Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

22 of 839 comments (clear)

  1. Linux is NOT Fat by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not fat. The architecture is just big-boned.

    1. Re:Linux is NOT Fat by Skevin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, they misspelled Phat.

      Yo listen, every OS be Phat at one time or 'notha. But 'fore you know it, some geek brotha's gonna write some crappy-ass P.O.S. code fo' yo momma's script kiddies to pop a cap through, you dig? Then da top dog homies gotta post patches, like, before security be worse than ma 'hood. When ya got too many security patches to hang with, yo homies start pointin' yo fingas at da mofos what like wrote da Operatin' System ta begin with, accusin' dem of being da Man and shit. Soon "da Man" is gotta atone by releasin' a pimped out kernel and it starts all ova again. Ain't long before all yas be dissin' Linus or Bill or Theo, demandin' dey pay ya yo props before their Operatin' Systems come crawlin' back on yas computas like last month's biatch. Word.

      "'cept in France, it ain't called a 2.6 kernel... They call it Windows."
      (apologies to Samuel L. Jackson)

      Solomon Chang

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    2. Re:Linux is NOT Fat by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Er, you just did it too. Oh my god, it's spreading.

    3. Re:Linux is NOT Fat by zootm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - Negroponte discovers that latest kernel not actually meant for a $100 laptop

      -Negroponte blames coders. (we are here)

      I'm not convinced that that was what he was saying at all — he was just stating that Linux, in its current state, is not suitable for the project. We know this. He knows this. He's not blaming anyone (would a "slim" Linux be suitable for a newer system?), he's just saying that this isn't where the crux of development will be, and stating that changes will need to be made for the project.

      I don't think he's assigning blame, I think he's telling people what the challenges of the software side of his project are.

    4. Re:Linux is NOT Fat by Otter · · Score: 5, Funny
      As a side note: Slashdot duped this story, could well have mentioned the very likely antefacts.

      I believe the chronology was this:

      • Nicholas Negroponte announces the project. Slashbots : "this is stupid. theres no elctricity in africa!"
      • Negroponte issues another fifty press releases, produces a single non-working mockup. Slashbots: "this is stupid. theres no elctricity in africa!"
      • Bill Gates comments "This is a bad idea. First they need decent electricity in Africa." Slashbots: "its a great idea and Bill Gates hates teh poor people!"
      • Negroponte blames the project's lack of progress on Linux. Slashbots: "burn down MIT!"
    5. Re:Linux is NOT Fat by Lesrahpem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Saying Linux is too fat is like complaining that there are too many pieces in an erector set. You don't have to use what you don't want to.

    6. Re:Linux is NOT Fat by modecx · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    7. Re:Linux is NOT Fat by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Saying Linux is too fat is like complaining that there are too many pieces in an erector set. You don't have to use what you don't want to.

      Exactly. Have those people compiled a kernel lately? Did they notice the modular design and the way you can strip out a lot of things you don't want?

      I run Linux on a 206 MHz handheld with 32 megs of RAM, off a 512 MB flash-card. I use Familiar as a distro and Opie for a desktop environment. I have IR, Bluetooth, Ethernet and WiFi connectivity, I have Opera as a browser and a whole lot of software I can't even begin to name (ipkgfind counts 35,000+ packages).

      So what's with this complete bullshit about Linux not being fit for a 500 MHz/ 128 MB RAM machine? Negroponte didn't even support his statement in any way, that phrase you see in the Slashdot summary is all he said in the article too (serves me right for RTFA).

      Don't get tricked into thinking about the regular desktop distro and how to slim it down for the 100$ laptop. There are established handheld distro's out there for which the specs of the 100$ laptop would be an upgrade, that's what they should go with. Think bottom up, not the other way around.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
  2. DSL? by joe+155 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
  3. Re:Can't say i wouldn't agree by corrosive_nf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. There are distros that install 5-6 window managers, 5 different text editors, mutiple multimedia players, and thats insane. Then when anyone says that they shouldnt, all the opensource freaks run around screaming about choice!

