Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th May 2013 21:41 UTC
Windows "Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 561385
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: makes sense
by Morgan on Mon 13th May 2013 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: makes sense"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

Then tell us what distro you are using and what these kernel breakages you keep suffering are.


To my knowledge he runs Ubuntu but that's irrelevant; this discussion is about NT kernel vs Linux kernel performance, not a dick measuring contest.

I can see where you're both coming from because I live in both stable LTS and bleeding edge testing worlds at the same time. On my workstation it's Windows 7 Pro and Ubuntu LTS because I like to actually be able to get work done without wasting time fiddling around with broken crap. On my laptop it's "anything goes", as that device is my testbed for all the shiny new distro releases. Any given week I might have a Debian based distro, an Arch based one, a Slackware derivative or even Haiku booting on it. I greatly enjoy having both the stability of my work machine and the minefield that is my portable.

I feel like I say this every week lately, but if you're running a production machine for anything other than OS development, you should stick to a stable (preferably LTS) release of your favorite OS. If you're a kernel hacker, a distro contributor or you're just batshit insane, go ahead and use a bleeding edge distro as your production machine, and enjoy all the extra work that goes into maintaining it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: makes sense
by Valhalla on Mon 13th May 2013 12:40 in reply to "RE[7]: makes sense"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

this discussion is about NT kernel vs Linux kernel performance, not a dick measuring contest.

First off, I haven't even glanced at my dick during this entire argumentation (I need to keep my eyes on the damn keyboard) ;)

And while the original discussion was about Linux vs NT performance, this offshoot is about bassbeast's claims that the lack of a stable driver ABI is causing user space office software to crash and holding Linux back on the desktop.

He was painting this picture of this 'company' which must either run a bleeding edge distro or is downloading and installing new kernel versions off git and then goes:

-'shit! this new untested kernel release broke the proprietary driver and as such cost us $30k of products! we're screwed! oh, man if only this could have been avoided, like with one of them stable driver ABI's like I hear windows has, bummer!'

And then he used this 'very likely' scenario as the reason of why Linux has not made it big on the end user desktop.


I can see where you're both coming from because I live in both stable LTS and bleeding edge testing worlds at the same time.

Same here, stable for work, batshit crazy bleeding edge for leisure.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: makes sense
by lucas_maximus on Mon 13th May 2013 18:12 in reply to "RE[8]: makes sense"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Everyone knows LTS isn't actually stable.

On my second attempt at googling ....

http://blogs.operationaldynamics.com/paul/opensource/not-unified-re...

http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/06/fixwifi-driver-breaks-after-upda...

I am sure I could find more. I don't run Ubuntu, I run Debian and Fedora.

Reply Parent Score: 2