Linux, Windows, now, future

[Whaleboy]

And yes, I can't think of anything more interesting .

This is a draft of an open letter I'm going to post on various Linux forums but since there are lots of opinions here, I'll treat you lot to a sneak preview!

Its basically about the current state of the linux desktop, and my personal views on it all.

Incidentally, after using Windows XP and hating it, switching back to Slackware 9.0 and writing this, my own arguments have convinced me to install Windows 2000 on my fast machine. Its fantastic, I never liked XP because it was too childlike, WinXP is probably the most balanced OS I have ever used. Best of all, I dont have to constantly fiddle with it, as is the temptation with Linux (I cant help myself.. give me buttons to press...).

Anyways, enjoy! By the way, Asher will either agree wholeheartedly, or disagree big time. Or both .

"
An open letter to the GNU/Linux community

We are witnessing today a struggle for dominance in the operating system market. For many years, Microsoft's monopoly was near absolute and now, it is being threatened by the Open Source community. Closed proprietery ownership is being undermined by freedom of source and use. Power is being shifted from the halls of control at the headquarters of a distant and indifferent multinational corporation back to the fingertips of the users.

Most within this community, and indeed many objective observers argue that Linux is a superior kernel to Windows. From reading reviews, tests, and from personal experience, I can say that Linux is faster, more secure, more stable, more adaptable and portable, and more open than Microsoft's offering.

However, these are characteristics that are most essential in areas such as servers, clusters, and other security conscious and networking applications. The new frontier for Linux is the desktop.

This is a far different cup of tea to the servers. Desktop users want ease of use, they want speed, they want the ability to run their applications. They are not interested so much in stability or security, a factor which, as we have seen recently, has backfired upon them. The superiority of one kernel over another is largely irrelevant to them - as they only care about what they can see and do with what they can see.

This cannot be changed. There will be no shift in the desktop market back to using the commandline, or gaining power at the expense of useability. Mice are being worn out at a faster and faster rate, while keyboards gather dust! As such, the GNU/Linux community has to work within that boundary in order to create a viable desktop system.

Despite the inferiority of the kernel, Windows is still the king of desktops, both in market share, and in my opinion, quality.

I own two computers. One was bought in 1999, has an AMD K6/II processor clocked at 500 MHz with 128 MB SD-RAM. The other was bought in January 2003, has a Pentium IV processor clocked at 2.8 GHz with 512 MB DDR-RAM. Both of these systems dual boot. The former runs Slackware 9.0 and Windows 2000 Pro. The latter also runs Slackware 9.0, alongside Windows XP Home. Both Slackware systems run KDE 3.1, though on the faster system, I sometimes run Gnome 2.2.

On both of these vastly different boxes, Windows consistently outperforms Linux on the desktop. I am not referring to stability, graphics capability, or even the actual speed of the OS, I am referring to the interface.

Windows, which in both cases we know to be bloated, feels more responsive, more consistent, somehow, more established and professional. The environment provides basic tools and games (notepad, pinball etc), from which you build up the system using other software. It remains somewhat utilitarian, while the "control panel" is logically laid out. One does not run into the annoying problem of changing permissions or logging into root whenever one needs to install software.

KDE in the other hand, which is perhaps the most viable of Linux desktops in my opinion (thats not to say Gnome isn't a great interface, but KDE takes the cake), reflects some of the principles behind the success of Linux thus far among the hacker community (Please note, I use the word hacker to mean software developer, not the destructive and irritating nuisance of those who seek to harm other systems - people who should be properly termed "crackers"). Those principles are of choice, and of leaving the control over specifics of the system in the hands of the user.

While this is fantastic for those who are capable or willing to use that power, it is beyond the abilities of most desktop users, for whom the computer is little more than an appliance or a means to an end. As a result, despite the obvious effort of KDE to encourage consistency and develop its own applications, it is a confusing, incoherent and bloated environment. It feels, at least to me, as though certain things, for example the control centre, and various pop-up menus, get in the way of doing what I want to do. For someone who is very computer literate, yet an author, it seems inefficient, whereas in Windows, the control panels and windows seem tucked away until you need them at the right time.

