How? If RedHat has fixes, then the remaining 10% of the Linux population really isn't worth reporting. If Windows has a bug, it affects millions of people. If Linux has a bug, it effects a much smaller percentage. Similarly, if a bomb goes of in DC, everone reports it. If it goes of in (say) Namibia, then its unlikely that anyone outside a radius of 5 miles is going to report it.
You're rather dim view of closed source companies really doesn't make sense. For something like this, major companies like HP, SCO, etc would have fixed out before the chip hit the market. If Intel is coming out with a totally new generation chip, you don't just sit on your ass, you go ask them if there are compatiblity issues. Response time for comanies really isn't that bad. For example, there was a beta copy of pci-bios out for QNX RtP just a few days after people started reporting problems with graphics cards.
Actually, if you read the docs, the context switch time for QNX is around 1.95 microseconds on a P100, and the interupt latency is something like 4.5 microseconds.
I'd be fine if the diff was a few percent or so, but its not. I'd describe HURD as glacialy slow. While having speed be the numero uno priority is not necessary for all OSs, it should definately be in the top three. Depending on the OS, the order of priorities should probably be simplicity/elegance, speed, then nifty-features. While the HURD nails the nifty part, it misses the other two. Secondly, its not exactly as if speed and maintainability are opposed to each other. A system designed for speed and efficiency breeds small, simple code without gimicky features. Do less, do it well, and do it fast should be the mantra for all OS designers. Leave the gee-whiz stuff to the application developers.
Damn, you're right. Win2K does use about 2MB of non-pagable kernel memory. I saw the 20MB kernel memory, remembered that BeOS and Linux kernel memory is nonpagable, and forgot that NT runs non-kernel apps in kernel space.
640K for a kernel? That's huge! I'm not against progress. What I am against is putting features into the base system. The problem is that the kernel should only contain features everyone uses. I'm against putting stuff like NFS in the kernel (although that's probably the only place to put it) much less something like ORBit. Technological progress is fine, but do it in userespace.
Been there done that. My renicing is in my xinitrc. Still doesn't solve KDE2's problems, everything takes at least a second or two to start up. It's my view that the system should never use more than 5% of the user's resources. Bloat should be put in applications, not in the system layer. I don't mind it if 3D Studio takes up 50MB of RAM and 50% of my proc, but when my OS does that, it's just disgusting.
RivaTNT, using NVIDIA's drivers. If you take a look at Anandtech, the NVIDIA drivers blow everything else (including the Matrox G400) out of the water for 2D performance.
Except, GTK isn't designed for speed, its designed for features. If you take a look at the current software map, it looks like this...
A Gnome application runs on top of the GNOME libs, which run on top of GTK+, which call into GDK, which call into Xt, which finally cajole X into doing something. That's bad.
There should be one, easy to use, simple layer, on top of which features and bloat can be piled on. That allows people to use the simple layer for most things, and only use heavy-set libraries when necessary. This is contrary to the current model, where people use GTK and Qt because Xt is too bloody difficult.
The HURD is not designed for speed. That immedietly makes the OS crap in my view. I would really like it if the HURD was sort of like an OpenSource QNX, fast, robust, elegant, but its turning out to be decidedly not. That's why I don't really see what HURD brings to the table. Its not like no other OS runs drivers in usermode (several do), its not like no other OSs have a translator-like filesystem (Plan9 seems to), its not like no other OS offers UNIX compatiblity in a microkernel (take your pick.) What exactly does the HURD have that hasn't been done already?
The kernel is in non-pageable memory. As such, if you kernel takes up 20MB of RAM, that's 128-20=108MB of RAM that you actually have. It's scary, Win2K uses more than 15MB of non-pagable kernel memory. That's just wrong.
BeOS has the GUI entirely in userspace. Hell, the better part of the driver runs in userspace. In QNX, the driver runs ENTIRELY in userspace, it's just another process. Userspace is not what is causing bad Linux GUIs, its the fundemental problems of X and non-user-oriented design. Before trying to put stuff in the kernel, think about how much faster stuff would be without X. About how much cleaner stuff would be if GNOME were designed to be simple rather than kitchen sink complex. The real problem is that Linux GUI's are doing "cool" things as opposed to useful things.
