Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 30th Sep 2003 05:20 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Be thankful for your shared libraries. In Windows, people just static link things hoping to avoid DLL-hell. Seriously, though, your comments have no merit. If there are libraries with only two functions, then I'm in favor of axing them. Show me one! Each library carries its weight, and one thing the OSS world has figured out is that libraries exist so you don't have to roll-your-own, but can use the code that already exists. Go find a Linux machine and do ldd <gui-app-name> on one of the binaries. If you find any libraries you think are extraneous, post them here and I'll tell you why they're not.
Also, as for usage under heavy load. I use a Linux machine as my primary desktop. It handles beautifully under high load. Right now, I'l copying a 10GB dir of MP3s, and compiling KOffice in the background. At this point, XP would be begging for mercy. GUI responsiveness hasn't suffered at all, and the only thing you can notice is that apps take a little longer to load because they have to wait for pending I/O to complete. And this is with a (patched) 2.4 kernel, not even a 2.6 kernel. From my experience with 2.6, the new I/O scheduler greatly alleviates the second issue.