When using KDE, I feel like I am constantly wrestling with the interface whereas in Windows, I am better able to concentrate on using the application - the interface is working with me.

Another issue is one of speed. On my slower box, Windows 2000 runs at an acceptably quick pace, while KDE is extraordinarily sluggish. That is also the case on my faster machine, the same version of KDE responds noticeably slower than a newer version of Windows. Windows and applications load faster, implimentation of changes occur faster, and even the pop-up menus on mouse clicks load much faster.

Another issue, one that is perhaps more easily solved (though there should be a way to automate it, if there is, I am unaware of it), is that of permissions. As I touched upon earlier, installing an application involves unzipping a *.tar.gz or *.tar.bz2 file, checking the permissions, chmod'ing it to executable if it isn't, su'ing to root (all in a terminal emulator, though I know I can do it graphically) and running the setup program using yet another shell command. A user should be able to install programs for himself, in his "home" area, that would still function, and not require root authorisation, yet would not be system wide thus not compromising the security of the system. This means that a user's area would have to be an isolated area where security for that one area is determined by root and himself. Its the same balancing act that admins on a Windows network juggle with as a matter of course.

I know that there are various package management systems that simplify the process, but these only work, or work best on certain distributions making the process something of a minefield. Indeed, I am aware, if not entirely understanding, of problems with the major RPM system. As such, major open source projects as well as companies providing products for Linux distribute their programs in a form that will run on all systems, bypassing the package management issue.

Compiling programs from source is a similar problem. This is something that Windows users rarely if ever do, which is a great shame for them as it is a great way of increasing performance. In Linux, it requires a series of commandline inputs, not to mention the plethora of potential dependency problems one can encounter. I would like there to be a way to compile and install such programs automatically, graphically, with one or two clicks.

Dependencies are a problem that is solved quite simply when a program, especially a large one, has many of its dependencies distributed with it, the setup process detecting which of these it needs to install. As such, one only requires basic libraries and a relatively recent kernel. This would go a very long way to simplifying the installation process, and as most users only use a relatively few number of large applications (office suites, music/movie players, games, web browsers etc), then a larger download would be an acceptable price to pay, as is the case with Windows apps.

A problem, partially solved by the "checkinstall" program for Slackware is the inability to manage compiled programs and those installed by other means than the package management system, after they are installed. Removing them means yet a manual process.

I would like a system where packages installed with a package management system, from external builds and from source are installed and removed within the same window, all graphically.

Let me make it clear that I do not hate KDE. For what it is, it is a good interface and a credit to those who develop it, but it is being held back by numerous factors, many of whom I have not covered. These are flaws that it is possible to correct. They do nothing to detract from its great potential.

There is one very promising solution for the GNU/Linux desktop. That takes the form of Athene. This is an environment that is literally built at run-time from editable XML scripts. To the best of my understanding as someone who does not develop software, it is a scripted system not relying on binaries. This has the advantage of actively encouraging open-source techniques, as the software itself is at its maximum potential when the user has the option to edit the software itself! As such, any Microsoft equivalent, if it was not open source, would have to have additional safeguards against the user being able to read and edit the scripts, that would unnecessarily consume resources. Even so, this would most likely be insufficient to "stop the tide" ;-).

Onto the interface itself. At the time of writing, it is skeletal at best, with few applications, and none to my knowledge that have not been developed by the parent company, Rocklyte.

Nonetheless, it has many of the best aspects of Windows outlined above. It is also fast - blisteringly fast. It is highly configurable, yet presents a simple and discrete method of configuration to the user. You are even presented with a choice of interfaces when you start up, each with different charms, including one that aims to emulate Windows 2000. Developers are of course, only the ones who will get their hands dirty in the source, so the best part of the configurability is somewhat hidden from the lay user. More information is on the website: http://www.rocklyte.com/athene/

The free version runs on top of the Linux kernel, and can also run atop Windows, though I haven't tested this as of yet. As such, it is possible to create a small, efficient system consisting of the superior Linux kernel, the numerous tools and libraries required for various software, and Athene in userland.