# make menuconfig
That would make two apps that need it for you.:) Or you can go the hardcore way and answer questions one by one at your terminal with only a rudimentary shell. Personally, I prefer menuconfig.
>>>>>>>>
Yea, I guess I could do that, but I'm running X for a reason. Also, Cygnus's source navigator needs TK, and KDevelop doesn't have as good source browsing yet.
That is your opinion, which is to be respected. Most people in the *NIX world wouldn't agree with you though. Having half a megabyte of libraries isn't that big of a deal at all. What is this single application you have? On my machine there are plenty of applications I use that need ncurses. It is a pretty common library, the typical Linux machine uses it quite a bit.
>>>>>>>>
While my ncurses goes unused (I don't use many console/GUI hybrid apps) I do consider it core functionality, so my mistake if I included it in my list of useless libraries.
No offense, but I see several problems with your setup that could be causing this. One is that you are using ktop to scope your processes.
>>>>>
ktop eats up 20MB of RAM?
Which Gnome application are you running? That makes a big difference. If it is gnote then there is a problem.
>>>>>>>>>
I'm running gnibbles.
If you are going to be running both Gnome and KDE simultaniously, you need to be prepared for the usage fees.
>>>>
I thought Linux was free?
You are running two major system in tandom (and be thankful that you can do that.)
>>>>>>
I'm not
so do not be surprised when it uses a lot of hardware. To be honest with you, once I installed KDE 2 I havn't used Gnome at all. I never thought I would be saying that, but in my opinion KDE 2 surpasses Gnome as far as polish goes. Just my opinion. I don't even use KDE 2 that often, very rarely. Most of my applications do not reside in either the Gnome or KDE realm. I have them there in case I need them, dorment on my hard disk.
>>>>>>
I don't like unneeded things dormant on my harddisk. Second, several GNOME programs are nice, as are several KDE programs. I don't think my setup would be usable without both.
Maybe I should ask what you are defining as a desktop user. I'm a desktop user and I can do 90% of my browsing with lynx. I'm comfortable with the program and it only returns what I need, the information, not the fancy mouse rollovers, flash plugins, and other such glut that serve no
purpose other than to wow the user.
>>>>>
I use Lynx too, before I install X, but a graphical browser is necessary. With all the imagemaps and javascripts, etc, using Lynx is so much less efficient.
I fully realize that the average desktop computer user (in my definition) wouldn't understand or like lynx. I don't suggest the world uses it, however I consider myself to be a desktop user and do not need floating layers on my web pages! So your definition is flawed somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really. You're not an average desktop user, I'd go so far to say that you are in the elite realm of "UNIX grognard." It is silly to think that the mass of people that GNOME and KDE2 are aimed at will use Lynx.
A work in progress would be a much more apt and intelligent way of putting it than 'wanabee.'
>>>>>>>>
Probably
Do recall that the entire desktop movement upon which you are referring to is only two or so years old now. It is very infantile, and to assume that it is going to have every single thing you are used to with the MacOS or even Windows only displays your lack of understanding on the issues here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
That's the problem. I've been using Linux (I only got BeOS a year or two ago) since the Slack 3.5 days. Admittedly its not that old, but this was before KDE and GNOME were ready, before glibc, before WordPerfect was ported. Linux has come a long way since then, but people are acting like it is all ready to take over the desktop market, and the only think keeping people from replacing Windows is the MS's dirty tricks. That's simply not true. At least somebody is willing to admit that Linux isn't nearly as ready for the desktop as everybody pretends.
Funny, I always seem to need those features.
I find that difficult to believe. You actually use every feature of the latest Word versions?
>>>>>>>>
No, I use some of the obscure features that prevent me from using a lot of free word processing packages. If most people use 10% of the features, I use 11%, and that 1% are those features that only MS bothered to put in.
Incidentally you might want to check out StarOffice from Sun. I believe it is open source now, and probably the most feature-full office suite out there under that label. If not, it is free.
>>>>>>>
Good god, I tried StarOffice, worst UI design ever concieved by man. Sadly, I'm happy to see it being ported to BeOS.
Good for you, you happen once again to be in a pretty minute minority. Most people who use Linux do in fact need those applications.
