I’m a long-time, frustrated Windows user. I have tried various Linux distributions in the past, but I haven’t been satisfied with any of them. Today, I went out and bought Red Hat Linux 8.0 from Office Depot for $40. I am a dial-up internet user and I consider myself computer literate, although I don’t have much experience using Linux on the desktop. I do however, have some experience using Linux and FreeBSD as a server (no GUI).
I was excited to see all the positive, glowing reviews of the latest version of Red Hat Linux. I thought, “finally, I can get away from Windows 98.” “It just works” is the mantra. Unfortunately, this was not the case for me.
I tried two different computers. The first one was my laptop, a Toshiba 2595CDT. Installation was easy, all the hardware was detected flawlessly (even the USB mouse, which Windows 98 was never able to recognize). Installation of the “desktop” system took just over an hour. The computer is a Celeron 400a with 64MB of RAM and a 4.3GB hard drive.
[Editor In Chief’s Note: The RAM for this machine does not meet the requirements of Red Hat 8.0 towards X11.]
Once the system was booted, I was surprised to see that GNOME was so slow, it was useless. It took a full 5 minutes for Open Office Writer to load up. It took a minute for a window to show up when I double-clicked on the ‘home’ icon. I’m sorry, but there’s no way I can use a system like this, I can’t get any work done.
I clicked here and there looking for ways to speed the system up. I turned off “animations,” but it didn’t do anything. What I mean is, all the windows and whatnot were still animated. I found a “services” option which I used to shut down a bunch of unused services. I’m still confused as to why there were printer related services running when I specifically deselected all printer-related packages during the install. I don’t have a printer attached to the laptop and I don’t plan on getting one.
After spending about an hour fooling with this and that, I found a “Desktop Switcher” option. I thought to myself, “cool, maybe there’s a faster desktop than GNOME.” The only other option there was ‘TWM,’ so I clicked it.
It was then that I realized just how easy it is to break a Linux installation. I wasn’t running as root, I was running as a normal user. It dropped me to a blue background with no menus, no icons, nothing. After clicking a bunch of times, the only thing I could bring up was a terminal window. I promptly got back on my “real” desktop machine (running Windows 98) and found a #redhat IRC channel on irc.openprojects.org. Luckily, they told me how to switchback (‘switchdesk gnome’). Unfortunately, it didn’t work 100%. You see, at every login, I am still presented with an ugly “Welcome to XFree86” login screen (as opposed to the default RedHat one I originally had). I tinkered with /etc/inittab for another hour and finally gave up when nothing seemed to work (even changing it to gdm, but as I mentioned, I’m no expert).
Since the whole mess was slow anyway, I decided to try my extra computer (which had CRUX 0.9.4 installed, but that I never used since I couldn’t get much done on it). This computer is a 500mhz Celeron with 128MB of RAM, a 13GB hard drive, and a 16MB Riva TNT (no sound card).
This installation went much faster (about half an hour), and I chose to install WindowMaker and KDE (in addition to the GNOME default). I figured if GNOME was still too slow, I could try something else.
Again, the installation was straightforward and I had no problems. I got to GNOME and low-and-behold, it’s still slower than molasses. I seriously don’t know how anyone can use a system such as this. Every window takes eons to load, and that’s just the regular file manager. Apps take even longer.
Wait, I take that back. I loaded AbiWord and it loaded right away. However, inside the application, the word wrap didn’t work correctly, and wrapped somewhere around 1.5 screens wide, and I couldn’t find an option that changed that. The browsers were slow, preference panels still ignored my settings (no animations), and even though I installed Galeon and Mozilla, the ‘default’ browser is always lynx.
So I fired up the desktop switching utility again (this time I was sure to stay away from TWM). I first tried KDE, which was slower than GNOME (if that’s possible). The windows are sluggish, startup times are horrid, and frankly, the default fonts are pretty ugly. The ugly part doesn’t bother me much, in all honesty, I just want to get some work done. My main tasks include coding in PHP, testing in a web browser, checking email, and chatting on IRC. These tasks should not bring a 500mhz computer to its knees!
Another major usability problem is the menu system. System Tools, System Settings, Preferences, and Server Settings are all duplicated under the ‘Extras’ menu. Why can’t they be categorized with the rest of the applications? Furthermore, why can’t I easily recategorize them to suit my needs? In Windows, it’s as simple as dragging the menu items around.
So, after a failed KDE trial, I decided to try WindowMaker. I had a little bit of an introduction to WindowMaker in my previously mentioned CRUX install. In CRUX, none of the menu items worked, so it was pretty pointless. I figured RedHat would get it right. When WindowMaker started, it looked exactly like the CRUX install. The menus were full of applications that simply didn’t work (not found errors). I don’t understand why someone would include a bunch of programs in the menus when the programs themselves aren’t even installed.
However, I did look around and I did find programs I was sure were installed. For instance, The GIMP. It worked in GNOME so I knew it was installed… Still got the error, though. The only menu item that worked in WindowMaker was VIM, but why do I need WindowMaker to run a text application? Back to GNOME (this time using ‘switchdesk gnome’ since there was no menu option for it).
Uh-oh, after switching from GNOME to KDE to TWM and back to GNOME again, all the desktop icons disappeared. I still have the menu and I still have the panel, but no desktop icons whatsoever. No home directory, no “start here,” nothing.
Needless to say, I’m not impressed. Sure, the GNOME installation looked good. I like the interface, a lot. I just can’t stand how slow it is.
Although the package management system was much better than the last time I used RedHat (6.1), it’s still not as convenient as going to the author’s web site, downloading a file, and double-clicking it to invoke the installer. Plus, the removal of packages leaves a big dirty mess in my home directory.
I think it’s important for an operating system that’s touted as “user friendly” to be pretty resistant to permanent breakage, especially for a normal user. If a utility has the potential to break or change the entire system (such as my switch to TWM), it either shouldn’t be presented as an option, or there should be a warning message. RedHat shouldn’t assume that everyone who installs their operating system is familiar with Linux, and every change should have an easy fix, should something break.
Finally, was there anything I liked about it? First of all, I chose to install Apache, bind, MySQL, and mod-php. Logged in as root, I was able to find the “services” utility and start MySQL and Apache at boot up (as a service). I was able to configure Apache using the graphical tool – much easier than on Windows, I must say. Galeon wasn’t bad, but why must it require the Mozilla package to run? I realize it’s based on Gecko, but what’s the point of having two complete browsers installed when I only need one?
In conclusion, my experience wasn’t a positive one, and I’m afraid I will be using Windows 98 for quite a while. I really dislike Microsoft and Windows in general, I must admit that it at least lets me get my work done in a timely fashion. I do realize that my two systems aren’t the latest-and-greatest, but for my purposes, they should be sufficient. Unfortunately, I only see the situation getting worse. The major Linux distributions keep getting bigger and bigger, more and more bloated, and ultimately, slower.
Alan, I can’t believe you or many people criticize Linux per se. I mean, criticism is good, but it is futile to criticize something for not being what it is not. It is the old thing about seeing a glass of water as half empty or half full. To me, Linux, in general, has made tremendous strides – and in a pretty short period of time considering the nature of OSS. At any rate, if one expects something to be what it isn’t, then frustration is assured. But, if you get in the middle of it and go with it and see the progress as you continue to use it, it’s really a lot of fun.
I set up a Redhat 7.3 box for my girlfriend. It has a 400MHz Celeron and 128 MB RAM. Although the startup time for OpenOffice is rather excessive, once it’s up and running, it’s not much slower than on my own machine (1.7GHz PIV w/ 512 MB RAM). I set the default desktop to KDE, which exhibits more of a slowdown compared to mine (also running RedHat), but it’s still perfectly usable. I have trouble believing that the changes from 7.3 to 8.0 have caused a slowdown as much as one would think from this editorial.
it’s like driving cars without really knowing the effects of driving fast or braking hard or swerving too much
It’s more like driving a car without knowing exactly how the engine works internally. Without understanding how vacuum makes “power brakes.” Without understanding how an alternator generates electricity. These are all things that should be hidden from the end-user.
Two words:
Try BeOS
Two Other Words:
Craniorectal Inversion
>>>I use BeOS and it isn’t dead.
http://www.openbeos.org/
http://www.yellowtab.com/
http://www.blueeyedos.com/
http://www.bebits.com/ <<<
openbeos.org doesn’t have an acutal operating system developed – they only have, last i looked, a FS module.
yellowtab.com – doesn’t even have a working “what is zeta” link on their website – so i really don’t see how your positive it’s really BeOS. (Especially since they seem to already have bad info on the site like, “AtheOS is a BeOS Fork.”)
blueeyedos.com isn’t BeOS – i certainly do not remember BeOS being based off the linux kernel and Xfree.
bebits.com has very little useful software – not enough to recommend BeOS to a friend for use as a desktop OS w/o being embarassed.