The Athene concept needs to be worked on further, both in that project itself and in clones. This could well develop into a killer application for GNU/Linux. In the immediate future, some way of integrating it with the Wine project would help greatly in bridging the gap between Windows and GNU/Linux. In my ignorance, I believe it would be good to have it as a part of the kernel, either having the Wine API compiled in or as a module, or maybe integrated into an Athene-like project, but common sense dictates that this would require too much work, and if it was possible it would have been done before. Nonetheless, it is an important project.

I hope this will help in some way to make GNU/Linux a more powerful and popular alternative to Windows, after all, as more users switch, the open source community will benefit from more developers, ideas, and the satisfaction of creating software that more and more people use.

Ben J. Elijah

As an afterthought, another vital approach in bringing Windows users across to Linux will be to appeal to the gamers community. The abilities of the kernel, translated into graphical capabilities can be exploited if more games are developed. To kick off this process, we need a good open source game, preferably a first-person shooter. There are several engines available, many based upon Quake, a popular FPS. A full GPL'd game, with maps, players, bots, weapons, cheats, great gameplay and of course, a multiplayer mode, will help immeasurably in bringing people across. Integrated with Athene, it could well bring a flood of Windows users across to the GNU/Linux camp.
"

EDIT: Got rid of annoying quoted blue text.

[Asher]

I agree that Linux sucks on the desktop, I disagree with a ton of points you make in the post.

The Linux kernel is neither more secure, nor more stable or portable (the NT kernel was designed for portability in mind and easily was ported to Alpha, PPC, x86-64, and IA-64 with little effort), nor faster. Indeed, it still has significant latency problems when compared to the NT kernel, but I suppose that has more to do with Linux having very little desktop experience than anything else.

I also have a huge problem with how you constantly talk about the "inferiority" of the NT kernel, but never actually address that. The NT kernel is more advanced than the Linux one, but it is somehow inferior? Help me out on this one.

[Whaleboy]

The Linux kernel is neither more secure, nor more stable or portable (the NT kernel was designed for portability in mind and easily was ported to Alpha, PPC, x86-64, and IA-64 with little effort),

IIRC, Linux has been ported to 11 architectures.

but I suppose that has more to do with Linux having very little desktop experience than anything else

Indeed, NT has been designed with the desktop in mind. 2.4 followed a similar strategy to all previous releases (commandline, server, etc). However, the older machine (that I'm on now) used to duel boot windows 98 and Slack 9.0. Linux in runlevel 3 and Dos showed quite some speed difference in favour of linux. Since later versions have more bloat (and going on previous microsoft strategy of slowing down the system to keep the demand for new machines up), its safe to say that 2000 and XP are slower than 98. Indeed, you try running windows 2000 on a 166Mhz processor, as someone tried at college . Slackware sorted that problem out.

I think there have been some benchmark tests done (memories fuzzy on the specifics) that showed Linux running faster iirc. Can someone direct us to a site?

I know much of the kernel latency stuff has been fixed with 2.6. I'll have to re-write the article accordingly in a couple of months, or whenever they actually decide to release the thing .

I also have a huge problem with how you constantly talk about the "inferiority" of the NT kernel, but never actually address that. The NT kernel is more advanced than the Linux one

How so? This is news to me.

nor more stable

A quick uptime test will show otherwise

Incidentally, secure means stable as they are two sides of the same coin. Linux has flaws, yet they are fixed far faster, are less severe, and a more efficient method of finding them. You gotta love open source sometimes.

Still, I must say, in terms of a desktop system Win 2k rules!!! I think microsoft should stick to desktops and software personally.

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
IIRC, Linux has been ported to 11 architectures.

That's probably the case, but that doesn't mean it's more portable. It just means it has been ported to all those architectures. NT could very well be on those 11 architectures as well, if it made business sense (which it doesn't).

I think there have been some benchmark tests done (memories fuzzy on the specifics) that showed Linux running faster iirc. Can someone direct us to a site?

There are benchmarks showing Linux being faster, and others showing Windows being faster. It depends how you configure them and what it's doing, which is why it's incorrect to have a blanket statement to say one is faster than another.

