes, but under the hood it's still proprietary and therefore crap. It's still totalitarian!
 
Old 05-17-2010, 06:23 PM   #3422
dv502
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: USA - NYC
Distribution: Whatever icon you see!
Posts: 642

Rep: Reputation: 57
Another good thing with linux is you can compile a kernel to your specifics needs.
In window$, the version you are using, the kernel is the same for everyone.

I recently installed crux linux 2.6. The installation was totally binary like arch and slackware with the exception of the kernel. I had to compile the kernel.

I disable stuff I did not need for my machine like wireless modules, firewire ports, HAM radio supoort, etc. This also saves me compiling time too. Only 2 hours to compile the kernel.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 06:26 PM   #3423
cantab
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: England
Distribution: Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Debian, Proxmox.
Posts: 553

Rep: Reputation: 115Reputation: 115
I've never felt the need to compile a kernel. What, besides a bit of performance, does one actually gain. And on modern hardware there's performance to spare - I run Folding @ Home SMP on my Phenom II X3 710 and the only noticeable thing it does is makes the fans run a bit faster.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 06:40 PM   #3424
dv502
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: USA - NYC
Distribution: Whatever icon you see!
Posts: 642

Rep: Reputation: 57
I usually stick with the default kernel version that comes with the distro. I only compile only when I really need to.

With crux, I had no choice, I had to compile the kernel to use crux.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 07:19 PM   #3425
mattvdh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn View Post
Yes, but under the hood it's still proprietary and therefore crap. It's still totalitarian!
Why do Linux users tend to mix the business ethics with technical comparisons. These are two totally different subjects altogether.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 07:23 PM   #3426
mattvdh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv502 View Post
Another good thing with linux is you can compile a kernel to your specifics needs.
In window$, the version you are using, the kernel is the same for everyone.

I recently installed crux linux 2.6. The installation was totally binary like arch and slackware with the exception of the kernel. I had to compile the kernel.

I disable stuff I did not need for my machine like wireless modules, firewire ports, HAM radio supoort, etc. This also saves me compiling time too. Only 2 hours to compile the kernel.
you can easily edit the services in Windows. And it doesn't take 2 laborious hours of compiling. I fail to see the benefit of compiling an OS yourself. How can you call it an OS if you have to configure it to make it work properly? it's like 'Here have my car, it's broken'. gee thanks
 
Old 05-17-2010, 07:27 PM   #3427
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723
What kind of package system does CRUX use?
 
Old 05-17-2010, 07:35 PM   #3428
mattvdh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantab View Post
I've never felt the need to compile a kernel. What, besides a bit of performance, does one actually gain. And on modern hardware there's performance to spare - I run Folding @ Home SMP on my Phenom II X3 710 and the only noticeable thing it does is makes the fans run a bit faster.
what type of performance gains are we talking about? And why don't linux distros just come pre-optimized for the best performance and just ask basic questions during the install like: what type of pc will this be used for--> do you have wireless--->ETC.

I always see links/posts to Linux being used in Hollywood and in supercomputing, but I have yet to see any real performance gains over any other OSs like windows/mac, when used as a desktop machine. maybe my Linux configuration isn't 'optimized' for the fastest most robust environment, but even with all of the 'bloated' services in XP, it's still a better user experience than Linux in terms of the feel and responsiveness.

I'm happy for the Unix/Linux community that they've configured some of the fastest performance to date, but this technology doesn't seem to trickle down/translate in to the open source distros for everyday users IMO.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 07:36 PM   #3429
dv502
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: USA - NYC
Distribution: Whatever icon you see!
Posts: 642

Rep: Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTK358 View Post
What kind of package system does CRUX use?
It uses the ports system like the BSDs and the BSD style init scripts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
you can easily edit the services in Windows. And it doesn't take 2 laborious hours of compiling. I fail to see the benefit of compiling an OS yourself. How can you call it an OS if you have to configure it to make it work properly? it's like 'Here have my car, it's broken'. gee thanks
First of all, I had to compile the kernel, it was part of the installation process. Compiling the kernel is more like adding or removing functionality to the kernel.

Secondly, linux can enable or disable services too by going to the administration area and then to services. This can be done by GUI frontends or editing configuration files.

Thirdly, compiling kernels is a choice not a have to.

Last edited by dv502; 05-17-2010 at 08:05 PM.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 07:39 PM   #3430
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723Reputation: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
what type of performance gains are we talking about? And why don't linux distros just come pre-optimized for the best performance and just ask basic questions during the install like: what type of pc will this be used for--> do you have wireless--->ETC.
Compiling a kernel takes a long time. Up to a few hours on some machines.

(I have never actually compiled a kernel before)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
I always see links/posts to Linux being used in Hollywood and in supercomputing, but I have yet to see any real performance gains over any other OSs like windows/mac, when used as a desktop machine. maybe my Linux configuration isn't 'optimized' for the fastest most robust environment, but even with all of the 'bloated' services in XP, it's still a better user experience than Linux in terms of the feel and responsiveness.