Again it can summed up in two words:
Dream On.
I’ll give you a pat on the back for those fine words + the good, even handed review previously.
I don’t mind criticism about distributions as so long as the issues actually exist! don’t call something crap until it is crap.
If I were to do a “Brian” review of my experience with Windows XP, I’d probably get lashing of teeth from the Windows advocate camp. However, what I take in account is this. Microsoft has $50 something billion dollars. don’t you think they could atleast fix Windows once and for all? Do a MacOS X, and do something revolutionary instead of trying to mend something (NT) that was built upon a zealot hatred of UNIX + the hype of all things “next generation” such as “C++” and “Object orientated programming”.
Time for a shameless plug for my company’s SOHO edition of Vector Linux. If you want a really fast linux distro with full small office/home office functionality then you might come by and have a look at http://vectorlinux.org
Its all there office applications, games, multimedia and a size you can live with….1.2 gigs full install. We have had reports from 233 mhz pentium cpu and 64 megs of ram users that openoffice even opens at an acceptable speed. Its a free download and worth a try.
Open Office took 5 mins to load?
Some misconfiguration issues must be there….
is it really absolutely necessary to bitch about this guys article like you did? Your TROLL was almost as long as his article.
I’ve had the same problem as artem and christian. I don’t remember which distro(Lycoris?) but it really ran much slower than anything else I’ve ever seen. Next time it happens I”ll try Artem’s solution. My glitch was on a Duron 800 with 256 ram.(This system runs everything just fine, normally)
This really shouldn’t happen, there’s no excuse for a glitch like this.
I have Mandrake 9.0 running on a PII 350, with 128 ram, and it runs slowly, but its definitely useable.
Give Mandrake another try. But a memory upgrade to at least 256MB is highly recommended if you want to use KDE – KDE is simply memory hungry, so is mozilla.org.
Hi all.
I am a windows user who believes that win2000 is the most stable, useable, effective, and best implemented OS MS has ever come up with, so far.
But over the years, I have heard so much about the rise of Linux, that, to me, Linux must also be very stable, useable, efficient, and fast for it to be able to win over so many fans.
But from what I gathered in the previous 98 posts, I am not so sure anymore…
To me, Linux has always give me an impression that it is a geek’s OS. In that, you have to know what you need to do when looking at an empty console, what commands to type, how to tweak and compile the kernel or the source codes, etc, in order to optimize your system for it to maximize a system’s potential. As opposed to the dummified windows desktop environment whereby all you have to do is install the OS via wizards, install whatever applications you need to use, and you’re set. So maybe all these unecessary unhappiness is caused by companies like RedHat who make claims that their distro is meant to be an easy to install and use gui desktop environment suitable for the typical joe blow user.
To make things worse, just for a single OS, we have so many choices of distros, file and window managers, desktop shell developers, shell specific/dependant applications, etc, that it all seems to me like a big mess! Yes, choice is good. But IMHO, there should be some form of uniformity and consistency so that, let’s say for example, I run RH7 with G1.4, and my friend runs SuSE8 with KDE2 and I go over to his place to do some work, it should not take me anytime at all to familiarize with how to operate his system in an EFFICIENT manner! Computers are made to labour for us, not otherwise!
All these attempts to implement gui ala windows/mac by the various developers/distributors has raised the bar for the hardware requirements of a system to have in order to run Linux smoothly so much so that it seems to have overtaken wintel in pushing the hardware requirement envelope like one previous user has mentioned. And I have always thought that Linux was suppose to run better than windows on older hardware. Guess I was wrong too. (that’s in reference to using a “windows like” gui for a desktop env). Maybe Linux was never meant or made out to be a GUI desktop type of OS in the first place?
I really hope that one day, Linux, MacOS or some other OS will seriously challenge M$ in the average home user PC’s market. But for now M$ still looks untouchable and win2k is still the one for me for getting daily work done.
just my 2¢.
Half a year ago i had the same (slowly) problem as you with redhat, lycoris and mandrake but not with suse. Today, with the same computers, i stil have this problem, but only with redhat and lycoris. Mandrake 9.0 and suse 8.0 are running stable and fast. Suse is a little hard to get over internet, but mandrake is easy, go to their homesite and download it from there.
Sorry about my english i hope you understand!!!!
I just installed RH 8.0 on a 233mhz laptop with 64megs ram. GNOME 2.0 was very slow. I shut off all of the services I didn’t need, and installed window maker. Now it runs like a charm.
i know it’s tempting to dismiss older hardware, but saying a 500MHz machine can’t run a GUI?! good grief… you think we were all using DOS prompts and command line interfaces three years? errr, no, i don’t think so!
i have a desktop machine that speed, and i’m running a triple boot system with KDE 3.03 linux, win2K, and beos5. ALL OF THEM are fast and responsive. heck, it’s actually pretty nippy… i also run linux on my 800MHz vaio, dual-booting wth winXP. the only reason for something to run slow on a 500MHz machine is that some setting somewhere is deeply, truly b0rked. (FYI i’m currently using mandrake 9, looking to investigate gentoo when 1.4 final arrives…)
I use a Celeron 433 192MB RAM with LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org), but before that, it had 128MB and ran RedHat 7.2 with KDE2 nicely. Not too fast, but responsive enough.
It now runs LFS with IceWM, the extra 64MB RAM has made little difference in terms of responsiveness; currently it has only 177MM used. So I don’t really see the issue being the CPU or the memory. Having said that, I don’t run MySQL on a desktop machine, and don’t see why anybody would.
>>”But over the years, I have heard so much about the rise of Linux, that, to me, Linux must also be very stable, useable, efficient, and fast for it to be able to win over so many fans.
But from what I gathered in the previous 98 posts, I am not so sure anymore…”
This is precisely why I feel posting this article was irresponsible. I have had bad experiences installing Linux, I’ve had bad experiences installing Windows 95, 98, ME (nightmare of nightmares!), and XP. Windows 2000 is a wonderful OS, in my opinion. For pure speed, load up Windows 98SE. The point is, I’ve installed a lot of operating systems. Sometimes things went smooth as silk, sometimes things bombed.
Posting an editorial like this about ONE USER’S bad experience installing an OS strikes me as biased and intentionally inflammatory and damaging to the reputation of the product in question. If an article like this had been posted about XP (not that it ever would have) intelligent users would have dismissed it for what it was: a fluke. The vast majority of XP users have no problems. Posting this article might very well turn potential Red Hat users away from the OS, and that’s just wrong.
I once had a horrible experience installing an upgrade of Internet Explorer — it obliterated an otherwise fully functional Windows 98SE install. I once had a bad experience installing MS Office. Anyone who’s administered a fair number of machines has had LOTS of bad installs of LOTS of different things. It happens. We curse, shake our heads in frustration, and start over. Sometimes along the way we realize it was our own haste, irresponsibility or poor choices that caused the problem to begin with. Sometimes we discover whatever it is we’re working with is just broken in some way. Life goes on.
OSNews has a large readership and an equally large responsibility to report such news impartially. It’s OSNEWS, not OSOpinion. If OSNews intends to publish every bad experience had by every user installing any of the various operating systems in existence … well, that’s just silly, right? Because then people who are fond of the products in question are going to want to post rebuttals … to which the original posters are going to want to post further counter-arguments …
I’ve never read a story like this one about Windows on OSNews. I’ve never read a story like this one about BeOS on OSNews. I’ve never read a story like this about MacOS on OSNews.
Are we to believe that there ARE no such stories? I know better. I have several of my own. I guess the point is, even though I have those stories I know they DO NOT APPLY to the vast majority of my fellow users. As such, my personal disaster stories might make interesting anecdotes but they simply aren’t material worthy of a spot on the front page of a site with a readership of thousands. Just as, in my opinion, this story wasn’t worthy of such attention.
“Breaking News: A newbie has issues installing the latest version of Red Hat Linux! Dramatic footage at 11! Viewer Discretion Advised.” People have trouble installing lots of things every day. A friend of mine recently had huge problems with a botched 98SE -> XP Pro upgrade. I fixed it over the phone. Life goes on. There was no need for a press release.
Other than potentially harming Red Hat 8.0’s reputation out of all proportion to the obscure problems (which weren’t even clearly defined) described in the article and possibly turning away users who’d been on the fence about giving Psyche a shot, I fail to see what purpose this article served at all.
If I’d known my past installation woes were fodder for such stories, I suppose I could have vented a great deal of frustration over the past few years by posting them to OSNews. More the pity I didn’t deem them important enough to document for posterity.
The pings return around 0.080ms consistently, so the networking seems to be okay. I can access this machine from my Windows 98 desktop. They are connected together using a cable/dsl/router from linksys.
You misunderstood, has nothing to do with how fast your network or internet connection is, it’s about X trying to resolve hostnames and not being able to. This isn’t a problem with X, or rather, it’s not a problem specifically with X, a lot of apps that rely on resolving hostnames, when there’s a problem will stall while waiting for a dns response or something along those lines.