For example: http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
Which shows Windows Server 2003 being ~1.6x faster as a fileserver.

Also on that page, two identical Dell computers in SPECweb99. Windows: 8000, Linux: 7500

Then there's webserver performance...

How so? This is news to me.

Linux is a monolithic kernel, an ancient (and most academics would argue obsolete) design from the 1970s, while virtually every other OS today is a microkernel. NT and MacOS X's kernels are actually quite a bit smaller than Linux's, which allow them to be faster, easier to port, and more flexible and modular.

A quick uptime test will show otherwise

Only because until Windows Server 2003, most updates required a reboot.

Linux has flaws, yet they are fixed far faster, are less severe, and a more efficient method of finding them. You gotta love open source sometimes.

This is a widespread myth that's been debunked many times before. Linux has a FAR higher rate of corporate breakins than Windows, for example.

Read The Myth of Open Source Security 2.0 for more.

[Drogue]

I'm sorry, but this thread is in need of a I'm sure it's important, it's just utterly boring

[Whaleboy]

That's probably the case, but that doesn't mean it's more portable. It just means it has been ported to all those architectures. NT could very well be on those 11 architectures as well, if it made business sense (which it doesn't).

Thats true, but more ported platforms indicate greater portability, you have to show thats not the case.

There are benchmarks showing Linux being faster, and others showing Windows being faster. It depends how you configure them and what it's doing, which is why it's incorrect to have a blanket statement to say one is faster than another.

Shall we agree that Windows and Linux are better at different things then? Would seem to be the most logical conclusion since neither of us would seem to have detailed, specific or objective evidence one way or the other.

Linux is a monolithic kernel, an ancient (and most academics would argue obsolete) design from the 1970s, while virtually every other OS today is a microkernel.

Monos are faster, because everything is compiled in, so its all loaded into ram. As such, when you need a new module, because its compiled in, you access ram, and not the disk as is the case with micros. Nonetheless, micros are a good idea for the sake of stability, the Hurd will be leaps ahead of linux in that respect as soon as someone assassinates Stallman and the project would thus become viable

NT and MacOS X's kernels are actually quite a bit smaller than Linux's, which allow them to be faster, easier to port, and more flexible and modular

See above with relation to faster. Incidentally, I was able to get a kernel image of less than 300 Kb upon compilation. If windows was open source and gave the possibility of compiling, that would rock!

Only because until Windows Server 2003, most updates required a reboot.

I thought you didn't have to reboot with WS2003? That is a little annoying at the best of times surely.

This is a widespread myth that's been debunked many times before. Linux has a FAR higher rate of corporate breakins than Windows, for example.

Haven't read it, but other stuff says that breakins are due to admins who dont know what theyre doing. Thats another problem with linux though, because its hard to use, its harder to be secure. With windows, you download firewall, windows and antivirus updates, reboot and your away. Linux's processes must seem somewhat intimidating. Nonetheless, I think Linux has the CAPACITY to be more secure. What people do with it, I dont care.

EDIT: Sorry I read your post properly, WS2003 doesn't require reboots. In all fairness, how does 2003 compare to 2000 on the desktop? If thats possible of course?

[Whaleboy]

I'm sorry, but this thread is in need of a I'm sure it's important, it's just utterly boring

Hey!!! One must provide entertainment for those that care!

[KrazyHorse]

Summary?

[Whaleboy]

Kernels:
Linux great, windows lame

On the desktop.

Linux bad. Windows good.

With Athene:

Linux great, windows redundant (since it runs in windows too, so the only difference is in the kernels).

Linux needs a good open source shooter.

[KrazyHorse]

kernel K of G under mapping M: G -> H

K < G, M(k) = e for all k in K

[KrazyHorse]

If M a group homomorphism then entire structure of M derivable from its kernel.

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
Thats true, but more ported platforms indicate greater portability, you have to show thats not the case.

That's simply impossible to prove to you without taking people's word for it. One of the design goals of NT was portability, and that's why they had an x86-64 and IA-64 version of Windows out before Linux did (though in "beta", admittedly). You can't base how portable software is based on how many platform it runs on, because MS only ports when it makes business sense to, and Linux people port it when they want to. It's a different business model.

