Slashdot Mirror
Is the Linux Desktop Getting Heavier and Slower?
Johan Schinberg writes "Bob Marr wrote an interesting editorial about what many of us have have noticed lately: the three most popular Linux distros are getting "fatter" in terms of their memory footprint and CPU demands for their graphical desktops. Fedora Core 2 isn't usable below 192 MBs of RAM while Mandrake and SuSE aren't very far off similar requirements either. There was a time when Linux users would brag that their favorite OS was far less demanding that Windows, but this doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Modern distros that use the latest versions of KDE and (especially) Gnome feel considerably heavier than before or even than Windows XP/2k3. Sure, Longhorn has higher requirements than XP (256 MB RAM, 800 MHz CPU) and the final version will undoubtly be much more demanding, but that's in 2-3 years from now. For the time being, I am settled with XFce on my Gentoo but I always welcome more carefully-written code."
This is why I stick with slackware linux. It's still the cleanest smoothest runing linux distro I've ever used.
I know at least in the GNOME camp there is constant work on improving performance, and especially in reducing memory usage.
One thing you have to realize is that most users _want_ their desktop to do more. There's a reason only a small fraction of users still use TWM; it doesn't do what they want it to. And, if you want more features, you have to realize that it will require more resources.
That said, there is a lot of code out there that was written first to Just Work(tm) with little thought of performance. Good practice indicates that, while you should keep performance in mind, real optimization and fine tuning should be done last.
Current work for performance improvements in GNOME including sharing data between processes (say, icon themes), reducing system calls and X requests during startup, and general speed improvements in the various library calls used to make the applications actually work.
More help is _always_ appreciated. There are several Plans of Attack available from GNOME developers who know what needs to be done but don't have the time. If you want to help implement those the other developers and users will be quite thankful.
what is kdeinit for?
kdeinit starts KDE applications by forking and then loading them as shared libraries. Because kdeinit itself links to the kdelibs, it allows a much more effective sharing of kdelibs (and its dependencies) between the applications and avoids unneccessary initialization.
In other words, it reduces startup time and memory usage.
I remember about hmm back before Linux 2, the speed difference was in the handling of interrupts(Windows back then also had ridiculously small memory space and virtual space limits). That's over 8-9 years ago WindowMaker/AfterStep were actually more in vogue than the KDE/Gnome offerings then, who were practically "upstart projects", Sun's OpenWindows ported to linux was also popular back then. Then Linux 2 came up, it was faster, stable, then Windows basically caught up, then Linux 2.2 came up, and added many features, and optimised some things, but the difference wasn't as noticeable, then 2.4 came up, and it was a speed demon, except for X(which to keep up with the windows improvements, needed video hardware acceleration support). Now with 2.6, and hardware accelerated graphics on a powerful machine, Linux is still a little faster, but to see the difference, you really need to do what most people only do with Linux: remove running programs you don't use. In some cases, the difference is pretty dramatic. Of course, it never really shows in competitive benchmarks(which usually use bare-metal machines, not pre-junked seven themes, iconbar/taskbar needs two rows just to fit installations). That Linux is less vulnerable to software accretion, because of better package managers, may also be a factor, but with lots of people reformatting every six months, in both camps, clueful people almost never see just how bad it gets...
Windows 2000 is probably still the fastest desktop for use(Windows XP is optimised more for boot time), provided you have an uncluttered system, and relatively recent/fast hardware(which is one of the reasons Microsoft was pushing manufacturers not to OEM 2000 with machines for a while when XP came out, it made XP look bad). As for linux desktops being slower than this, It's quite possible, depending on hardware(as an experiment, you might want to try windows 2000 and XP(in client mode) in a vmware windows, compare its graphics performance to linux clients) So far my testing shows Linux reacts better(speed wise) to the virtualized hardware, because the Windows speed boost come with directly hooking into the hardware, but when they go through the vmware shim, the fact that the linux kernel is smaller/leaner makes it edge out recent windows(Win98se is faster in the vm(smaller), but predictably, less stable). (Linux in a VM is actually faster in desktop performance than native kde-cygwin performance on that box, for that matter) This on an Athlon 1800+ with 756MB RAM host.
The fact that it's easier for Linux to switch to a lighter/less cluttered windows manager than for Windows(LiteStep is good though