  4. His perspective has to be wrong by narfbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have slackware-current, yes, CURRENT running on a 486 DX 33 laptop, 12 MB of RAM, 200 MB HD. It even runs X, python, gcc. Kernel version 2.6.14. It supports wireless with native drivers too. This is probably way under powered for what they are considering for the $100 laptop; so I know they can do far more. Trust me, they can really do whatever they want with linux.

  5. Patently untrue! by kimvette · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is SOOO untrue. Linux is only as fat as you can make it.

    Every time I see someone complaining "Linux is slow" or "Distribution Foo is bloated" I remind them that their system is bloated because they CHOSE to install unnecessary services (You're running MySQL, PostgreSQL, PostFix, Apache, Subversion, DHCPD, BIND. and everything else available in the distro? You have Composite enabled with KDE with ALL eye candy turned on and every SuperKaramba theme you could get your hands on? You're running a non-SMP kernel on that shiny dual core processor?

    Let me tell you something: I still run dual Celeries and dual Pentium II Xeons at my office - and they're going to be wiped soon and be reinstalled with bare KDE installations for use as CSR workstations, probably with build server and 3D rendering daemons to take advantage of spare CPU cycles should we need it (those will be off by default of course). Even with full installations those machines are all mighty responsive. I don't turn on eye candy, Postfix, MySQL, apache, etc. remain turned off unless absolutely needed for testing a web or other application locally, and superkaramba is not installed.

    Now, I've tried complete installations (installing EVERYTHING on Mandriva, SuSE, and other distributions) one weekend out of morbid curiousity and yes, it gets piggish, and composite made it absolutely unbearable, but I wanted to see just how much those boxes could take before Linux became unstable -- plus I wanted to have easy access to all apps because there are many, MANY Linux apps I've never even tried. And wouldn't you know it, the systems did not become unstable, but just painfully slow. That's an extreme case, but obviously it wasn't the fault of Linux that I chose to do something that many newbies do because they think it might be convenient.

    Linux isn't bloated in and of itself. It's used in many embedded devices where CPU cycles, memory, and storage are all scarce. When designing embedded systems the engineers select only the bare essentials to get the job done - check out Snapgear (now Cyberguard SG) routers, some of LinkSys' routers, and Zaurus PDAs. Check out any number of the latest-generation cellular telephones, most notably Nokia's and Motorola's. Check out Tivo.

    Not a lot of CPU power in many of those, and yet they do their jobs very, VERY well.

    My own desktop is a little slow due to the ATI video card (video is a big bottleneck on ATI with Xinerama - I keep sticking with the AiW card in the hope that X.org's integrated Gato drivers will eventually work) but the other desktop boxes in the office are NVidia and they absolutely fly (in terms of responsiveness), despite having more toys enabled than my box, and all having slower CPUs than my system. Heck, even the dual Pentium II Xeon with NVidia card is more responsive than my system. When I switch to a single-head configuration my system is plenty fast. Even with Xinerama, Linux is more responsive than Windows is on my box.

    Linux isn't bloated. It all comes down to configuration, user error, and to a lesser extent, hardware choices (imho, ATI cards should be avoided if you run a dual-head system).

    By your argument, Windows bloated if you base your judgement on an OEM who installed a ton of eye candy, or if you installed something like WinFX, Desktop Sidebar, SpyderBar, or other CPU-sucking toys. Windows by itself with unnecessary services disabled is not bloated, and on the same token neither is Linux.

    Want a nice responsive system? Install what you need, and either disable or don't install what you don't need. Forget about eye candy. SuperKaramba isn't a necessity. Install the right kernel for your processor (in the case of dual core systems, the SMP kernel is the right choice - or for a single-core processor with hyperthreading, an SMT-aware SMP kernel is the right choice).