>>>>>
That's the problem. People are trying to push Linux into the group of people who are NOT "Most people who use Linux." These people don't need all this, and app developers shouldn't force them to have these installed. They should code to one set of APIs, and let the user choose what to use. If the user wants Python, the user can use Python. But the app developer should not use it, if there is a standard alternative (Perl) available.
Expecially Perl, in fact some distributions use Perl extensively for their inner workings. Even if you do not personally ever invoke a perl command line, there is a lot of stuff going on behind your back you don't know about that is very likely done with Perl.
>>>>>>>>>
When did I saw Perl was useless? An OS needs a scripting language, and Perl is quite useful. Hell, I even use it on BeOS. But take urpmi, for example. Why does it use Python?
If you really do not need these things, I suggest you switch distributions. If your distribution does not allow you to select what you install and you so irately do not want it, that is. Again, display some adaptability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why don't the app developers display adaptability? Why use Python when Perl is available?
You can very easily uninstall things you do not need too (again depending on your distribution) so even if the Beginner's Installation puts this stuff on without your knowledge, you can always take it off after install.
>>>>>>>>
I'm not an idiot, I know that. Its the Linux app developers who force me to keep stuff that I could uninstall, want to uninstall, but can't. Are you suggesting I code an urpmi alternative? Or I could switch to Debain and apt, and live with less than bleeding-edge software?
Once again, ncurses, perl, TK, these are most certainly not non-standard libraries (Perl isn't really a library, but you get the point). Whoever told you that does not have a clue what they are talking about. As for Zsh, and Csh, those are shells, not libraries. I don't know any utilities or applications that require those shells to be functional.
>>>>>>>>>
CVS requires csh, and something in either Mandrake or Slackware requires either zsh or ash.
While I agree that neither Perl nor ncurses are non-standard (which is why I didn't say they were) I would say that TK is. readline is. Python is. imlib is. fnlib is. Half the stuff installed on a Linux system is there to satisfy dependencies. That shows in the 500MB minimal, compatible (GNOME + KDE) install.
Okay, my honest opinion after hearing you talk for a bit is that you are maybe a one-year or less user of Linux.
>>>>>>>>
Sorry, been using it (off and on addmitedly) since '96.
You got into it because everybody told you it was cool.
>>>>>
When I started using it, it was still in hacker-land.
The reality is that it is a server OS that has a lot of folks working very hard to get desktop-ish features attached to it in a very short amount of time. I still only recommend Linux to developers, sys admins, and computer hobbiests. I don't try to get everyday gamers and whatnot here yet because it isn't quite ready yet.
>>>>
But it's not being hyped as such.
First impressions are important to some people, and right now it doesn't give a good first impression to somebody who has used Windows their entire life.
>>>>>>>
So why the hell is everybody on Slashdot pretending that their grandmother uses Linux?
The *NIX philosophy hardly resembles the philosophy of Windows users. Even in the way they use GUI applications. You tend to see lots of little apps spread out side by side over multiple virtual screens with X11. This is because over here, people design an application to do a few things, well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Speaking of philisophy, that USED to be the UNIX philosophy. If you take a look at KDE, GNOME, and half of modern applications, you'll notice that that is not the philosophy anymore. (For example, X does printing. Why does GNOME do printing? Why are KDE and GNOME incomptable? The *NIX way to do it would have a consistant interface, and then let whatever you want fulfil that interface. Kinda like how the text streams provide an interface, and you use whatever you want to manipulate that text stream. The way staight *NIX does it, the way X does it, that's the way to do it. Not the way modern Linux is doing it.
other, and each of these apps are monolithically huge,
>>>>>>>>
Like X, Mozilla, KDE, and GNOME? I just heard GNOME is 4 million lines of code. Not only twice the size of the kernel, but bigger than all of BeOS!
Give it a year, trust me it will impress you more and more as time goes by.
>>>>>>>
I've been waiting for it to impress me since '96.
Continue using NT 4 for your games (Which is in itself absurd, why are you doing that? Why not use Win98ME??)
>>>>>>>>>>
Because NT4 runs OpenGL apps faster, and all the games I have are compatible. That's not even an issue, all I play is Quake3 and CorumIII anyway.
and your MS Word needs, and keep tabs on how the Linux world is growing.
>>>>>>.
