OSNews

Wrong.

I've been testing out Ubuntu, Suse, and Xandros over the past month or so, and on a box w/384M, Linux begins swapping almost immediately. Open more than a couple of apps and it's swapped out almost 200M.

Wrong.

I've been testing out Ubuntu, Suse, and Xandros over the past month or so, and on a box w/384M, Linux begins swapping almost immediately. Open more than a couple of apps and it's swapped out almost 200M

Try again. Linux isn't confined to Ubuntu, Suse, or Xandros. I have been using Linux on an old laptop with 256MB of memory for years now without an issue. It is very usable.

Wrong.

I've been testing out Ubuntu, Suse, and Xandros over the past month or so, and on a box w/384M, Linux begins swapping almost immediately. Open more than a couple of apps and it's swapped out almost 200M.

Ahh.

That's why I use Slackware + KDE.

Edited 2006-08-28 23:54

Linux will swap unused code and data and fill your memory with disk cache. Linux configures this with the swappiness kernel parameter (default value of 60). To swap less:
echo 10 > /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
but it's recommended you don't change the defaults.

To see how much physical memory your really consuming:
free -m | grep cache: | awk '{print $3"MB"}'

That's because of the way Linux uses swap, i.e. whenever it has any. It's the same when it reports the memory used: uninformed users often scream "OMG! Linux is using 400M of my 512MB!" but take away the memory used for buffers, and if you've got 2 or 3 KDE apps + Firefox running, you end up with about 300MB *free*.

Nevertheless, it doesn't slow down unless there's something seriously wrong.

Oh please. Ubuntu and SLED 10 are the only distros that can come close to competing with OSs like Mac OS X and Vista and both of those distros are bloated and definitely not responsive.

Don't bother trying to convince people that using Damn Small Linux will allow you to run all those apps with 256MB of RAM. Those kind of distros will never be popular among home pc users so it's irrelevant.

In any case, the comparison is difficult. Open Office may use little memory but it's also terrible. Especially in comparison to MS Office 2007. Likewise, Photoshop uses a lot of memory but it's better than anything linux offers like GIMP. I'd rather spend 30 dollars to buy an extra 256MB of RAM and use good software than be a cheap ass and just have to be content with crappy software.

Vista and Mac OS X look better, have more support from software and hardware vendors, are easier to use and have better software than Linux. That's why they people use them at home. Ubuntu and SLED10 were supposed to make huge in-roads for home PCs but they haven't. The avg PC user doesn't care and will never care. By this time next year things will be the same...everyone will be using some OS from Apple or MS at home. The truth hurts, I know.

Ubuntu and SLED 10 are the only distros that can come close to competing with OSs like Mac OS X and Vista

Not really. Debian's goal, for example, is to provide a free, universal operating system. Mac OS X and Windows Vista don't even come close to competing with that.

If you mean what distributions compete with Windows Vista and Mac OS X on enterprises with professional support and on the desktop then IMO only SLED and RHEL are there. But others may consider Ubuntu as well.

As far as being responsive, Mac OS X and Windows Vista are not exactly the most responsive operating systems made. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Especially in comparison to MS Office 2007.

Which doesn't exist yet.

Also, one of the two most important things that keep OpenOffice.org from being adopted in enterprises is the cost of retraining users to use a new program. But now, thanks to Microsoft, it might be cheaper to migrate to OpenOffice.org than to Office 2007. So even if you think Office's new interface is great, it could be the best thing that ever happened to OpenOffice.org.

Vista and Mac OS X look better,

Completely subjective. I strongly disagree.

have more support from software and hardware vendors,

Linux supports more hardware than OS X and Vista.

If GIMP is enough for the people who use it, then frankly, who cares if your copy of Photoshop resurrects the dead?

In that case, my friend, I believe (but only in this case...) people would be *really* interested in that little copy of Photoshop that happens to resurrect ppl.

;)