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  6. not the subject by xzvf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was at the speech. The lecture was not about Microsoft not being cheap enough or Linux being too fat. It's about getting an educational tool that is a replacement for textbooks and a suppliment for six grade educated teachers. All the press I've seen on this takes the quips and jokes and makes them the subject for tha articles. How about someone in the press talking about the other 95% of the presentation. The fact the technology can be deployed at a reasonable cost. The need for content development. The mesh networking. The need for the inexpensive village server and internet connectivity. Ways to effencently power the devices..... Something of substance.

    1. Re:not the subject by Shankland · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

  7. Re:Most needed in poor rural U.S. by gnud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You may be right, peple starving in Africa is not in need of laptops. But you are aware there are millions of people in africa not starving, right?

  8. Don't run modern software on old hardware by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's wrong.

    Both software and hardware grow. Software grows in terms of functionality, hardware grows in terms of speed, memory size, etc. Software and hardware need to match. Don't run slackware 2.0 on your shiny new dual core athlon 64. Don't run KDE or gnome on that old 486 you found in the basement.

    So Negroponte creates a low cost laptop. Good. Now he tries to fit contemporary software on it. He finds it doesn't work. Does that make the software bloated? No. The software just doesn't match the hardware.

    People tend to forget how slow old hardware really was. Don't you remember visible slowness in scrolling on 8086 hardware in text mode? Don't you remember how long Wordperfect took to start up? Big&bloated Microsoft Word starts in under 2 seconds on modern hardware.

    You probably don't remember. That's why modern software seems so incredibly slow on old hardware. That's just because the hardware is old.

    Of course some software is bloated. Openoffice is extremely slow in comparison to Microsoft Office, while even lacking features (wether you want those features is open to another debate). KDE applicates take too long to start up (while their speed when stated up is good).

    My point is: software is not bloated. Software is designed to run on contemporary software. Which in this day and age is >= 2 Ghz, >= 512 MB ram, >= 200 GB harddisk, fast GPU w/ >= 64 MB ram. That's a lot faster than the $100 laptop.

    --

    This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

  9. Re:Most needed in poor rural U.S. by caffeination · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Another ignorant prat...

    It's not a project to relieve poverty in the poorest of the poor countries. It's a project to provide an educational laptop to children in developing countries.

    There is a big difference, but Slashdot as a whole (if such a concept is valid) seems not grasp it yet.

  10. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Linux responded to Negroponte by saying "I may be fat, but you're ugly and I can lose weight!"

  11. Re:What??? never heard of DSL then? by acidblood · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fact is, I've become so used to incoherent, pointless, misspelled, gramatically incorrect, factually incorrect, stream-of-conscionouss postings in Slashdot, that it just never occurred to me this one might be any different.

    --

    Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/

  12. Re:Can't say i wouldn't agree by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Funny
    In my day, we had to download linux onto floppy disks over a 2400 baud modem connection. We'd start downloading 5 hours before we went to bed, eat a cup of cold gravel, work 32 hours down the mine, and when we got home our fathers would whip us within an inch of our lives, and then if we were lucky, the download was finished.

    And it STILL got done before Gentoo.

  13. Re:Most needed in poor rural U.S. by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Of course, I'm just saying lets make sure people AREN'T starving FIRST before we start shipping over laptops.


    If you wait for world hunger to be solved before you do anything, you're never going to do anything. Your argument is a cop-out.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  14. If it's too big, try something else by dtfinch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Excerpt from http://www.minix3.org/
    MINIX 3 is initially targeted at the following areas:

            * Applications where very high reliability is required
            * Single-chip, small-RAM, low-power, $100 laptops for Third-World children
            * Embedded systems (e.g., cameras, DVD recorders, cell phones)
            * Applications where the GPL is too restrictive (MINIX 3 uses a BSD-type license)
            * Education (e.g., operating systems courses at universities)