90% of my documents are created in BeOS's Gobe productive.
I know the tone of this not is a bit harsh, but your outlook is a common one and needs addressing.
>>>
Really, who else is a rabid BeOS user, likes simplicity, speed, and elegance, admires the philosophy of *NIX but is disguested by its current implementation? (BTW, Quake3 and OpenGL are the only reason why NT is still on my machine)
It is part of the rift between those who have been served by the software giants all their computing life, and those who have been apart of a growing development process.
>>>>>>>>>>
Yahoo! Be is a software giant!
Look, I have nothing against Linux, nothing against *NIX, and I understand the philosophy behind it, I just can't stand the fact that Linux is being sullied by what is currently happening. UNIX was designed to be elegant. In its current state on the desktop, Linux is decidedly NOT.
Well, the problem is that nobody has the balls to code for Xt. GTK+ might not be as bad as Motif, but it is pretty bad, compared to NT at least. Of course, NT's graphics run in kernel mode, but on my computers at least, its stability has never been that bad. My NT-only machine hasn't crashed in the 3 months since I've built it.
If you use WinNT for five minutes on decent hardware (PII 300+) you'll notice how much smoother the graphics are. Your cursor never jumps, your window rarely flicker, NT suffers from less of the "wiping the window clean" effect that seems to plague some GNOME apps.
How can you tell you're calling the GDI? (For non-Win32 programmers, Win32 functions are not prefixed, and the system has one big API)MessageBox(), for example, isn't a call into the GDI. The GDI stands for graphics device interface, and it deals with lines, splines, points, etc. I think the Window manger is somewhere in USER.DLL, but I'm not terribly sure.
Huh? Again with the idealistic bullshit? Proof man! MacOS X is an example of an OS that manages to reconcile OSS software (BSD) and proprietory software (Quartz/Carbon/etc)
Slashdot Mirror
How? If RedHat has fixes, then the remaining 10% of the Linux population really isn't worth reporting. If Windows has a bug, it affects millions of people. If Linux has a bug, it effects a much smaller percentage. Similarly, if a bomb goes of in DC, everone reports it. If it goes of in (say) Namibia, then its unlikely that anyone outside a radius of 5 miles is going to report it.
Informative? Am I missing something here?
You're rather dim view of closed source companies really doesn't make sense. For something like this, major companies like HP, SCO, etc would have fixed out before the chip hit the market. If Intel is coming out with a totally new generation chip, you don't just sit on your ass, you go ask them if there are compatiblity issues. Response time for comanies really isn't that bad. For example, there was a beta copy of pci-bios out for QNX RtP just a few days after people started reporting problems with graphics cards.
News for you. MS is MS. Debian is not MS.
Because g-nu does't sound much less silly?
Which would be useful, why?
Actually, if you read the docs, the context switch time for QNX is around 1.95 microseconds on a P100, and the interupt latency is something like 4.5 microseconds.
FreeBSD. That UNIX.
PS> If not better, then certainly as well.
I'd be fine if the diff was a few percent or so, but its not. I'd describe HURD as glacialy slow. While having speed be the numero uno priority is not necessary for all OSs, it should definately be in the top three. Depending on the OS, the order of priorities should probably be simplicity/elegance, speed, then nifty-features. While the HURD nails the nifty part, it misses the other two. Secondly, its not exactly as if speed and maintainability are opposed to each other. A system designed for speed and efficiency breeds small, simple code without gimicky features. Do less, do it well, and do it fast should be the mantra for all OS designers. Leave the gee-whiz stuff to the application developers.
Damn, you're right. Win2K does use about 2MB of non-pagable kernel memory. I saw the 20MB kernel memory, remembered that BeOS and Linux kernel memory is nonpagable, and forgot that NT runs non-kernel apps in kernel space.
640K for a kernel? That's huge! I'm not against progress. What I am against is putting features into the base system. The problem is that the kernel should only contain features everyone uses. I'm against putting stuff like NFS in the kernel (although that's probably the only place to put it) much less something like ORBit. Technological progress is fine, but do it in userespace.
I stand corrected, though I still think there are too many layers of software on GNOME. What is in GNOME-libs that requires 15MB of libraries?
My point is that the GDI simply doesn't do window management. I don't know where window management is, but it is certainly NOT in the GDI.
