You Slashbots always chant this same mantra... but do you mind telling us HOW IE is integrated into the OS? You'd be surprised to see how little of Windows is actually dependant on IE itself.
So really, you have no idea what you're talking about.
So by the same token should everyone who owns a DVD player know what the laser head is, how the entire arm moves along its tracks, and what voltage the motor runs off?
That is exactly the elitist kind of mindset that proliferates misunderstanding of Linux in the "masses". Take your zealotry somewhere else.
To be able to perform tasks on the computer should not require you to know WTF the kernel is, what a module is, and why a certain line in a configuration file breaks a certain program. That's the job of the developer, not the user.
Let's see... Red Hat vs. OS X... yeah, let's make the underpriviledged kids who don't understand computers use an OS designed by and for hackers in their mom's basements as opposed to something designed with usability and simplicity in mind.
What Linux documentation? Half-written man pages with spelling and grammar mistakes that simply assume certain things about the system/user's knowledge?
No. It doesn't have anything to do with your Duron 1200. It *is* slower than Office 2003. The lower the speed of your processor, the more pronouncable the difference will be -- but the reason OpenOffice is slower than Word 2003 isn't because of your Duron, unless AMD has somehow managed to pick out OpenOffice code and slow it down deliberately, on the silicon.:)
You're welcome to come back to reality at any time now. You might want to wait for Firefox to finish compiling, though. I hear the latest nightlies have OMG-OPTIMIZED memory management, and no more leaks.
Are you actually justifying Firefox's poor memory management and over-use of memory? Wow. Open-source zealotry just doesn't get any better than that. I have 2 GB of RAM because I *use* that much. I shouldn't have to shut down other programs just to make room for Firefox, which is using 200 MB+ with nothing open -- and I don't. That's why I choose not to use it anymore.
Oh, and I see you added me as a Foe after I replied to your pretentious comment. Waaaah, baby need a diaper?
That's a good question. Why *does* it need so much RAM just for viewing a website? I really don't see the need for more than ~20 MB personally. A few MB for the binary (code and data), and data structures, let's say 12 MB for supporting libraries (HTTP, XML, PNG, JPG, what have you), and a few more MB for the actual content + caches. That gives us about 20 MB.
I saw your other suggestion about K-Meleon. I think I'll try that at home -- thanks. Ignoring the silly name, I've heard good things about it from a number of other people.
Yeah, I understand that. The thing is, though, that the games I play use about 1 GB tops. I have 2 GB in the system -- that still leaves plenty of room for other stuff.
As for coming in and out of swap... well, I've used this PC long enough to know when it's swapping and when it isn't. Generally, even my swap operations are pretty fast (7200 RPM, 8 MB cache, RAID 0). I've had a 700 MB Photoshop.exe process that went into a swap at one point, but the impact on performance was minimal because of how quickly I could retrieve 100 MB off disk.
Firefox is doing a lot more than just straight swapping. To be honest with you, I have no idea what it's doing in the 40-60 seconds that it takes to come back up after being minimized. I'm going to blame the UI and/or its toolkit.
Thanks for that attempt at degrading my abilities/knowledge level. I know well enough what I'm doing, and it seems as if you didn't read my comment through very well.
When I used Firefox, I would use it for days at a time without closing it. At times I would only have one tab open, at others I would have 25 tabs open. My point is that after about 6-7 days of usage like this, closing all tabs does squat in terms of releasing memory. I've had Firefox using up to 400 MB of virtual memory after a week-long session like this. Unacceptable.
I'm doing something wrong just because you started Firefox, loaded a page, then checked Task Manager? Okay there bud -- next time think about the comment, then reply.
PS: The word is "you're", as in "You are doing something wrong".
PPS: What brand of DVD burner do you recommend? I want something with a fast-ejecting tray, so that I may use it as a coffee cup holder without having to wait for it to eject/retract when the boss walks by.
Slashdot Mirror
You Slashbots always chant this same mantra ... but do you mind telling us HOW IE is integrated into the OS? You'd be surprised to see how little of Windows is actually dependant on IE itself.
So really, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why is this modded Troll? The parent states what *most* companies who have looked at Linux probably are/were thinking. This is the real world, people.
I guess the mods have had too much GNU/Linux cake:
"WHAT? AN ANTI-LINUX POST?! *mod down* NARFNARFNARF"
The fact that there are no responses to your question should be enough of a response. :-)
Tepples: +1
Linux tards: 0
Open-source zealots, start your whining and crying!
Why hello there, Mr. Teapot!
Right, because your system BIOS, video card BIOS, and various firmwares are all open-source and hackable ... yes?
Your idealogy is pointless since it is founded and implemented on a machine that is *proprietary* and *closed* at the root.
So by the same token should everyone who owns a DVD player know what the laser head is, how the entire arm moves along its tracks, and what voltage the motor runs off?