I'm happy for the Unix/Linux community that they've configured some of the fastest performance to date, but this technology doesn't seem to trickle down/translate in to the open source distros for everyday users IMO.
I still find it hard to believe that Linux is slower than XP. Something must not be right.

OTOH, distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are pretty much as bloated as XP to cater to all new user's wants with no software installation required. The problem is that most users don't even need or use most of it.

That's why I like Arch. It comes only with the bare essentials, not even a GUI, when freshly installed.

Last edited by MTK358; 05-17-2010 at 07:44 PM.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 07:49 PM   #3431
exvor
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS, Debian,Ubuntu
Posts: 1,537

Rep: Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
riiiiight...scaling down doesn't necessarily translate in to a more powerful environment.
Never said it did.... Please read the entire post.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 08:15 PM   #3432
exvor
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS, Debian,Ubuntu
Posts: 1,537

Rep: Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
What's wrong with you people?! XP takes a maximum of 45 minutes to an hour to install. It generally takes me about a half hour with my PC and most PC's I've installed it on. And why didn't you get WiFi working? There's really no reason why the WiFi shouldn't work in XP.
I actually used to work for microsoft doing windows XP support back when it was released and I can tell you that a clean install from a RC version of windows xp is way over an hour. The amount of updates you need to preform and reboots required would easily drive this number into 2 hours.

You should consider using windows 7 other then XP anyways since its got native 64bit support and better system management. XP was and will always be a mess. Compared to windows 2000 or even windows 98, at least from a support standpoint was a regression into the world of stupid. One of the leading jokes around the support center them days was XP was the Lisa Frank OS or the OS that a clown exploded into.

Some of the fundamental flaws in XP was a absolute terrible error handling system and memory management. Actually the error handling was soo bad that many times support documentation simply said ignore what the error says and remove such and such software or go to this other article if you get this error.

I will also support the mention that Microsoft thinks of supporting there OS as a side note. When XP was released there was zero support documents to deal with problems. The launch was a terrible failure for support in every way imaginable.

That said I actually got windows 7 at a reduced student price and I have been using it for a while now, its actually not a bad operating system to use but then again I only really use it to play games and ssh into my ARCH nas to do anything serious. I would have never paid full price for this OS. IMHO Microsoft sells there OS at prices that were normal in the 90's and are not inline with current price schemes. With more and more public awareness that they can get a OS for free that will do more things then something that's gonna cost them $400 people will start buying it less and less.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 08:25 PM   #3433
mattvdh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTK358 View Post
Compiling a kernel takes a long time. Up to a few hours on some machines.

(I have never actually compiled a kernel before)



I still find it hard to believe that Linux is slower than XP. Something must not be right.

OTOH, distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are pretty much as bloated as XP to cater to all new user's wants with no software installation required. The problem is that most users don't even need or use most of it.

That's why I like Arch. It comes only with the bare essentials, not even a GUI, when freshly installed.
I've been wrestling with arch all day now, the pacman app just doesn't work for me for some reason. It's ridiculous how much work I've had to do just to setup the package manager, and I'm still not done yet. I fail to see the arch hype. Doesn't seem to be working very well for me. At least debians apt-get worked out of the box.
 
Old 05-17-2010, 08:27 PM   #3434
mattvdh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv502 View Post
It uses the ports system like the BSDs and the BSD style init scripts.



First of all, I had to compile the kernel, it was part of the installation process. Compiling the kernel is more like adding or removing functionality to the kernel.

Secondly, linux can enable or disable services too by going to the administration area and then to services. This can be done by GUI frontends or editing configuration files.

Thirdly, compiling kernels is a choice not a have to.
Again, if there's serious performance benefits to be had from compiling it yourself for your particular machine, why don't the programmers who write this distros have the installer run optimization tools based on my hardware and needs?
 
Old 05-17-2010, 08:29 PM   #3435
dv502
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: USA - NYC
Distribution: Whatever icon you see!
Posts: 642

Rep: Reputation: 57
@ mattvdh

When I installed Arch, I had no problem with pacman or other features in Arch.

I think you and linux don't get along too well.

@ MTK358

As I was writing my reply to you about what package system crux uses, several new posts came after me. In case you miss it, crux uses the ports system.

Last edited by dv502; 05-17-2010 at 08:36 PM.
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
business, kenny's_playground, microsoft, register, technical, windows, worm, wtf


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linux-windows Dual boot question when upgrading from windows 2000 to XP sarikalinux Linux - Newbie 1 03-09-2006 02:21 PM
Solution Dual Boot Windows & Linux [ALL DONE IN WINDOWS] No Linux terminology DSargeant Linux - Newbie 35 02-07-2006 03:29 PM
Solution Dual Boot Windows & Linux [ALL DONE IN WINDOWS] No Linux terminology DSargeant Linux - Newbie 4 11-10-2005 11:37 AM
Red Hat Linux 9 + Windows Server 2003 + Windows XP + Fedora in same domain wolfy339 Linux - Networking 5 03-02-2005 06:03 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration