Negroponte says Linux too 'Fat'

Cadef writes "According to a story on CNet News.com, Nicholas Negroponte says that Linux has gotten too fat, and will have to be slimmed down before it will be practical for the $100 laptop project. From the article: 'Suddenly it's like a very fat person [who] uses most of the energy to move the fat. And Linux is no exception. Linux has gotten fat, too.'"

Comments

DSL?

[joe 155]

Has he not tried Damn Small Linux... it is pretty small, doesn't really seem to be "too fat", it even works on my OLD laptop with its 167MHz processor and nearly no RAM

Re:not the subject

[Shankland]

I'm the author of the CNET News.com story in question. If you read beyond the opening lines about Linux being too bloated--which by the way also was how Negroponte opened his speech and an interesting tidbit, in my opinion--you find information on some of the 95% of the speech you say was missing. You will see other information about mesh networking, $100 servers, pedal power, a launch delay, the initial $135 price, the dual-mode monitor, and other items. Stephen Shankland stephen.shankland at cnet dot com

Re:Linux is NOT Fat

[modecx]

Yes but a full blown feature rich gui will not run on those kind of resources

The heck it won't. Back in the day I happily ran Enlightenment--the notoriously graphics intensive Window Manager, versions 0.14, 0.15, with 2 virtual desktops, across two heads of monitors each running 1280x1024... And all of this was done on a Pentium I running at a blazing 133 Mhz, with a whopping 96MB RAM (and 6MB VRAM). It was perfectly suitable for coding, compiling, for checking and writing mail, for browsing the net, and even for experimenting with The Gimp.

As a matter of fact, that computer was still serving up files at my home, being a web server, mail host, fax server, and small database server for perl apps for a neighborhood association, and companion for my SGI O2 of the same vintage (1996), and it ran up until about two years ago when I retired it; and that was only because when I moved, Qwest started jacking around with my DSL service and myself, and I just decided that it would be easier to put that site on a shared hosting service, dump the commercial DSL service and move to cable internet.

Maybe it wasn't the fastest computer around, but it worked, and damit, it worked well. It never broke, and it never complained, unlike some modern computers. I learned very much plugging around with that old beast-and well after it was obsoleted by much, much newer technology. Maybe I kept it going out of romance because I had so much fun learning back when I was hacking around with Enlightenment, Linux, Gnome, etc. i.e. Back when I really just could not afford a better computer.

My P133 also dual booted to Win95 when I first installed RedHat4, and I learned the basics of 3D modeling, raytracing, and if I'm not mistaken, I also ran the very first betas of Rhinoceros 3D on it, too. I had one scene in truespace2 that took several days just to render, and did I have a problem with that? No.

So, lower spec computers might not play HD porno, run Windows Vista in Glass mode, play Counterstrike: Source, or other things... So what?! Like those things are going to be of great utility to third world children! I would have gladly accepted a 500Mhz notebook with 128MB, way back when. I think such a computer could be a great thing to third world children, because instead of learning how some slick GUI with gobs of eyecandy works, like our current generation, they might actually stand a chance to learn how a computer works.