Shall we agree that Windows and Linux are better at different things then? Would seem to be the most logical conclusion since neither of us would seem to have detailed, specific or objective evidence one way or the other.

Frankly, I don't really think Linux is better at anything. BSD is a far better server than Linux, Windows is a far better desktop. The only thing Linux has going for it is good clustering support.

See above with relation to faster. Incidentally, I was able to get a kernel image of less than 300 Kb upon compilation. If windows was open source and gave the possibility of compiling, that would rock!

And the Xbox OS (Win2K) takes up 500K of RAM, including drives for the graphics chip, chipsets, Dolby Digital encoding, and TV-out support.

I thought you didn't have to reboot with WS2003? That is a little annoying at the best of times surely.

I said "until 2003".

Haven't read it, but other stuff says that breakins are due to admins who dont know what theyre doing.

Hello, what do you think causes 99% of Windows viruses & breakins?

EDIT: Sorry I read your post properly, WS2003 doesn't require reboots. In all fairness, how does 2003 compare to 2000 on the desktop? If thats possible of course?

Windows Server 2003 probably would work for a desktop, but there's no real point.

If you think XP is ugly, why didn't you just apply the Windows 2000 theme it came with?

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
Kernels:
Linux great, windows lame

The Linux kernel is rather run-of-the-mill.

Kernels: Windows great, Linux average

With Athene:

Linux great, windows redundant (since it runs in windows too, so the only difference is in the kernels).

Athene won't turn into anything, it's going to be obsolete by the time it's useful.

You've heard of how Longhorn will do the GUI, right?

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by Asher That's simply impossible to prove to you without taking people's word for it. One of the design goals of NT was portability, and that's why they had an x86-64 and IA-64 version of Windows out before Linux did (though in "beta", admittedly). You can't base how portable software is based on how many platform it runs on, because MS only ports when it makes business sense to, and Linux people port it when they want to. It's a different business model.

Um... I think I missed the release of WNT for x86-64... could you throw a link to it at me?

(I intended to write a longer post, but got confused by this)

(edit) Wait a sec... if the IA64 port is an official release and the x86-64 port is still in beta... well, that would make sense...

[Whaleboy]

One of the design goals of NT was portability

One of the design goals of my bike was the ability to cycle up and down a mountain and keep the rider alive.. yet it manages to get a puncture when cycling on gravel

MS only ports when it makes business sense to, and Linux people port it when they want to. It's a different business model.

The only evidence seen is that linux has been ported to more platforms than windows. Linux, based on that, is more portable. Perhaps because windows is owned by microsoft, it is less portable by your argument. QED.

The only thing Linux has going for it is good clustering support

Embedded devices, an easy Unix.... Dont get me wrong, Linux on the desktop sucks now but it has the potential in a few years to be the best. Following my recommendations of course .

And the Xbox OS (Win2K) takes up 500K of RAM, including drives for the graphics chip, chipsets, Dolby Digital encoding, and TV-out support.

How big is the kernel image with win2k, xp, 2003?

If you think XP is ugly, why didn't you just apply the Windows 2000 theme it came with?

I did, but I didn't like the start menu complications. Somehow, 2000 feels more utilitarian. XP is too gimmicky imo. Still kudos to MS for win2k!

The Linux kernel is rather run-of-the-mill.

Kernels: Windows great, Linux average

I thought windows was average by definition . Lets agree to disagree on that one. I'm compromising today .

Athene won't turn into anything, it's going to be obsolete by the time it's useful

Hopefully not, it'd be a great loss and imo, its a great way to do an OS. Built at runtime from scripts has many advantages, plus, compare it to KDE or Gnome. It wipes the floor with them in terms of responsiveness and integration. Too bad its too bare bones. It even compares favourably with fluxbox for speed!!

You've heard of how Longhorn will do the GUI, right?

Enlighten me!

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
The only evidence seen is that linux has been ported to more platforms than windows. Linux, based on that, is more portable. Perhaps because windows is owned by microsoft, it is less portable by your argument. QED.

