Is Linux Ready For Prime Time?

[hkgonra]

The worst driver problem I have seen is on one of my test servers. It is running suse 10.0 , I downloaded a kernel update. Now my Raid card will not work so I cannot get booted. Turns out I HAVE to recompile the driver EVERY time I do a kernel update. First off I don't even know how to re-compile a driver , I am sure I can figure it out but to me this is just totally unacceptable.


Downloading freespire now. Will see what happens.

 

[johan851]

Very well said Frank. That was one of my biggest frustrations in Linux (I tried Suse 9.1, Suse 10, and made it through a stage 1 Gentoo install) - no matter how much I looked and downloaded, I had a ton of difficulty just trying to install a driver. I had to modify files by hand, and just couldn't figure out what to do with stuff I downloaded. Once I got programs installed, I never even figured out how to make a shortcut.

 

[greenmaji]

$$$ Savings vs Windows.

For us, yes
For them? Developing drivers and reprograming software for another OS would cost them man hours. So its quite the oposite. I think this is lost on some, it would take NOT PURCHASING hardware and software that wasn't linux feindly and informing the manifacuture's that you would have selcted there product if they had been alternitive OS freindly.

Again, what is their modivation?

 

[HeatM1ser2k4]

A mac pretty much runs Linux/Unix, so why cant Windows user too?

 

[johan851]

A mac pretty much runs Linux/Unix, so why cant Windows user too?

A Mac runs OS10. And a Windows user can generally use it. I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your point.

 

[jtjuska]

My personal opinion on whether or not linux is ready for prime-time or not is this.

It really depends on what you intend to do with it. IF all your hardware is supported by your chosen distro (i hate that thought...) and all the apps you want to use are included then you will be just fine. I myself don't use linux for anything but server use and even then its more for college. I would love to have a dedicated linux server because I feel that linux is a superior OS for that purpose. I am a die hard command line only as far as linux goes though so my approach isn't for everyone. I would love to see linux go more mainstream for the simple cost factor for people who only use the computer for basic stuff.

So Linux for servers and cheap simplistic OS (cause it can be very simplistic, i have never had a problem with mandriva 2006 on my D600)
MS OS for gamers and people who want an overly pretty OS (like me). I plan on buying vista ultimate shortly after it comes out.

just my .02

~jtjuska

 

[greenmaji]

MS OS for gamers and people who want an overly pretty OS (like me). I plan on buying vista ultimate shortly after it comes out.

I'm not so sure thats the only option, linux can be configured to be more then pretty.
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=466664

And search for desktop theams for different desktop enviorments for linux here.
http://www.deviantart.com/

 

[lee1026]

One of mine major bones with most modern linux distros, such as ubuntu, are generally very, very slow. You would think that the least that they can do is to at least have the thing be faster then windows vista. But they are not even close to that.

 

[greenmaji]

One of mine major bones with most modern linux distros, such as ubuntu, are generally very, very slow. You would think that the least that they can do is to at least have the thing be faster then windows vista. But they are not even close to that.

LOL.. I have ubuntu on a P3 cellerion machine and it runs plenty fast.. Somethings up.

 

[Xtreme Barton]

LOL.... Somethings up....

i bet its your post count ...lol

 

[Krogen]

One of mine major bones with most modern linux distros, such as ubuntu, are generally very, very slow. You would think that the least that they can do is to at least have the thing be faster then windows vista. But they are not even close to that.

Just for comparison, about 2 years ago I did some UT2004 benchmarking on Windows XP and Gentoo. Gentoo was running the latest kernel and Windows XP was running the latest patches with all 'standard' services. I'm not going to get very deep into the specs but the FPS difference between Gentoo and XP was huge. On Face Classic I got around 120FPS (average) - Gentoo - and on Windows XP (same map) I got about 80FPS. Both ran with OpenGL. All settings the same.

It really depends what you consider "fast".

If you think Linux, for example, boots slow, notice that there's a big difference between loading services in Linux and Windows. When Windows boots up you see the desktop with the 'Start' menu. In the meantime, Windows services still keep loading. You have a non-usable desktop for at least a couple of seconds. In Linux, all services have to load before entering the main shell (or desktop), which slows the whole process but after it's done, IT'S DONE. You don't have to wait for services to load because they're loaded.

 

[klingens]

The reason modern desktop distros feel slow, is that they need as much or sometimes more, memory as windows.

 

[lee1026]

LOL.. I have ubuntu on a P3 cellerion machine and it runs plenty fast.. Somethings up.