Been there done that. My renicing is in my xinitrc. Still doesn't solve KDE2's problems, everything takes at least a second or two to start up. It's my view that the system should never use more than 5% of the user's resources. Bloat should be put in applications, not in the system layer. I don't mind it if 3D Studio takes up 50MB of RAM and 50% of my proc, but when my OS does that, it's just disgusting.
RivaTNT, using NVIDIA's drivers. If you take a look at Anandtech, the NVIDIA drivers blow everything else (including the Matrox G400) out of the water for 2D performance.
Except, GTK isn't designed for speed, its designed for features. If you take a look at the current software map, it looks like this...
A Gnome application runs on top of the GNOME libs, which run on top of GTK+, which call into GDK, which call into Xt, which finally cajole X into doing something. That's bad.
There should be one, easy to use, simple layer, on top of which features and bloat can be piled on. That allows people to use the simple layer for most things, and only use heavy-set libraries when necessary. This is contrary to the current model, where people use GTK and Qt because Xt is too bloody difficult.
I would be eager for the HURD, except...
The HURD is not designed for speed. That immedietly makes the OS crap in my view. I would really like it if the HURD was sort of like an OpenSource QNX, fast, robust, elegant, but its turning out to be decidedly not. That's why I don't really see what HURD brings to the table. Its not like no other OS runs drivers in usermode (several do), its not like no other OSs have a translator-like filesystem (Plan9 seems to), its not like no other OS offers UNIX compatiblity in a microkernel (take your pick.) What exactly does the HURD have that hasn't been done already?
This coming from a group of people who think C++ is too bloated for the kernel? Yes, I can see it now, the VFS written in Perl! Take that Verio.
The kernel is in non-pageable memory. As such, if you kernel takes up 20MB of RAM, that's 128-20=108MB of RAM that you actually have. It's scary, Win2K uses more than 15MB of non-pagable kernel memory. That's just wrong.
BeOS has the GUI entirely in userspace. Hell, the better part of the driver runs in userspace. In QNX, the driver runs ENTIRELY in userspace, it's just another process. Userspace is not what is causing bad Linux GUIs, its the fundemental problems of X and non-user-oriented design. Before trying to put stuff in the kernel, think about how much faster stuff would be without X. About how much cleaner stuff would be if GNOME were designed to be simple rather than kitchen sink complex. The real problem is that Linux GUI's are doing "cool" things as opposed to useful things.
# make menuconfig :) Or you can go the hardcore way and answer questions one by one at your terminal with only a rudimentary shell. Personally, I prefer menuconfig.
That would make two apps that need it for you.
>>>>>>>>
Yea, I guess I could do that, but I'm running X for a reason. Also, Cygnus's source navigator needs TK, and KDevelop doesn't have as good source browsing yet.
That is your opinion, which is to be respected. Most people in the *NIX world wouldn't agree with you though. Having half a megabyte of libraries isn't that big of a deal at all. What is this single application you have? On my machine there are plenty of applications I use that need ncurses. It is a pretty common library, the typical Linux machine uses it quite a bit.
>>>>>>>>
While my ncurses goes unused (I don't use many console/GUI hybrid apps) I do consider it core functionality, so my mistake if I included it in my list of useless libraries.
No offense, but I see several problems with your setup that could be causing this. One is that you are using ktop to scope your processes.
>>>>>
ktop eats up 20MB of RAM?
Which Gnome application are you running? That makes a big difference. If it is gnote then there is a problem.
>>>>>>>>>
I'm running gnibbles.
If you are going to be running both Gnome and KDE simultaniously, you need to be prepared for the usage fees.
>>>>
I thought Linux was free?
You are running two major system in tandom (and be thankful that you can do that.)
>>>>>>
I'm not
so do not be surprised when it uses a lot of hardware. To be honest with you, once I installed KDE 2 I havn't used Gnome at all. I never thought I would be saying that, but in my opinion KDE 2 surpasses Gnome as far as polish goes. Just my opinion. I don't even use KDE 2 that often, very rarely. Most of my applications do not reside in either the Gnome or KDE realm. I have them there in case I need them, dorment on my hard disk.
>>>>>>
I don't like unneeded things dormant on my harddisk. Second, several GNOME programs are nice, as are several KDE programs. I don't think my setup would be usable without both.
