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 561397
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: makes sense
by Valhalla on Mon 13th May 2013 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: makes sense"
Member since:

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:

Everyone knows LTS isn't actually stable.

On my second attempt at googling ....

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: makes sense
by Morgan on Mon 13th May 2013 21:59 in reply to "RE[9]: makes sense"
Morgan Member since:

I don't run Ubuntu, I run Debian and Fedora.

Sorry about that, I guess I was thinking of someone else.

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS has been pretty good for me, at least on my workstation. On my laptop it's another story; it's a Sony Vaio I got secondhand from my sister so of course there are hardware compatibility issues. It seems like Sony can't make an OSS friendly device no matter what. So far Slackware and derivatives are the best supported and most stable on it. I'm about to load up Crunchbang Linux, which has been very stable in the past for such a "bleeding edge" distro. Also it's Debian based and not Ubuntu based, so in my opinion it's a cleaner OS overall.

Reply Parent Score: 2