You should be getting your isp’s DNS servers automagically setup on connect to the net, so that can’t be the problem, try checking /etc/hosts and see what ip is setup for the hostname you gave your system. If you only have one nic (which you use to connect to the internet), then what’s happening? Does it overwrite the network settings whenever you get online thus you no longer have an iface with an ip matching your hostname? Or maybe you have no ip to go with your hostname? You might try setting it up so your system sees your host as being 127.0.0.1 (keep your old setting, just comment it out though) and see if that changes anything.
So what could be happening is that you have no ip to go with your hostname (possibly like dhcp is overwriting your settings for eth0 when you connect), in such a case, X would keep trying to find the ip address for $HOSTNAME (echo $HOSTNAME) but it wouldn’t find one, or it wouldn’t find a valid one (the ip in /etc/hosts for your hostname wouldn’t match your dhcp setup eth0). Well whatever, something along those lines.
This is just my guess, hope it helps.
2.5 megs of ram on a video card? Running any modern GUI in that will be an exercise in pain. I wouldn’t want to run win95 with that.
By Xirzon (IP: —.dip.t-dialin.net) – Posted on 2002-10-06 00:51:05
I think Xirzon’s post says it all, good post.
For Linux to really move forward, it will need a good solid replacement for X11+XFree86
By Deathshadow (IP: —.ne.client2.attbi.com) – Posted on 2002-10-06 02:56:27
Makes me sad now that BeOS is gone.
By Nicolás (IP: —.red.retevision.es) – Posted on 2002-10-06 02:40:12
Another helpful and non-abusive post.
At home, I have installed Linux onto my two old Pcs. One Pentium II @ 450MHz/256MB Ram and the other Celeron 800MHz/256MB Ram. They run both Asus motherboards with Intel Chipset.
The Pentium II outperforms the celeron on performance under Gnome2. The celeron comes to knees when it has to load the desktop (it takes 20-30 secs) while the PII takes only 10-15. Celeron is slow as hell (prolly the low cache is the fault)
I just measured startup time of open office and yes it is slower than abiword. It took 8s first time startup and 4s second time. MrProject 2s first time. Evolution 6s first time.
This is NOT slow (RH8,Gnome). Ok I have a modern PC, PIII 800, but you must have that also for using NT (NT4/2000/XP). Win 95/98/ME are nothing to compare with, they are to unstable for a work desktop.
Cheers
After a good night sleep I now wonder how you managed to post this article?! A user installs RH 8.0 on hardware that is below the recommended specs and says “My Red Hat Linux 8.0 Frustrations”. WTF?? That’s really unfair to RedHat. It also shoots down your credibilty as a site editor. It really looks like you’re just posting these kind of articles to generate (flame war) hits. Indeed, it is a good tactic, controversy after controversy, but it’s really tarnishing my view on OSNews.
-fooks
The CPU (celeron 400) is actually pretty fast enough, but
the amount of memory (64 MB) is not sufficient for desktop
use. I’ve run KDE comfortably on a celeron 300 with 256 MB, but KDE will crawl along on my new XP 1800 when only
128 MB is used (there is constant swapping to the harddisk).
Since RAM is so cheap a memory upgrade would be the smartest thing to do. KDE will still be slower then Windows 98 but your productivity will likely be higher.
There is a certain degree of discipline demanded of anybody that is going to use a computer! Some people don’t have it. You know what I mean:
– Launching an application twenty times (multiple clickin) just because it did not start up instantly.
– Pressing multiple random keys on the keyboard in an attempt to make things happen the way you want.
– punching the screen if the software does not behave the way you want or kicking the computer to make it behave
– and what have you
– People who think they are experts and decide to choose expert install modes without knowing what they are doing. Or even decide to install everything available on the disc.
There are people who do this and give them the latest top-of-the-line machines and it will be slow. I’m not saying there are not problems with the OS that should be addressed just that there are people who will bork everything no matter how good they are. And while reading this ‘review’ keep this in mind
Why Eugenia shouldn’t have posted this article? It is a typical Linux newbie experience (and by the way, it is an editorial). The guy pointed to some problems we (I mean Linux and the other freenixes) have had for years and never corrected.
As for his hardware being below the recommended specs, when did Linux become such a ressource hog that you can’t install it on his machines. I remember a time when one of the arguments in favor of Linux was: you can give a new life to your old computer.
I think the amount of RAM is insuffiecent to run either GNOME or KDE. My recommendations for you is 192MB for GNOME and 256MB for KDE. Windows XP, BTW, would be very slow on that machine. Only because of the amount of RAM.
Remember, RAM matters. And in Red Hat, don’t bother with other window managers: they rarely work. If you in a search to find something that *works*, get Mandrake 9.0, and use XFCE, WM, Blackbox, or whatever that suites you best.
>A user installs RH 8.0 on hardware that is below the recommended specs
HERE is the recommended hardware BY red hat:
http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/technical/
As you can see, the recommended is Pentium 200 Mhz. Brian has a Celeron 400.
And you know, Brian has written other stuff as well apart of the speed issues. He wrote about usability, he wrong about some real problems (see: WindowMaker’s broken menu links – a point that I agree with Brian 100%). But you only DECIDE to comment and TROLL on very specific stuff, and not on the article as whole.
If you do not agree with the author, you may very well COMMENT on his errors. THIS IS WHY we have this comment section. But instead of commenting and DISCUSSING, you *troll* about how this site’s editor does not have credibility and how much OSnews has fallen in your eyes.
Go and give us a break, will ya?
AFAIK, laptops are one of the most trickiest computer types to install Linux in. I guess sure most of his problems are related to using a laptop instead of a desktop computer.
Anyway, I think including this poor review as an editorial is like… confirming OSnews is following a “bash linux” trend.
From the article:
“The computer is a Celeron 400a with 64MB of RAM and a 4.3GB hard drive.”
From Red Hat’s Hardware Requirements:
“Memory:
Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
Minimum for graphical: 128MB
Recommended for graphical: 192MB” <– Note this line.
OSNewsflash: Red Hat Linux 8.0 will not run properly when installed on a machine configured with ONLY ONE-THIRD the recommended amount of RAM installed!
Well … DUH! Come on! So Red Hat is to blame for this user’s frustrations because it won’t work on a machine without the recommended hardware specs? This is NEWS? Suppose this user had sent in this article saying:
“Damnit! I can’t get Windows XP Pro to run the way I want on my machine with only 64Mb of RAM! I’m very frustrated!”
It wouldn’t have been published. Period. Why? Because everyone knows XP Pro is going to run like crap in 64Mb of RAM.
So why was this published? It is NOT NEWS that software won’t perform optimally without enough memory available. It’s common sense.
I’m going to go try to install Windows 2000 on my old 486 with 32Mb of RAM. If it doesn’t work, expect an article outlining in detail my “frustrations” to appear shortly. No, wait … that would be silly wouldn’t it? Windows 2000 isn’t designed to support that configuration. Hmmm.
> I remember a time when one of the arguments in favor of Linux was: you can give a new life to your old computer.
EXACTLY. I remember back in 1999 and 2000 where the MAIN reasons people were pitching Linux to their friends was Linux’s stability and speed compared to Windows.
Today, Linux’s X/KDE/Gnome is not as stable as it used to be (not for me anyway) and it is DEFINATELY NOT faster than my Windows XP (on the same machine). It seems that Microsoft did a step forward since then and Linux two steps back. Sad.
And no, this is not “another low for Eugenia and OSNews” kind of comment (that some bozos seem to think), it is MY HONEST OPINION as Eugenia Loli-Queru. And who ever does not believe it, he/she is welcome to my house to witness it themselves (I have 4 different Linuxes installed on this machine – pick whichever you want – Linux in 1999 was faster on THIS machine. Today, it is NOT – even with GCC 3.2).
This all makes me wonder if AbiWord or gobeProductive will run better with low memory config system like this one.
And who ever does not believe it, he/she is welcome to my house to witness it themselves (I have 4 different Linuxes installed on this machine – pick whichever you want – Linux in 1999 was faster on THIS machine. Today, it is NOT – even with GCC 3.2).
Eugenia, are you trying to say new Linux distros aren’t as fast as prior ones in a 1999 machine? I find that even reasonable.
Anyway, have you tried recompiling the kernel, xfree86 and using the window managers that were popular in 1999? Using Linux for old computers is still possible, and it wasn’t because it was optimised for old hardware, or because it was so well done it would run like a blaze anywhere. It was because you were free to recompile, modify or whatever the source code. And that’s still possible.
Not for the average user? Sure, but then in 1999 most Linux users weren’t exactly the average user kind. Anyway, I see everyday 486 computers running as firewalls using Debian
>> “Anyway, I think including this poor review as an editorial is like… confirming OSnews is following a “bash linux” trend.”