That is exactly the elitist kind of mindset that proliferates misunderstanding of Linux in the "masses". Take your zealotry somewhere else.
To be able to perform tasks on the computer should not require you to know WTF the kernel is, what a module is, and why a certain line in a configuration file breaks a certain program. That's the job of the developer, not the user.
Let's see ... Red Hat vs. OS X ... yeah, let's make the underpriviledged kids who don't understand computers use an OS designed by and for hackers in their mom's basements as opposed to something designed with usability and simplicity in mind.
What a genius decision.
Heh, Linux apologists crack me up. No, it's not a C3 bug. Does FreeBSD run? Yes. Does Windows run? Yes.
Kthx.
Cue: But does it support Linux? Waaah!
Baby need a diaper?
Sounds like someone is feeling insecure about their poor operating system choice. Is OS X making you/Linux feel in adequate? That's a shame.
Er, for the people that didn't get it ... FTW == For The Win
Linux == crap
BSDs == rockz0r
What Linux documentation? Half-written man pages with spelling and grammar mistakes that simply assume certain things about the system/user's knowledge?
:-)
I'll take the Free/OpenBSD docs any day.
I'm glad to see they didn't succumb to the Linux hype. Open/FreeBSD FTW!
No. It doesn't have anything to do with your Duron 1200. It *is* slower than Office 2003. The lower the speed of your processor, the more pronouncable the difference will be -- but the reason OpenOffice is slower than Word 2003 isn't because of your Duron, unless AMD has somehow managed to pick out OpenOffice code and slow it down deliberately, on the silicon. :)
You're welcome to come back to reality at any time now. You might want to wait for Firefox to finish compiling, though. I hear the latest nightlies have OMG-OPTIMIZED memory management, and no more leaks.
Nice rebuttal. I win.
Open-source zealot justifying Firefox's hoggish use of RAM: 0
Me: 1
If you aren't just being sarcastic ...
:-(
What a waste. It's all running Linux.
Let me get this straight ...
Are you actually justifying Firefox's poor memory management and over-use of memory? Wow. Open-source zealotry just doesn't get any better than that. I have 2 GB of RAM because I *use* that much. I shouldn't have to shut down other programs just to make room for Firefox, which is using 200 MB+ with nothing open -- and I don't. That's why I choose not to use it anymore.
Oh, and I see you added me as a Foe after I replied to your pretentious comment. Waaaah, baby need a diaper?
That's a good question. Why *does* it need so much RAM just for viewing a website? I really don't see the need for more than ~20 MB personally. A few MB for the binary (code and data), and data structures, let's say 12 MB for supporting libraries (HTTP, XML, PNG, JPG, what have you), and a few more MB for the actual content + caches. That gives us about 20 MB.
I saw your other suggestion about K-Meleon. I think I'll try that at home -- thanks. Ignoring the silly name, I've heard good things about it from a number of other people.
It's modded down because it points out a flaw in the precious software of Slashdot fanbois the world over. Here's an example:
;-)
Linux needs to maintain a stable driver API for 2 years+ if it wants to see an influx of hardware manufacturer support.
GNU software suffers from poor documentation in many cases.
OS X is slow.
All of those statements are true, but it doesn't stop the comment from being modded down.
Yeah, I understand that. The thing is, though, that the games I play use about 1 GB tops. I have 2 GB in the system -- that still leaves plenty of room for other stuff.
... well, I've used this PC long enough to know when it's swapping and when it isn't. Generally, even my swap operations are pretty fast (7200 RPM, 8 MB cache, RAID 0). I've had a 700 MB Photoshop.exe process that went into a swap at one point, but the impact on performance was minimal because of how quickly I could retrieve 100 MB off disk.
As for coming in and out of swap
Firefox is doing a lot more than just straight swapping. To be honest with you, I have no idea what it's doing in the 40-60 seconds that it takes to come back up after being minimized. I'm going to blame the UI and/or its toolkit.
The picture is about a year old. Hell, I'm selling that laptop now -- it's been replaced by a 12" iBook. Good little machine, though.
Thanks for that attempt at degrading my abilities/knowledge level. I know well enough what I'm doing, and it seems as if you didn't read my comment through very well.
When I used Firefox, I would use it for days at a time without closing it. At times I would only have one tab open, at others I would have 25 tabs open. My point is that after about 6-7 days of usage like this, closing all tabs does squat in terms of releasing memory. I've had Firefox using up to 400 MB of virtual memory after a week-long session like this. Unacceptable.
I'm doing something wrong just because you started Firefox, loaded a page, then checked Task Manager? Okay there bud -- next time think about the comment, then reply.
PS: The word is "you're", as in "You are doing something wrong".
PPS: What brand of DVD burner do you recommend? I want something with a fast-ejecting tray, so that I may use it as a coffee cup holder without having to wait for it to eject/retract when the boss walks by.