You should try this kind of proof in school sometime, I'm sure your prof would get a kick out of it.

Embedded devices

Windows XP Embedded is better than Linux for embedded devices.

How big is the kernel image with win2k, xp, 2003?

No idea, actually. Not very large, in any case, everything that takes up RAM runs as a service.

I did, but I didn't like the start menu complications. Somehow, 2000 feels more utilitarian. XP is too gimmicky imo. Still kudos to MS for win2k!

Did you revert back to the Win2K start menu style as well?

I thought windows was average by definition . Lets agree to disagree on that one. I'm compromising today .

You haven't provided a case whatsoever which shows why Linux is great and the NT kernel is "lame", so I'm going to have to disagree with your agreement to disagree, because you've lost.

Enlighten me!

0% CPU usage, 0% system memory usage.
Every window in the desktop is a 3D texture that can be manipulated in real time. Current desktop technology (OS X, WinXP, KDE, Gnome, etc) render a simple 2D image over and over again. It produces artifacts, "choppiness" when doing things like resizing and dragging, and severely limits you in general. You can do anything you want now in Longhorn's interface. Demos included Windows acting like they were a piece of cloth, so when they dragged them around the bottoms kinda came after, and waved around a bit. They also have zoom in/out feature for each window, hardware-accelerated, etc.

And it's much faster than before, since it uses the idle GPU and GPU RAM to do everything rather than system.

[Paul Hanson]

Don't know where you got the idea that Win2K runs poorly on a P166 from. I used to run it on my old P166 and it ran absolutely fine; better than Win98, infact.

Of course, I've since moved on to the heady power of a P266, and with an upgrade in computer I felt an OS upgrade was also necessary, so up to WinXP Pro it was.

[MattH]

Ignoring the whole ashertized thread... I'd have to agree with the main point. Linux developers need to get their shite together and make something intuitive. They have a great idea, but it just isn't working yet. Mozilla for Win is a great example of how things should be working- intuitive, fast, powerful, etc. But Gnome isn't- the control panels still have notes saying "to modify more settings go to /root/x/whatever". That's just unprofessional.

I'm hoping that the next generation of windows implements tabs system-wide, in folders, notepad, Office, etc.

[Asher]

MattH: The problem with Linux developers is that, to them, it already is intuitive.

Linux developers and Linux users (to a lesser extent) have a different mindset about computers than most users. They prefer the command line to a graphical interface, and if people need help with something they can simply ask a mailing list. Of course, the mailing list will tell you to RTFM, and the manual will say "Coming soon".

[Ari Rahikkala]

Why, obviously everyone can RTFS .

[Agathon]

Oh dear.....

[MattH]

I was using Linux earlier- updating a web page and trying to compress some html into one line. First I dowloaded Arachnophilia, which didn't run (in linux, you have to do it from the command line OR copy the command into a newly created icon...). So I downloaded JRE 1.4 (or was it 4.1?). I had no clue where to put it. Bin? There's no programs folder, how do I save to desktop, etc.

Now I know I'm a newb, but things like that shouldn't be complicated. And the manuals are scattered over several websites or not complete. And the experts don't like answering the same questions over and over.

The only thing I liked was gedit opening in tabs .

[Whaleboy]

You should try this kind of proof in school sometime, I'm sure your prof would get a kick out of it.

Well, lets try some critical thinking here. Two OS's, one has been ported to more architectures. The owner of one may not port system to another because of the business model. We call that speculative evidence. Therefore, and baring in mind you are starved of evidence in both directions, you can say that it indicates that OS L is more portable than OS W.

Nonetheless, you have an open source system, people can port it to god knows what if they have an individual need. MS tells you what you need, and thus wont port it, after all, less profit. You compare open source techniques to prop., and the former lends itself to portability. Portability, security and stability are incidentally, different sides of the (three sided) coin of good coding. One means the other two.

Windows XP Embedded is better than Linux for embedded devices

Which explains why Motorola are switching to using Linux on their phones.

No idea, actually. Not very large, in any case, everything that takes up RAM runs as a service

It was in the megabytes when I ran XP.