Maybe I should ask what you are defining as a desktop user. I'm a desktop user and I can do 90% of my browsing with lynx. I'm comfortable with the program and it only returns what I need, the information, not the fancy mouse rollovers, flash plugins, and other such glut that serve no
purpose other than to wow the user.
>>>>>
I use Lynx too, before I install X, but a graphical browser is necessary. With all the imagemaps and javascripts, etc, using Lynx is so much less efficient.
I fully realize that the average desktop computer user (in my definition) wouldn't understand or like lynx. I don't suggest the world uses it, however I consider myself to be a desktop user and do not need floating layers on my web pages! So your definition is flawed somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really. You're not an average desktop user, I'd go so far to say that you are in the elite realm of "UNIX grognard." It is silly to think that the mass of people that GNOME and KDE2 are aimed at will use Lynx.
A work in progress would be a much more apt and intelligent way of putting it than 'wanabee.'
>>>>>>>>
Probably
Do recall that the entire desktop movement upon which you are referring to is only two or so years old now. It is very infantile, and to assume that it is going to have every single thing you are used to with the MacOS or even Windows only displays your lack of understanding on the issues here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
That's the problem. I've been using Linux (I only got BeOS a year or two ago) since the Slack 3.5 days. Admittedly its not that old, but this was before KDE and GNOME were ready, before glibc, before WordPerfect was ported. Linux has come a long way since then, but people are acting like it is all ready to take over the desktop market, and the only think keeping people from replacing Windows is the MS's dirty tricks. That's simply not true. At least somebody is willing to admit that Linux isn't nearly as ready for the desktop as everybody pretends.
Funny, I always seem to need those features.
I find that difficult to believe. You actually use every feature of the latest Word versions?
>>>>>>>>
No, I use some of the obscure features that prevent me from using a lot of free word processing packages. If most people use 10% of the features, I use 11%, and that 1% are those features that only MS bothered to put in.
Incidentally you might want to check out StarOffice from Sun. I believe it is open source now, and probably the most feature-full office suite out there under that label. If not, it is free.
>>>>>>>
Good god, I tried StarOffice, worst UI design ever concieved by man. Sadly, I'm happy to see it being ported to BeOS.
Good for you, you happen once again to be in a pretty minute minority. Most people who use Linux do in fact need those applications.
>>>>>
That's the problem. People are trying to push Linux into the group of people who are NOT "Most people who use Linux." These people don't need all this, and app developers shouldn't force them to have these installed. They should code to one set of APIs, and let the user choose what to use. If the user wants Python, the user can use Python. But the app developer should not use it, if there is a standard alternative (Perl) available.
Expecially Perl, in fact some distributions use Perl extensively for their inner workings. Even if you do not personally ever invoke a perl command line, there is a lot of stuff going on behind your back you don't know about that is very likely done with Perl.
>>>>>>>>>
When did I saw Perl was useless? An OS needs a scripting language, and Perl is quite useful. Hell, I even use it on BeOS. But take urpmi, for example. Why does it use Python?
If you really do not need these things, I suggest you switch distributions. If your distribution does not allow you to select what you install and you so irately do not want it, that is. Again, display some adaptability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why don't the app developers display adaptability? Why use Python when Perl is available?
You can very easily uninstall things you do not need too (again depending on your distribution) so even if the Beginner's Installation puts this stuff on without your knowledge, you can always take it off after install.
>>>>>>>>
I'm not an idiot, I know that. Its the Linux app developers who force me to keep stuff that I could uninstall, want to uninstall, but can't. Are you suggesting I code an urpmi alternative? Or I could switch to Debain and apt, and live with less than bleeding-edge software?
Once again, ncurses, perl, TK, these are most certainly not non-standard libraries (Perl isn't really a library, but you get the point). Whoever told you that does not have a clue what they are talking about. As for Zsh, and Csh, those are shells, not libraries. I don't know any utilities or applications that require those shells to be functional.
>>>>>>>>>
CVS requires csh, and something in either Mandrake or Slackware requires either zsh or ash.