Amen.
Like I said, if he’d been trying to install Windows XP onto a machine with only 1/3 the recommended RAM the article would never have been published.
The rest of his problems CAN NOT be discussed apart from the simple fact that he was trying to run Red Hat Linux on a machine that it simply isn’t designed to run on. Who can say which of his problems were Red Hat’s fault and which were caused by trying to force the thing to run in ONE-THIRD the recommended memory?
This is NOT trolling, it’s just fact. I just checked the system requirements on my XP Professional box. It requires 128Mb of RAM. 1/3 of that is ~42Mb. Do you think XP Pro would run well in 42Mb of RAM?
Answer honestly: if this article had been about “frustrations” while attempting to install XP Pro onto a machine with 42Mb (1/3 of 128) of RAM, would it have been published? Or would you have questioned why anyone would be silly enough to try to run XP Pro with only 42Mb of RAM?
I have here, beside me the WinXP PRO and the Lycoris boxes. It says for requirements:
WinXP: PC with 300 Mhz. 233 Mhz minimum.
128 MB memory. 64 MB minimum.
And Red Hat’s XFree requires 192 MB… Right. And Red Hat 8 on text mode requires 64 MB.
As for Lycoris, it requires a 333 Mhz PC!!
So, who is bloated now? Back in 1999, that was not the case at all for Linux. It seems that a lot of things have been reversed since then…
>>> “Anyway, I think including this poor review as an editorial is like… confirming OSnews is following a “bash linux” trend.”
Stop the HORSESHIT when you read something that you do not like.
“(I have 4 different Linuxes installed on this machine – pick whichever you want – Linux in 1999 was faster on THIS machine. Today, it is NOT – even with GCC 3.2).”
Windows 98SE was a big thing in 1999. It’s also significantly faster than Windows XP on my machines.
Linux in 1999 was faster than Linux today on THAT machine. Windows in 1999 (98SE) was faster than Windows today (XP) on THAT machine.
So what?
Sorry, but that’s my opinion. Mod me down if you want, but when I look at the article, it’s hard for me to think of this as a review or editorial. And here in the comments, you are saying Linux is bloated cause Lycoris (a windows xp mimic) and Redhat 8.0 (aimed as a workstation desktop) require modern hardware, instead of remembering some distros as Debian or Slackware.
Sorry if I’m wrong, but if you think about it, it just doesn’t look good. I would just like that Linux was criticised in a more fair way. Not generalisations based on an individual problem.
Eugenia: I have most of my OSes on a dual Celeron 533, and XP is fastest than all (except maybe BeOS on most cases, but not all).
Firstly, you have a dual processor comp. Secondly, you have an insane amount of RAM compared to 64mb used by the author.
Now, if you take out one processor, and downgrade to 64mb of RAM, how good would it be?
Brian: Believe me, I really, really, REALLY want to get away from MS. I don’t want XP – people say it’s faster, but if indeed it was faster, why are the system requirements higher than the 98 machine?
Windows XP only uses more RAM than Windows 98 (but if you are willing to spend days on it, you can bring it down to the same level as Windows 98. For that very reason, a machine using 256MB of RAM, Windows XP blows Windows 98 away.
Hiryu: have also used linux on that same exactly system but with kde2.2 (as far as I can tell, there’s almost no speed difference between 2.2 and 3 that I can see at all).
Weird, I seen a huge performance increase when I moved to KDE 3.0…. but then again, maybe that’s GCC 3.0.
Rob: They offered to restore the software to factory defaults and see if that cleared up the issues.
You should have tried that. My brother personally made a few bad installs of Windows (ironically all of which is Windows 2000) when he was a OEM, and the problems were fixed with a reinstall.
Anonymous: Get a mac. You won’t regret it.
I never had a problem with my PC laptop using Windows XP, though I much prefer my brother’s Compaq Evo (due to the looks, weigh and batery life). My brother: his laptop, or rather part of his laptop, went for service because the DVD-ROM got spoiled: not a fault of Compaq, he dropped the DVD-ROM (it can be removed easily from the laptop, BTW, which is does to he can have both a floppy drive and a DVD-ROM).
Sure, it is not “Unix”, but bah! Who cares? When I want something Unix related, I always use Linux, but 99.9% of Mac customers don’t care a hoot about UNIX in OS X, except the stability it brings (and features like real multi-users, protected memory, etc.).
Richard: If I didn’t work for a major Intel OEM, I’d buy one and use it for my primary work/home PC.
I know of an Apple employee that uses a PC at home. Heck, there was this guy in OSNews (Bob?) that uses the Mac even with his father being a OEM.
The last I checked, working for a big OEM doesn’t mean you sign an agreement promising not to buy Macs and any other non-PC products.
So, if you like the Mac, and have the money for it, go ahead! You probably won’t loose you job.
Corey: I run QNX 6.2, OS/2 Warp Server for e-Business and Be on my ThinkPad. It has a Celeron 266 and KICKS ASS!
Uhmmm, neither of these OS can be considered “modern desktop OS” 🙂
Xirzon: Many of the Linux desktop problems can be blamed on X11/XFree86[…]
NO! X11 doesn’t cause the speed problems. XFree causes speed problems with some hardware, but isn’t the ultimate cause. The ultimate cause? The desktops/WM itself. XFce had proved that even with the same feature set as KDE 2.0, it manage to beat it straight. It is possible to make something fast on Linux.
Very possible.
I’m stoping here…. no time 🙂
But remember, the author’s problem comes from the RAM. KDE and GNOME have pretty useful features, like XP, and require more than 64MB of RAM. And certainly, Openoffice.org needs more than 64MB of RAM. Now, just for arguments sake, I took out my Duron computer (1GHz), took out all the RAM except for 64MB, and booted into Null (not the final release). It is *fast*, not even close to the speed of which the author claims.
And yes, that Duron has a TNT, 16MB. Half the FPS of Brian’s. But I’m quite damn sure the problem is with the RAM cause things are MUCH MUCH faster with 128MB of RAM.
1999: Give a new life to your old computer! Install a Linux distro!
2002: Give a life to your Linux distro! Install a new computer!
I haven’t used RedHat 8.0, but Mandrake 8.2 and 9.0 on my Toshiba satellite 4090XCDT (Celeron 400) with 191 MB RAM is runing very fast both: Kde 3 and Gnome 2, and flying using Icewm as windows manager.
I don’t know if your problems arises from RedHat 8.0 or because your 64Mb Ram in the laptop, anyway I have had older distribution of linux runing in a Pentium 200 32Mb Ram.
Francisco Alcaraz
Murcia (Spain)
Before start bashing against OSNews again, you should read again the article. We clearly state:
“Editorial notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com”
And this COMMENTs SECTION, is for this exact reason, to DISCUSS and COMMENT on the article. *NOT TO TROLL* though about how you don’t want to see this article published because you don’t like someone’s findings and opinions. IT IS NOT YOUR CALL. Your ONLY *privilage* here (you have NO rights regarding the commenting section – just privilages), is to comment and point out ERRORS that the author might have done. To do discussion.
TROLLING about anything, it won’t *change a thing*. Goodnight everyone.
“Stop the HORSESHIT when you read something that you do not like.”
You still haven’t answered:
If his “frustrations” had been based on trying to run Windows XP Pro with only 42Mb of RAM, would you have published the article or would you have looked at him funny and suggested he try again with a reasonable amount of RAM before making derisive remarks about the operating system?
It doesn’t MATTER if the requirements are more for RH 8.0 than for XP, they ARE the requirements. Besides, anyone who has used it will tell you that XP Pro with only 128Mb of RAM doesn’t exactly fly. Saying that Linux is “bloated” because of this is just a flamebait way of avoiding the issue: he was trying to run RH 8.0 with one-third the recommended RAM. It’s neither shocking nor newsworthy that the attempt was a failure.
Again, what if it had been an attempt to squeeze XP in 42Mb?
>Again, what if it had been an attempt to squeeze XP in 42Mb?
It would have been plainly stupid.
And *I DID* email Brian a few hours ago, TELLING HIM that:
“Brian, it is true that your machine *does not* meet the minimum requirements of Red Hat 8.
http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/technical/
Memory:
Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
Minimum for graphical: 128MB
Recommended for graphical: 192MB”
When I read the article yesterday, I thought myself that the minimum *IS* 64 MB. I did not check the Red Hat site, I don’t know EVERY detail about *EVERY* Linux distro in this world. That was a DETAIL in Brian’s article. A single sentence among many.
Last time I remember putting Red Hat on my machines, before installing Red Hat 8 on my AthlonXP with 768 MB last week, the minimum WAS 64 MB.
Eugenia, I think we are doing discussion. A very long one, and that clarifies many things about Linux (and other OSs) problems (hardware vendors’ support, all software requiring better hardware after some time because of unavoidable bloat…).