Did you revert back to the Win2K start menu style as well?

How do I do that? Still, I'm happy with 2k, it'll run faster (unless there are P4 optimisations in XP I don't know about... hint hint). Besides, its not worth the hassle to change. I had bad experiences with XP when I had it first installed. 2k has thus far proven trouble free. Why should I switch?

You haven't provided a case whatsoever which shows why Linux is great and the NT kernel is "lame", so I'm going to have to disagree with your agreement to disagree, because you've lost.

In a debate where there is no canonical frame of reference to "check up" on either position, by definition there cannot be a loser and a winner. Surely they taught you that at logic school?

Most reading this would disagree with the proposition that I have provided no case (in subsequent posts from my first)

0% CPU usage, 0% system memory usage.
Every window in the desktop is a 3D texture that can be manipulated in real time. Current desktop technology (OS X, WinXP, KDE, Gnome, etc) render a simple 2D image over and over again. It produces artifacts, "choppiness" when doing things like resizing and dragging, and severely limits you in general. You can do anything you want now in Longhorn's interface. Demos included Windows acting like they were a piece of cloth, so when they dragged them around the bottoms kinda came after, and waved around a bit. They also have zoom in/out feature for each window, hardware-accelerated, etc.

And it's much faster than before, since it uses the idle GPU and GPU RAM to do everything rather than system

Ok now thats groovy. Will it run faster than 2k/XP on the same system? Will it run with 2.8GHz and 512 MB DDRRAM? Will it send all my information to Microsoft? Are they actually going to call it "longhorn", because that name sucks.

Don't know where you got the idea that Win2K runs poorly on a P166 from. I used to run it on my old P166 and it ran absolutely fine; better than Win98, infact

Must be flaws in the systems.

Agathon:

MattH:

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
Which explains why Motorola are switching to using Linux on their phones.

You're implying from XP Embedded -- they're not.
XP Embedded is more fully featured, it's for Smart Phones specifically, not run-of-the-mill cellphones. Motorola is replacing the basic OS with Linux, which is as much a badge of honour as saying you make the screwdrivers they use at Jiffy Lube.

How do I do that?

Critical thinking now...
How do you usually adjust properties with things in Windows?
Right click -> Properties, right?
So right click on the Start button, go to Properties...

Wow! Suddenly we're at a gloriously confusing screen with only two options: Start Menu, and Classic Start Menu. I wonder what Classic Start Menu is.

Why should I switch?

You don't have to -- XP's kernel is more stable, it runs .NET code faster, it supports the Pentium 4s properly, and has a cleaner network stack. But Win2K works, too.

In a debate where there is no canonical frame of reference to "check up" on either position, by definition there cannot be a loser and a winner. Surely they taught you that at logic school?

"logic school"? Logic is not something that can be taught, regardless of what the philosophers out there try to do. What they do is formalize it into a mess of semantics and bullshit, and it doesn't do anything but provide jobs for future philosophy profs. But that's a tangent.

I've given you a frame of reference: Linux is monolithic, NT is microkernel. Microkernels are far easier to port, by design, than monolithic kernels.

See this: http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Ind...ArticleID=2984

Throughout NT's development period, most PCs used Intel's x86 processor. Several RISC processors competed for dominance of UNIX boxes: IBM and Motorola's PowerPC, MIPS processors, and Digital's Alpha. To keep its PC customer base, as well as to accommodate the desires of high-end users, Microsoft decided to make NT as portable as possible, and the company designed NT to run out of the box on any of the RISC processor chips. Microsoft reasoned that NT's portability across different processors would ensure its viability regardless of which chip came out on top in the market.

That shows you that portability was a major issue from the very beginnings of NT, too.

Ok now thats groovy. Will it run faster than 2k/XP on the same system?

Depends. You can revert back to the XP 2D-GDI if your videocard doesn't support DirextX 9, so there would be no additional overhead of that. But there's also other optional things that will be enabled by default, like WinFS which is a database frontend for the filesystem, powered by a derivative of the upcoming Yukon SQL server. Microsoft reasons that harddrives are so massive now that the file-tree structure is increasingly obsolete, and people should use it as a secondary tool to a SQL-type search for data.