While I agree that neither Perl nor ncurses are non-standard (which is why I didn't say they were) I would say that TK is. readline is. Python is. imlib is. fnlib is. Half the stuff installed on a Linux system is there to satisfy dependencies. That shows in the 500MB minimal, compatible (GNOME + KDE) install.
Okay, my honest opinion after hearing you talk for a bit is that you are maybe a one-year or less user of Linux.
>>>>>>>>
Sorry, been using it (off and on addmitedly) since '96.
You got into it because everybody told you it was cool.
>>>>>
When I started using it, it was still in hacker-land.
The reality is that it is a server OS that has a lot of folks working very hard to get desktop-ish features attached to it in a very short amount of time. I still only recommend Linux to developers, sys admins, and computer hobbiests. I don't try to get everyday gamers and whatnot here yet because it isn't quite ready yet.
>>>>
But it's not being hyped as such.
First impressions are important to some people, and right now it doesn't give a good first impression to somebody who has used Windows their entire life.
>>>>>>>
So why the hell is everybody on Slashdot pretending that their grandmother uses Linux?
The *NIX philosophy hardly resembles the philosophy of Windows users. Even in the way they use GUI applications. You tend to see lots of little apps spread out side by side over multiple virtual screens with X11. This is because over here, people design an application to do a few things, well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Speaking of philisophy, that USED to be the UNIX philosophy. If you take a look at KDE, GNOME, and half of modern applications, you'll notice that that is not the philosophy anymore. (For example, X does printing. Why does GNOME do printing? Why are KDE and GNOME incomptable? The *NIX way to do it would have a consistant interface, and then let whatever you want fulfil that interface. Kinda like how the text streams provide an interface, and you use whatever you want to manipulate that text stream. The way staight *NIX does it, the way X does it, that's the way to do it. Not the way modern Linux is doing it.
other, and each of these apps are monolithically huge,
>>>>>>>>
Like X, Mozilla, KDE, and GNOME? I just heard GNOME is 4 million lines of code. Not only twice the size of the kernel, but bigger than all of BeOS!
Give it a year, trust me it will impress you more and more as time goes by.
>>>>>>>
I've been waiting for it to impress me since '96.
Continue using NT 4 for your games (Which is in itself absurd, why are you doing that? Why not use Win98ME??)
>>>>>>>>>>
Because NT4 runs OpenGL apps faster, and all the games I have are compatible. That's not even an issue, all I play is Quake3 and CorumIII anyway.
and your MS Word needs, and keep tabs on how the Linux world is growing.
>>>>>>.
90% of my documents are created in BeOS's Gobe productive.
I know the tone of this not is a bit harsh, but your outlook is a common one and needs addressing.
>>>
Really, who else is a rabid BeOS user, likes simplicity, speed, and elegance, admires the philosophy of *NIX but is disguested by its current implementation? (BTW, Quake3 and OpenGL are the only reason why NT is still on my machine)
It is part of the rift between those who have been served by the software giants all their computing life, and those who have been apart of a growing development process.
>>>>>>>>>>
Yahoo! Be is a software giant!
Look, I have nothing against Linux, nothing against *NIX, and I understand the philosophy behind it, I just can't stand the fact that Linux is being sullied by what is currently happening. UNIX was designed to be elegant. In its current state on the desktop, Linux is decidedly NOT.
Well, the problem is that nobody has the balls to code for Xt. GTK+ might not be as bad as Motif, but it is pretty bad, compared to NT at least. Of course, NT's graphics run in kernel mode, but on my computers at least, its stability has never been that bad. My NT-only machine hasn't crashed in the 3 months since I've built it.
If you use WinNT for five minutes on decent hardware (PII 300+) you'll notice how much smoother the graphics are. Your cursor never jumps, your window rarely flicker, NT suffers from less of the "wiping the window clean" effect that seems to plague some GNOME apps.
How can you tell you're calling the GDI? (For non-Win32 programmers, Win32 functions are not prefixed, and the system has one big API)MessageBox(), for example, isn't a call into the GDI. The GDI stands for graphics device interface, and it deals with lines, splines, points, etc. I think the Window manger is somewhere in USER.DLL, but I'm not terribly sure.
Huh? Again with the idealistic bullshit? Proof man! MacOS X is an example of an OS that manages to reconcile OSS software (BSD) and proprietory software (Quartz/Carbon/etc)