Linked by weildish on Sun 1st Feb 2009 01:25 UTC
Intel Intel just announced the Moblin 2 alpha release available to the public for testing. Get out the good old netbook and have a go with the release; it's confirmed to work relatively well with the Acer Aspire One and the Dell Mini 9. Those of you with bitty Eee netbooks aren't completely left out in the cold-- you'll just have to go without wireless for the time being.
Thread beginning with comment 346462
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Boot speed
by Elv13 on Sun 1st Feb 2009 05:37 UTC
Elv13
Member since:
2006-06-12

Take a look at that:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_moblin_2&n...

Fast!

Way faster than my own optimised system! If you switch from xorg to XFBdev and use an accelerated framebuffer driver, this thing can boot even faster, almost instant on. Boot speed is a weaness in Linux (for netbook), it is not faster than Windows. It is mostly why windows is becoming the OS of choice on netbook, manifacturer don't see why they should push Linux, it is not faster, it is not better and cause a lot of frustration from new user... This may help, I hope so.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Boot speed
by suryad on Sun 1st Feb 2009 05:55 in reply to "Boot speed"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Not to burst your bubble but you do realize the faster laptop is fast because of the SSD its equipped with right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Boot speed
by Ian Christie on Sun 1st Feb 2009 06:36 in reply to "RE: Boot speed"
Ian Christie Member since:
2005-07-06

Elv13 wasn't referring to the difference between the two computers in the video, rather that both appeared to boot faster than his own optimized system. Seeing as both are using Moblin. However, I'm impressed by the speed of the SSD machine. Now if only a couple hundered gig SSD was the same price as the same size HDD.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Boot speed
by cyclops on Mon 2nd Feb 2009 00:47 in reply to "Boot speed"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Boot times!?

I must be the only person who doesn't care about boot times. I know Vista has an exceptionally long boot time, but I've been booting between Ubuntu/XP all day on old sff and even though they do not compare to the instant-on Linux solutions, Neither bothers me.

There are multiple competing projects from a variety of Linux Vendors to increase boot time, and all I find fairly dull. I can think of a hundred features I would rather have in a new OS that I do care about.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Boot speed
by Elv13 on Mon 2nd Feb 2009 01:21 in reply to "RE: Boot speed"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

You don't have a netbook, right?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Boot speed
by rklrkl on Mon 2nd Feb 2009 09:42 in reply to "RE: Boot speed"
rklrkl Member since:
2005-07-06

The only people who don't care about boot times are those running just a single OS on their machine that doesn't either hang or require reboots on software installation (those two conditions rule out most Windows users then!).

I suspect that of the rest (Mac OS X and Linux users), a fair chunk of people either dual boot or use virtualisation - probably mainly to run Windows apps, especially games. Hence, despite your grumpy post about not caring about boot times, they *are* important for a lot of users.

For example, I have a quad core Dell Vostro with 4GB RAM and the very fast Samsung 1TB drives, but Fedora 8 with VirtualBox, VMWare Server or Qemu installed takes quite a while to boot up (45 seconds is not uncommon). And, yes, I've trimmed as much as I can out of the startup sequence.

Trying out Fedora 10 shows a *massive* improvement in startup time (under 30 seconds now) and it makes dual booting far less of a chore than it used to be with Fedora 8, especially when Vista Ultimate's boot performance is dismal - I hate the 30 seconds *after* your desktop appears before the machine is usuable, assuming you've installed anti-virus, daemon tools and ATI's 3D driver.

Still, all this talk of fast boot times reminds me of 80's (non-IBM PC compatible) machines where most or all of the OS was on ROM and you'd be talking a few seconds after power on to complete the boot sequence. Of course, you'd be "stuck" with the same OS on ROM for years (if you're lucky, some machines had upgradable ROMs - Acorn's BBC Micro and Archimedes probably being the most obvious), but that encouraged generally better OS coding (and a lot more testing I suspect) than the bug-riddled stuff we see today.

Reply Parent Score: 1