And sorry, but I just can’t help thinking it’s just wrong: OSNews is a good, heavily visited news page, with writers that most times know what they are talking about. How can it be possible that such a poor editorial was published here? I wish OSNews keeps improving and gets more fame, but these things just disappoint me
If you think that I can have my mind ON ZILLION things that are happening in the OS world (on zillion of different linux distros), so that I can keep ALL these readers happy, you are way off. I do not know everything at every point in time. I am still learning every day. As you do. I bet that 99% of the trolls trolling here, didn’t know the minimum RAM required either before *I* actually search and find that Red Hat web page where they list their requirements.
In my opinion, their requirements for RAM are big. WinXP runs on 128 MB (recommended). X/KDE/Gnome should do as well (recommended is 192).
>How can it be possible that such a poor editorial was published here?
There is never a “poor” editorial. An editorial is an *opinion*. Saying that an opinion is poor, is just not right. Wrong, maybe. But an opinion, is never “poor”. This is why we do DISCUSSION here, to solve problems and misconceptions. NOT TO TROLL THOUGH. I will NOT tolerate trolling against the author, myself and OSNews. DISCUSS if you must.
>but these things just disappoint me
Then write your own editorials, we will be HAPPY to publish them.
As I said elsewhere, I am not here to lick the balls of either Jobs, Gates and Bob Young. They are most likely to get a punch instead.
Read my above two comments for more information.
I’ll stop here, since it seems I just got you angry (sorry). Anyway, I want to clear I don’t want to troll, I apologize this got out of hand (but that doesn’t mean I change my opinions). And BTW, I still think OSNews is a great page. I hope it keeps getting better.
>We did that when we pointed out he was trying to run the OS in 1/3 the recommended RAM
A LIE. Most of you, including you, you were trolling about how SLOW Celeron 400 is, NOT ABOUT THE RAM.
The RAM issue only started discussed on comments 130. After *I* linked to the hardware requirements of Red Hat.
You were TROLLING how the Celeron 400 is not enough, when Red Hat itself are recommending the P200.
If you have started shouting about the RAM, I would have been unhappy by most posts, but most of you, were talking about the CPU, where it is a point that it is NOT valid.
Brian,
I’m quite similar to you,
I code PHP (Like to be able to run scripts without ftping them to a remote server), hate windows crashes (previously ran Win98SE) and really wanted to get Microsoft off my computer.
OK, here’s what I did, I have 56kbps modem, so downloading 3 isos is no good for me. I go to my local LUG (Linux Users Group – http://www.linux.org/groups/index.html), everyone looks like a nerd (and probably are) but are very helpful and friendly. While I was there, they taught an 80 year old man all about linux. What are distributions, window managers etc, how do I connect to the internet, how do I setup my printer and scanner, and this old man was no expert in computers. My point is, they are very helpful, and will get Linux working, and tell you what you need to know. I bought Mandrake 9.0 (3 CDs) off them for $10, and they installed it for me, but letting me choose the customisations (Explaining everything of course)
So just find a users group in your area, and get them to install Mandrake for you, if there’s any problems, they’ll find out how to fix it. Mandrake is dead easy for windows users, and runs PHP scripts out of the box. It’s so easy to use. I often have several tabs in Mozlla open, as well as many plain text editing windows (I use Kate) with apache, mysql and many other things still running in the background. In my experience it isn’t quite as fast as Win98SE, but I often had Win98SE slow down once I had more than 5 browser windows open (about 75% of the time), to the point that opening a subfolder took about 8 seconds. I am yet to see this happenning in Linux. It isn’t perfect, but imho it’s much closer than what you’re using at the moment. I’m not sure what happened to your install, but it sounds like it’s happenning to others, so give mandrake a try, hopefully it’ll work.
While I don’t think RAM’s responsible for your problems (More likely it is sowtware, or it doesn’t recognise your hardware), it would probably be wise to get more anyway, 64MB will be a little bit slow on linux, but it should still be usable. I had 64MB, but bought another 128 and it runs much nicer.
Anyway, I’ll shut up now, just try Mandrake and get your LUG to help you install if there’s any problems.
Jason
A LIE. Most of you, including you, you were trolling about how SLOW Celeron 400 is, NOT ABOUT THE RAM.
I wasn’t. Perhaps you should re-read the comments, I talked about how laptop hardware can give problems when installing Linux (and that’s true, though seems like it wasn’t the case here).
You were TROLLING how the Celeron 400 is not enough, when Red Hat itself are recommending the P200.
Not me. Please, read my prior comments. My intention wasn’t to troll in the first place.
Look, I can say that KDE is not running fast enough on older system (I tried to run it on Pentium 166MMX with 128MB before… and I bet you don’t want to do that, but surprising others report KDE run faster on FreeBSD… so who knows….and btw, Gnome and Windowsmaker runs ok comparing to KDE on that system). Yet I think the system responsiveness differed case by case: if this article is aimed at comparing WinXP and Linux, then it might not be in depth enough, as testing should be done on more diversifed hardware configs.
If, however, it is to reflect the encounter newbie might have over installing Linux, the article has its place. I do believe, however, if there were phenomena due to misconfigurations then a follow-up article or something should deem pending. Since (online) journalism is also about fair and objectivity, not just pure circumstancial reporting without context – with at least certain level of accuracy committed to facts and informative guidance to readers.
Here. I *UPDATED* the story. Please click the story again and see the update I made to let people know about the requirements of RAM.
I am trying to be fair to ALL.
“A LIE. Most of you, including you, you were trolling about how SLOW Celeron 400 is, NOT ABOUT THE RAM.
The RAM issue only started discussed on comments 130. After *I* linked to the hardware requirements of Red Hat.
You were TROLLING how the Celeron 400 is not enough, when Red Hat itself are recommending the P200.”
This simply isn’t true. Maybe in all the postings you confused me with someone else. I never once mentioned the Celeron itself not being enough. It’s well within Red Hat’s specs. I *only* mentioned the RAM.
I wasn’t trolling, Eugenia. I just honestly and strongly feel this article is very, very flawed: in your own words, that it is in error. That the article ITSELF is an error. I focused on the most glaring error: the RAM issue, NOT the Celeron issue (which isn’t even an issue anyway).
I wouldn’t say that about a Celeron. My favorite machine was a Celeron 333A running at 525Mhz VERY stable. It was very very fast — I was over 500Mhz well before most other people. So, no, I didn’t say a thing about the processor; you confused me with someone who has obviously never used one of those old Celerons. I think very highly of them.
That’s my Eugenia! (Wait…. its JBQ’s…..)
Thanks Eugenia, I knew you’d do the right thing in the end
That’s why I love OSNews. ^_^
>The article ITSELF is an error.
1. I disagree.
2. You are not the one who decides that. I am. You are only here to provide feedback (which in this case, I disagree).
The author writes his experiences with Red Hat 8 *IN TWO* machines. The second machine was in within the boundaries of the hardware requirements. And he was still not happy with the OS and he gives real reasons why not.
His first half of the article might have been a “off” just because of the RAM requirements that his laptop did not meet, but the *second half* is right on target and absolutely VALID, because the author explains exactly what happened.
Actually, the “laptop” part of the article is only the 1/3. The rest 2/3s are for the “valid” part.
But it is funny that people will completely “forget” to comment on the problems the author described on the valid 2/3s of the article and instead literally shout, troll, and generally write how “low this web site is” reffering only to the 1/3 of the article.
But no one actually REPLIED or DISCUSSED to the real usability problems the author has. For example: Why Red Hat shipped an unmodified WindowMaker where most of the menu links are dead? That was an 100% valid point. Why AbiWord looks so ugly and does not work well? Read the last 2/3s for more.
Brian, have you actually created a SWAP partition for your Red Hat 8? If yes, how big?
A experienced linux user will know the differences, i.e those software running in Linux are faster than before since gcc 3.2 has made a big step to it, the results is significant. urs “editorial” make me wonder, i.e have u really use linux before???? if not, saying something nonsense to encounter Linux is useless since a true Linux user will know that the proble u encounter is jus some bullshit =)
Configuration: PIII-1000. 512 Mb Ram. Mandrake 9.0 and Win4Lin with 96 Mb Ram.
In this case both Linux and Windows use the same hardware with some performance drawback for Windows because it uses Win4Lin.
Running this configuration then launching application one normally uses like an Internet .(Explorer versus Opera or Konquerer in linux) Spreadhseet or workprocessers: the ussual Linux ones versus Word, Excel etc under Win4Lin. Everything under Win4Lin runs more snappier and loads faster than under Linux.
Hence if you want snappy performance and still stick to Linux, run Windows on top of Linux through Win4Lin.
ROB:
> For pure speed, load up Windows 98SE.