Will it run with 2.8GHz and 512 MB DDRRAM?

It's due out in 2005-2006. How would anyone know? It depends on how much they're adding. Rest assured, it'll be a massive update (Win2K is 5.0, WinXP is 5.1, Win2003 is 5.2, and this will be 6.0)

Are they actually going to call it "longhorn", because that name sucks.

No, it's a codename. The naming scheme is actually really cool: Windows XP was Whistler, which is a ski resort in BC. Longhorn is the successor to Whistler, and it's a famous bar that people would go to on the way from Whistler to Blackcomb. Blackcomb, of course, is the successor to Longhorn, and another famous BC ski resort.

[Q Classic]

http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html

ok, am i the only one, who, after seeing the domain, thought that the site ought to be more about biology?

ack!

[Whaleboy]

You don't have to -- XP's kernel is more stable, it runs .NET code faster, it supports the Pentium 4s properly, and has a cleaner network stack. But Win2K works, too.

Ah cool. As I have a P4, will XP run faster than 2k? If so, I'm switching (btw thanks for the start menu tip).

"logic school"? Logic is not something that can be taught, regardless of what the philosophers out there try to do. What they do is formalize it into a mess of semantics and bullshit, and it doesn't do anything but provide jobs for future philosophy profs. But that's a tangent.

Yes. Yes it is! . We have different opinions on logic to an extent. Lets put it like this, its a tool we all have that mostly requires training to use.

Microkernels are far easier to port

Why?

That shows you that portability was a major issue from the very beginnings of NT, too.

So why less archs?? jk

I must say, in all fairness, Longhorn does sound impressive. Its coming out about the time I'll be getting a new box so all is good! I especially like database search idea. It would do MS a lot more good if they could bring this out sooner as 2/3 years will give linux (and hopefully athene) time to catch up. Still, thats good for Windows, if not Microsoft, as it ensures the former will still have to compete, making a better product.

[MikeH]

I can only go on personal experience.

3 Domino webservers running on windows 2000 - continuous problems. Have to reboot one of the servers for some reason or other every few days.

changed to Linux (for 9 months or so now)

Never had to reboot them when we didn't plan a kernel update or something. Traffic has increased but the response time is still faster than it used to be. The Linux environment literally took weeks to set up correctly though.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Asher


Linux developers and Linux users (to a lesser extent) have a different mindset about computers than most users. They prefer the command line to a graphical interface, and if people need help with something they can simply ask a mailing list. Of course, the mailing list will tell you to RTFM, and the manual will say "Coming soon".

This is THE core of the problem.


Secondly the other problem is that Linux Geeks actually take pride in having to do something complex to fix a problem.

That is the EXACT opposite of what an end user needs.

But then Linux Geeks will blame the end user for being stupid or too lazy. Did you ever think they actually want to get some damn work done and not have to worry about getting the tool to work?

If I want to hammer a damn nail in I just pick up the damn hammer and hit it.

I shouldn't have to worry about assembling the damn thing, downloading handle fix GTK+ 4.321-01.12 through the mail, and spending the entire day on the news groups, after reading the damn manual, on how to screw the damn handle in.

I don't even work the help desk. But the other day a woman asked me how to save a file to a floppy.

And you guys want people to start messing around with sizing their swap partition????????!!!!!! NOBODY other than an administrator should EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER have to mess with a damn swap partition.

EVER

Whether you like it or not, people know what they want. They want point and click. THAT'S IT

PERIOD

So until you guys figure it out, you can rail all you want but you're still going to have an inferior piece of crap Geek Desktop.

But then if Linux ever gained a majority on the desktop, it wouldn't be cool anymore would it?

[Asher]

Domino? Go figure.

[Whaleboy]

TS: To extend your metaphor, you hit the nail on the head.

Asher: Will WinXP run faster than 2k on my box, baring in mind p4 optimisations etc? If so, I'm switching.

Incidentally, Win 2000 Pro, P4 2.8GHz, 512Mb DDRRAM, Geforce 4 MX440 SE 128Mb.