Well, windows vista also runs plenty fast on my old PC. Faster then ubuntu 6.06, anyway. Is the ubuntu usable? Yes. But is it much slower then vista? Yes.

If you think Linux, for example, boots slow, notice that there's a big difference between loading services in Linux and Windows. When Windows boots up you see the desktop with the 'Start' menu. In the meantime, Windows services still keep loading. You have a non-usable desktop for at least a couple of seconds. In Linux, all services have to load before entering the main shell (or desktop), which slows the whole process but after it's done, IT'S DONE. You don't have to wait for services to load because they're loaded.

Can't say anything about anyone else's PC, but on mine, windows shows up usable faster then ubuntu show up the login screen.

 

[Midnight Dream]

Well, windows vista also runs plenty fast on my old PC. Faster then ubuntu 6.06, anyway. Is the ubuntu usable? Yes. But is it much slower then vista? Yes.


Can't say anything about anyone else's PC, but on mine, windows shows up usable faster then ubuntu show up the login screen.

I really fail to believe both statements, from personal experience with fresh installs of windows versus old installs of linux, and from the details I have heard from Vista experiences.

 

[funnyperson1]

I really fail to believe both statements, from personal experience with fresh installs of windows versus old installs of linux, and from the details I have heard from Vista experiences.

Yes, after running both Ubuntu 6.06 AMD64 and Vista RC1 64 on my desktop Vista is definitely not faster than Ubuntu for me.

As far as a pretty GUI, Linux has Windows XP beaten by centuries.

Now both Vista and Linux are experimenting with the 3D based GUIs, but both are still in beta/rc stages right now. Glx/aiglx and Compiz seem to work well right now once you get it set up right, but the setup process is painful. However, I am willing to bet that by the time that Vista comes out, they will come standard on a bunch of distros preconfigured and hopefully be easier to setup on a variety of video cards.

I also prefer compiz because some of its features are actually useful for productivity rather than Vista's ooh...shiny approach. The spinning cube with 8 desktops comes to mind, allows you to approach multi-monitor productivity without a multi-monitor setup.

Also Ubuntu 6.06 starts up pretty fast for me, around the same as XP, and much faster than Vista. It also shuts down much much much faster than XP on my laptop.

I think some Distros like Ubuntu are moving in the right direction for average consumption, but still aren't there yet. In Ubuntu there is an add/remove programs program that is kind of like what Tollhouse wanted, there are a bunch of programs (not packages) listed by category. You check the box next to the programs you want, and they install.

 

[InThrees]

Ubuntu's kernel is built to be as compatible as possible with a wide variety of hardware on a LiveCD. It includes driver support for loads of items you are not using.

To get the best (and much better than stock-from-the-downloaded-iso) performance, you need to recompile the kernel.

Unfortunately, this isn't something Joe Sixpack is going to understand or be likely to get right if he plows ahead.

On the other hand - you can recompile the kernel to do away with crusty old hardware and software support for things you will never ever use. This is simply something that cannot be done with Windows.

I have a 1.6ghz P4M laptop that runs XP faster than Ubuntu, but I never recompiled the kernel explicitly for my laptop's hardware. I have no doubt that had I done that, it would have blown the doors off XP. (Now running Win2k on that laptop, because another issue with Ubuntu is "Hey, my videos and songs don't work, how do I fix this? Uh huh... yeah... ok... nevermind, I'll just reinstall XP/2k."

I didn't feel like going through all that when a functional desktop with full codec support was ~30 minutes away.

I am running it on my... ahem... wench box at the moment, however, with no real problems.

 

[Midnight Dream]

Ubuntu's kernel is built to be as compatible as possible with a wide variety of hardware on a LiveCD. It includes driver support for loads of items you are not using.

Do you realize that it includes support in modules, which means if you are not using those drivers, they are not loaded. Which means that any (if any) performance hit is so minute, it cannot even be considered a hit.

 

[lee1026]

Yes, after running both Ubuntu 6.06 AMD64 and Vista RC1 64 on my desktop Vista is definitely not faster than Ubuntu for me.

Well, I was using the 32-bit installation. That may be the difference.

 

[greenmaji]

Can't say anything about anyone else's PC, but on mine, windows shows up usable faster then ubuntu show up the login screen.

I don't have to reboot Ubuntu.. sooo.. I don't really need to worry about that
BTW. this machine wouldn't be able to boot Vista at all, so go figure.

 

[lee1026]

I don't have to reboot Ubuntu.. sooo.. I don't really need to worry about that
BTW. this machine wouldn't be able to boot Vista at all, so go figure.

Well, as electricity bills can rake up if you never turn the thing off, turning it off may be a highly good idea.