I think it’s a more complex question. For example in my case (athlon 1 ghz, 256 mb ram) from selecting the required option in lilo to get a fully working desktop it takes 14 seconds w/ win98 and 18 w/ linux. But under linux i run apache, mysql, and a few other services i need w/ xfwm4 and gnome(2)-panel: so the GUI knows much more than a win98 desktop (virtual desktops, nice eyecandy, etc). If i replace the GUI for something which knows as much as win98’s, eg icewm then it’s 1-2 secs difference between them. And compare the knowledge and staiblity of the two systems! And i think w/ some other kernel configuring (and maybe other ‘hacks’) i even could lower this (oh and don’t compare the knowledge of 2.4.19 and win98’s
.
And when i’m starting to work linux performs much better. No crash, no slowing down after opening some apps.
As i see, linux now knows almost everything we need for a desktop os, now we (mainly the developers) can focus on clarify and optimize things, making really intuitive guis etc. And actually we can see this development in many areas! Compare the video playback ability under linux 2 years ago and now. The development w/ filesystems. And many other aspects.
bye, hirisov
I can totally agree that KDE and Gnome are slow as h**l and I run my dist on a computer armed =) with AMD Athlon XP 1800+, 512Mb RAM, 80Gb Maxtor. So I can totally agree that this guy had som “slow problems” on his machine. But i think that he should switch desktop interface to Blackbox or IceWM and he should also choose another dist for example Mandrake or Debian.
I don’t think that depicting redhat or actually linux as not very usable is not true. It is true.
While I am using linux I find sometimes certain things that has problems. Not this much, but certain problems occur.
While I was trying to fix the problems, I never felt that I shouldn’t do these things, because I like doing that, but neverthless for an average joe this is not the case. So obviously Linux is probably not ready yet.
The problems that this guy experienced is very normal, and it shows that there are still lots of work that needs to be done.
One thing I admire about Microsoft is that, even though everybody throw everything to them, reasonable or unreasonable, they challenge everything and work on what they are doing, and eventually they succeed.
Remember the times when there were lots of complaints about instabile Windows OSes. Now with XP almost all of them are gone.
During the last several years people complained about security and now Microsoft is challenging that.
What we need is the same mentality in other companies and products. When something goes wrong in linux an open source advocate come and say, no the user is guilty, he/she couldn’t do it right. Obviously for Windows he/she says somethingelse.
Obviously there will be zealots all over the sectors in IT, what we need is to focus on the reasonable people who are smart enough to understand, admit and solve the problems.
Obviously this guy has a RAM problem. It reminds me when I installed Mdk 8.0 on my Celeron 566 with 64 MB: slow, impossible to work, and Gnome 1.4 was even slower than Kde 2. Then I added some RAM (up to 192 MB), and it worked fine (after removing the infamous Nautilus). And I discovered XFce.
Now I am running Salware 8.1 on the same machine, and Kde 3 is more responsive than Kde 2. But anyway, the “desktop” metaphore is not my cup of tea, so I enjoy XFce4.
——
http://korbinus.fr.st
I has installed RH 7.0 & was very lack on 750Mhz Duron! -> frustrating too
So time to try some optmizations/tips (sorry details not included):
1. reconfigure xfree (buffer, chip, memory, accel)
2. disable some unnecessary demons
3. recompile kernel to exact hw machine (this dist. has some debug info truned ON!!?)
4. reconfigure kernel cfg file (? etc/)
These steps was very helpfull on my system (but Linux getting TOO COMPLICATED)!
I don’t think what is described in this story is true!
I have a Celeron400 with 128 mb of ram(on an 810 chip mainbord), and redhat8 is running fluently
this guy is playing RedHat on a desktop computer
with 128MB of memory and a notebook with 64MB,
so his situation is not better than running win98
with 16 MB to 32 MB of memory
why redhat is so slow on a low end PC ?
I think the kde/gnome’s memory footprint is
simply not designed for a 64MB machine and
the stupid redhat’s first things on start up
are to run cron jobs to use find command
going through the whole file system –
for an average user, it is not a happy experience,
since nobody is likely to tell them they can use
service crond stop
and
chkconfig –level 2345 crond off
to stop it once and for all
Celeron is not for the job ? Come on, I regularly
run XP on a Sony 505GX with a Pentium 266/64MB
and the XP’s memory footprint can be shrinked to
37MB to 46MB on startup, enough for 2 to 3 IE windows
and even in that situation, it won’t take XP 20 seconds
to open a browser window – that’s the figure I saw
on a AMD k6-2 400 / 128 MB with lindows 2.0 running
netscape on the first try ( 8 to 10 seconds on repeated
attempts – since cache would improve the situation)
with linux, you saved money on the OS but you have to
throw in extra cash for added memory/CPU power to get
the painful untweaked gnome/kde experience
Have you tried kde without a mouse attached ???
Linux does not need more than 64megs ram to run well. Linux +Gnome/KDE/Mozilla/OpenOffice does. This is how I use RH 8.0 on my Laptop that has 64 megs of ram.
1.Shutdown all services you don’t need.
2.Use black box or window maker.
3.Use opera(Mozilla is useable, but it is a memory hog).
This setup should be very acceptable….Linux can be run very well on old hardware, the new flashy desktops can’t be.
I appreciate these types of editorials. (Although I can do without some of the religous rants in the comments sections.) I felt that Brian had experienced some of the craziness that I had run into and is certainly valid.
Many people here seem to have a hobbyist approach to computing. While many don’t mind digging to configure their systems, this does not represent most of the computer-using public.
Although I enjoy computers, I also feel that the time I have spent re/installing operating systems (especially MS reinstalls) has been largely a waste of time. For most people, computers are tools. Even for many of us who like to get a bit into the technical details, productivity is the key to using computers. If we are not productive, then why use the tool?
I too am sick of Windows, especially their licensing policies. I have been trying several alternatives over the past six months with mixed success. My benchmark is that if a distribution is harder initially install (not fully configure, just initial install) than Win2K then the OS doesn’t meet my needs and I move on. Sure this may not be the optimal way to do things and will probably ruffle the feathers of the Zealots, but it’s my choice.
I don’t mind reconfiguring X or tuning the system a bit. Which can be interesting and amusing, but I want to be able to USE my computer.
My Win2K intall is not too painful, except for my hardware I have to load new controller drivers and download all the updates which is time consuming.
To find a suitable replacement, I’ve tried several linux distros (debian, gentoo, mandrake, sourcemage), and the *BSDs (free, net). The linux distro that impressed me the most was Mandrake. Faster than Win2K to install and worked (printer, NFS, scanner, etc.). I did like the ports methods of *BSD better than RPMs so that’s what I’m using now on my test box. Although I enjoy all these OSes, I’d like Jaguar on cheaper hardware.
In order for alternative (to MS) desktop OSes to be used by a greater number of people they must consider the user experience. Dismissing someone or their concerns because it is not your experience won’t help The Cause.
I applaud OSNews for publishing this editorial.
Iff it is configured properly
Most distros don’t do this properly
But then again most hackers don’t use the default install. This is why there is a difference in speed to what the hacker sees and a newbie is seeing.
Yes linux has gotten bigger and slower over the years but not that slow.
I have seen an older version of OOo take 5mins to load on a windows98 machine with 64MB of RAM. I was not impressed thus I consider OOo to be bloatware. Has it changed?
I have yet to see a Linux distro that properly changes the menu when you change window managers. Currently if you change window managers you need to alter the menu to your tastes. There needs to be global menu settings files so that all window managers can read it if they choose.
Slackware Rules Redhat Sucks. <- Yes I am biased
Let me here correct some of your ramblings.
You are frustrated Windows user, so are 700,000,000 other PC users forced to buy Microsoft Bugs!
I also have tried various Linux distributions on my Laptops in the past, starting with RedHat Linux 5.2.
I am also dial-up internet user.
I was able to experience Linux RedHat 5.2. 7.0, 7,2, and 7.3, Corel 1.0, 1.2, Mandrake 7.0, TurboLinux 6.0.
I found out that none distro is better than to RedHat 7.3 and I am now on RedHat 8.0 orientation.
How long one can tolerate windows 9x ME the most viewed Blue Screen of Death?
Toshiba 2595CDT is NOT a computer but a piece of overpriced garbage, an ENRON of of PC industry! WorldCom of PC industry as we all agree was COMPAQ!
First it is Celer without or very limited L2 Cache, and second you are to stingy to get more RAM. Neither of windows will work properly if you have less than a bare minimum required to run Windows efficiently or an absolute minimum of 256 MB!
Using PC with less RAM is like putting DIESEL gas in PORCHE 911 Turbo! Do you think it will move?
Here we go again you are on another Celeron! This time also with 128 MB RAM, not enough to run efficiently any windows. Remind you you need at least 256 MB ram to run ANY Windows!
Here you claim that “these tasks should not bring a 500mhz computer to its knees!”
Hey that is NOT 500Mhz computer that is lousy celeron!
Needless to say, You aren’t impressed.
Try Linux on a real CPU and not Celeron! Why don’t you get more RAM? Why don’t you learn how to set your swap file (RAM + 12 MB).
When using Linux unless you are in ROOT as administrartor or as Super User it is not easy to crap that system!
I agree with you that RedHat shouldn’t assume that everyone who installs their operating system is familiar with Linux, and every change should have an easy fix, should something break.
If you are running Linux you can chose which packages to install. The best browser for Linux and Windows still is OPERA”!
In conclusion, contrary to your rant my experience was very positive one, after I installed it and PC performed very well.
Settings:
/ 100MB
/swap RAM + 12 MB
/usr 10GB
I installed it on Laptop Pentium I 266Mhz with 144 MB RAM
Pentium II 300 Mhz 320 MB RAM.
It for sure outperformed Windows 2000 PRO which I selected as the best OS ever released by WinTel Mafia.
So if you are so naive to still stick with Windows 98 instead of upgrading to REAL operating system that is your choice. Microsoft recommended to upgrade windows to better release. I upgraded Windows 95 to 98, than to Windows 2000 PRO and than to XP. Unsatisfied with it I upgraded both systems (one from win 95 to final win 2000PRO and one with win NT to XP and back to win 2000PRO).
Now as Microsoft suggested I upgraded Windows to better one Windows “X”, one with Linux ReDhat 7.3 Valhalla and other with RedHat 8 Psyche.
I have NO problem with LINUX speed, but I set it properly and I am not stingy as you are trying to save few bucks on RAM!
RAM makes tremendous difference on both OS Windows and Linux.
If Linux RedHat 8 is to slow for you try Linux RedHat 5.2. It is smooth.
It takes no brains to install OS on any PC but requires a little skills to partition Hard Disk drive and to resixe the partitions, and the most important the desire to learn.
If you are not satisfied with Windows 98 you still have choices to move to Windows 2000PRO and if you don’t liked DOS 6.22 will do very well for you.
I agree with you and I also “really dislike the MONOPOLY of Microsoft” with fraudulently sold with every system (hardware) Windows if you want it or not.
Hardware should be certified to run all OSs (Windows and LINUX at least), but we should be NEVER forced to buy hardware with pre-loaded OS we don’t want or need.
Selling any hardware with preloaded OS against our will shall be considered nothing else but predatory monoplolistic criminal act of felony and FRAUD!
It is the USER who bought the PC who shall decide which OS to buy and to install not Microsoft in collusion with hardware assamblers.
You are also misleading others stating that LINUX keep getting bigger and bigger, more and more bloated, and ultimately, slower. LINUX is “THE KERNEL” and required DRIVERS to run hardware.
The APPLICATIONS provided with LINUX MUST be treated as additional (FREE software).
When running WINDOWS you must BUY extra software. When buying RedHat 8 Linux you get around 1000 softwares free with this distribution. To run equal on WINDOWS yoy will need to pay on average between 10 to 50 dollars for each of the 1000 provided free software applications.
The difference is that Windows is an EXPERIENCE programed by AMATOR programers sweating to get paid salary, while LINUX is programed by PROFESSIONAL programers with no compensation, but out of need to use better operating system.
It is easy to throw mud in the face of others but first you need to look what wrong you are doing before criticising others. Time to look in to a mirror at the stingy one who is trying to save few bucks on memory and not at LINUX as an alleged cause of poor performance on your hardware.
Finally what YOU have done to improve performance of your hardware? You are only ranting and that is NOT enuff! Spend few bucks to increase your RAM and than report back.
It is time to realize that it is not any of your two systems which aren’t the latest-and-greatest, IT is you who is to stingy to get more RAM to make your systems performing better.
LINUX is KERNEL (and drivers), distributions are selected software recompiled with LINUX kernel so you dont have to search for ….
Any PC is always as good as the idiot at the keyboard ….
Do not try now to screw GUI LINUX in retaliation because you were screwed by WinTel mafia.
You dont like LINUX try QNX! http://www.qnx.com
http://www.qnx.com/developer/download/
install slackware 8.1, then install Fluxbox. fast, simple, easy to use and very good looking
OSNews is not a Linux bashing forum. It gets, good and bad, more attention than any other OS because of its nature and many, many distributions.
Brian’s editorial has, flames aside, been worthwhile. The one big thing, I think, that has come out of it and the comments is that Linux (in general) has changed from a couple of years ago. The focus has shifted away from it being the OS you can run on your old hardware to a focus of it getting closer and closer to being a real desktop OS. It is, in different ways through different distros, becoming tantalyzingly close – not there yet, but getting there.
In the process of doing this, it has changed. It has moved away from being the OS you can run on old hardware (some distros can still do that) to one that is becoming more like Windows and OS X in what is needed in order to run it well. I mean, even Apple is sweating because they have to get faster hardware.
So, things have changed. Fortunately, because of OSS, a person can get small, fast distros. But, the companies aiming for major markets…well, they have to be able to compete and that means doing what Red Hat has done and that means having to have newer hardware with lots of RAM. Again though, the good part of OSS is that I’m sure there will always be small, fast distros of Linux avaiable.
Anyway, I have seen that all editorials, reviews and articles here reveal something worth discussing. But bashing the author and Eugenia does not illuminate what is revealed – it only obscures it because of the venom included. So, we see that, in the major distros, that the nature of Linux has changed, as it looks more toward being a complete desktop solution. This is an important insight that has emerged from Brian’s editorial and the followng comments that clearly brought this out without the poison that only serves to hide insight.
I have just seen Red Hat Linux 8.0 perform _superbly_ on an IBM Thinkpad with 192 MB of RAM. No problems with installation, no problems with speed. Usability, appearance – everything excellent, near amazing. Does a better job than the old W2000 on the same hardware.
However, the problem with Red Hat 8.0, alike other Linux distributions, is that it is “violently” planted on hardware that has not been originally designed to support it. To me it is a small miracle that a system like that even boots. Take a new Honda and dump Mazda’s operating system into it and see what happens. As long as Linux is handled separately from the assembled hardware, problems persist and you never now what you’ll finally come up with.
I see you fucking dimwits (sorry for the language, it’s the best way to express myself with regards to the folks here) who can’t seem to grasp that maybe Eugenia is posting these reviews and such that don’t -love- the GNU/Linux way because she _isn’t_ biased? Would you really want OSnews to be another “praise Linux, for we are elitist children” site? I’ll be honest, my experience with GNU/Linux has been pretty shit poor. I have tried Gentoo, with all the “responsiveness” patches for XF, the kernel, etc. I have the proper nvidia driver installed and am using it, and I will tell you one goddamn thing. XF with any larger window manager (KDE/GNOME), for me at least, runs like a 100hz system and Win98. Considering I am using an Athlon XP2000+ with a GeForce4 Ti4600 (and 1G of memory), that’s pretty sad.
Rajan, I’m using kde3 compiled with 2.95.4 (the kde2 I used was compiled with the same) so that’s probably why I don’t see much difference. Can’t wait til 3.2 becomes the main compiler in debian (which is planned for unstable).
Kde2 was totally fast enough on this p200 mmx (certainly FAR faster than it seems to be on this celeron), about the same speed as win2k on this same system (dual boot of course).
I actually booted to win2k on my system last night and I did some comparing, no benchmarks or anything like that but really, kde3 felt a lot faster, and the win2k UI is not as crufty as XP’s. How much faster? I’d say much faster and far more responsive. But I’m not just using some stock kernel here either, I was using 2.4.20-pre5-ac3 (or close enough) with an rml preemptive patch but can the difference really be that big?? I just might have to try a stock kernel and see what happens (for those who are curious, I’ve tried a few recent 2.5 kernels and it’s make a big difference in my desktop performance).
Kde3 also feels a lot faster than win2k on my friend’s pentium II 450 mhz.
I’m not biased towards linux on this argument, I just seriously think something is wrong with this picture, though 64 megs of ram isn’t so good for XFree86 in general in my opinion.
I’m also sincerely suprised winXP runs faster on Eugenia’s system than does linux. Dual celerons though? Is this a bp6?
That would be the answer to that, that’s not a good board to use with Linux. I worked for a firm that used dual celerons in a bp6 as the main nfs/nis/dns/samba/other-things server, the system started having problems and I told my boss (the admin over me) “duh”. But really, abit aims towards consumer levels and I don’t care for abit stuff anyway (I’ve found it to be unreliable and low quality in my experienes). So I told him to upgrade to a tyan tiger 100 (and he did), it fixed ALL the problems we had been having (no more crashing several times a week for example). In fact, I think it’s documented that Linux doesn’t (or didn’t) get along with this board very well at all, I think the kernel source (this was back with the 2.2 series) docs explicitly mentioned that the board is problematic with linux. Before anyone comments on how it’s been fine for them, I’m sure this is a case of “YMMV” and problems may not come out so much when you’re not running a server (and in that case, only seeing crappy performance might be the only problem you might see).
Someone mentioned kde being faster on FreeBSD, I speak from personal experience when I say kde2.2/3 in linux is a lot faster and a lot more responsive than window maker on FreeBSD on my system, even with only one CPU enabled, so perhaps this is another case of “YMMV”? Though it seems that people generally agree that linux is “faster on the desktop”.
You are complaining about THE Microsoft of Linux. Use a real distrobution, such as Slackware or Gentoo. I had MANY problems with RedHat (7.2), Mandrake (8.0), Suse (8.0) and Debian (woody). The problem with The first three are that they were buggy, incorrectly configured and hid all the usefull files to fix the initial problems. Debian’s problem is that apt-get (it’s package manager) is always a version or two behind. Though slackware doesn’t have the best package manager, it worked right after the install. Gentoo, is the best linux distro I’ve ever used (if you have the bandwidth). If you’re on dial-up, forget it, or prepare for a few days infront of the computer.
If those aren’t working, try FreeBSD. FreeBSD (and Gentoo) use ports. They are IMHO, the singular best package manager on earth. They are much easier than going to the dealer’s/vendor’s/company’s website, finding their download page and downloading, then installing it. Instead you only have to go to that program’s port directory and type ‘make install’. That’s it, nothing more.
On another note, KDE, Gnome, Window Maker, etc… are not the only window managers out there. Fluxbox and Blackbox are VERY slim, take virtually NO system resources and run with less bugs with the same, or more features. There’s enlightenment, fvwm, openbox, afterstep, aewm, hackedbox, amiwm, gwm, icewm, larswm, lwm, matchbox, pwm, plwm, scwm, tvtwm, w9wm, ctwm, blwm, etc… The list goes on and on. (If you’d like to learn more about the above window managers, do a search on google.com for XFree86 <wm-name>)
I guess what I’m trying to say is people bash Linux/FreeBSD left and right, but they are using the worst distrobutions, (namely because they spend the money to put a box on the shelf), yet expect the result to be better than windows. Would I recommend an avid windows user switch to linux/FreeBSD? Yes, IF they are willing to put the time into it to learn a new OS. Linux and FreeBSD are NOT MS Windows. The apps are different, the way of doing thins are different. These need to be learned in order for a user to be as comfortable with linux as they are with Windows.
Since when do we let Mr. Gates post his comments on Linux!
Well, As it has been commented previously, sure these two boxes are not the best boxes to run latest linux distros, especially not Red Hat or Mandrake , which are drastically optimised. But nethermind, i run linux and BSDs on boxes like olp Pentium 90, 32 EDO Ram, with 1M gfx ram, and it does run fine. Off course attemting to launch an fat window manager such as KDE or Gnome will make the box unuseable for at least 10 minutes, but blackbox, fluxbox and to the limit Windowmaker run very fast ! It is a shame the real pressure of certain distro in using Gnome or KDE. Do graphical desktop of linux boxes absolutely have to look like windows ? Maybe not ! Time to change !
I would just like to say, instead of discrediting him, how about we just post stories about how it has worked for some of us.
I have several systems running redhat 8, and I would say they all work better than the windows equivalents:
PII-366 – 192mb ram – 20 gig harddrive – laptop – neomagic video card – works great, very fast. Openoffice takes about 8-10 seconds to load
PIII-733 – 256mb ram – 20 gig harddrive – desktop – geforce SDR card – very good, everything comes up fast, even mozilla! (over 5 seconds faster than mandrake 9 for some odd reason)
Athlon XP 1600 – 512 ram – 60 gig harddrive – desktop – Radeon 8500 – obviously it loads hella fast on everything
Now, its true that win98se, win me, and win2k all run great on the systems above too. I actually have open office installed when I used windows also. Almost identicle in speed.
Nautilus does load slower than IE when explorering files. Takes about a extra 3 seconds. Once it is loaded though, no further speed issues are incurred, and it looks prettier.
All hardware was automatically detected at boot in redhat (expect for the nvidia driver if I want 3d accel, which is common among windows and linux), in the windows equivalents I needed to downloaded several drivers on my laptop to make it work.
I haven’t seen this horrible performance that the author speaks of, but I would say it is definitely possible (abiet a bit exaggerated on the time measurements).
On all my systems, I make sure to run the command: /sbin/hdparm -c1 -d1 -k1 /dev/hda
to make sure DMA and 32bit mode is enabled. Other than that no changes were made to the default install.
OSNews is not a Linux bashing site. It has lots of articles, editorials and reviews of Linux because there are so many distros always coming out with new versions. With regard to Windows, there is not much to review since XP came out a year ago, except maybe the Service Pack. But, there are many articles about Windows in other areas – Longhorn, ,NET, etc.
We (or at least some of us) learn from the articles, reviews and editorials here at OSNews. From Brian’s editorial and the following commentary (excluding the flames), I have seen how clearly that Linux, in general, has really changed over the past coule of years, from the OS you could run on old hardware to an OS that requires newer hardware and lots of RAM. Fortunately, because of OSS, I think we’ll always have Linux distros that are fast and lean. But, these distros like Red Hat 8, it is becoming more and more apparent that they are becoming more like Windows and OS X in their system requirements in order to be able to do the same sort of tasks. So, I know I learned something, at least, and there was no need to call Brian a troll or bash Eugenia in the process.
I learned something when Eugenia was trying to configure that 24″ monitor with Red Hat 8 – I learned what the video limitations are of RH 8. And Eugenia had to take all kinds of grief over that for no reason. We found out something about RH 8 that we wouldn’t have known otherwise.
We still suffer here from the problem of some people wanting to be Mr.-Know-It-All instead or realizing that we learn from these articles and the discussion that follows.
As a result of this editorial and discussion, I also learned about a distro like Vector Linux. I checked it out. The basic install (they also have a SOHO version now that’s much, much bigger) requires about 300 MB of disk space and 32-64 MB RAM – looks like it may be just the thing for Brian. There is so much to learn – why squander the opportunity with flames that only obscure what can be learned?
Okay, first of all, a note
[shameless plug]
visit http://www.ratedpc.com to read my article on Linux on Desktop and my view of Mandrake 9. Both articles were previously posted here.
[/shameless plug]
Now, as for this editorial. Everybody seems pretty quick at defending Linux while others just want to bash it. Nobody seems to realize that slowness wasn’t the only problem the author had. There seemed to be some serious misconfigurations with menu and setups.
Now as for slowness, KDE is resource hungry and slow. Gnome 1.2 was resource hungry and slow. Gnome 2 is even worse. The so called anti-aliased fonts (Xft) makes X even slower. Backgrounds and eye-candy make X slow and big, forcing your computer to swap to disk. As some people have noted, switching to a lightweight desktop like IceWM is recommended. IceWM is the closest you can get to a Windows desktop. As a comparison, I ran KDE for a week on my box (no logout/reboots) it was taking 150 MB. I ran ICEWM for months and it does grow any more than 2-3 MBs. I’ve installed and run Mandrake 8.2 on a Cyrix 300Mhz (shudder) with 64MB EDO ram, and on-board video with 4 Meg shared ram. With the tweaks I have noted in my article, Mandrake 9.2 is quite fast and usable once it boots up.
I have noticed that in Linux, I have a lot more disk activity than in Windows. Getting a high performance 7200RPM drive will speedup Linux (not the kernel, but the whole distro) by considerable amount.
OpenOffice seems to want to load everything (and I mean every module) during startup. Why on earth does a word processor need so much time to load? Try adding a whole bunch of fonts (~50) and watch load time to double.
I still don’t understand why the Linux boot needs to be serialized? Why can’t we parallelize the services that are not dependent on each other?
Reza
Brian, have you actually created a SWAP partition for your Red Hat 8? If yes, how big?
I let RH do all the partitioning (wiped both disks completely and accepted the default configuration). So the answer is, I don’t know how big it is. But I know it’s there, because when I looked at the stats, X & GNOME were taking up all the RAM, and were then swapped when I loaded anything else (*shudder*) (on the laptop).
Look people, I’m not trying to get one over on you. I mentioned in I think my second comment here how my laptop did NOT meet the memory requirement. I thought I put that in the editorial, but the general meaning was, “it was too slow on the laptop, so I thought I’d try one with better specs.” Sorry that I didn’t make it more clear.
Brian. Like you I have had experiences where Gnome has been horribly slow. What I found was the problem was that sound was enabled but my soundcard hadn’t been detected properly. Try turning off sound for events in one of the control panels in Gnome and see if that makes a difference.
/me running Windowmaker now on a K6-2 400 quite happily.
Darryl
I agree with Jay, and thanks for the good site Eugina.
I think the author makes a very good point, especially in the part about how easy it is to break a linux distro, i would recommend anyone with no linux experience but who wants to play a little with it, to try something like knoppix [http://www.knoppix.org/], just download the ISO cd image, burn it into a cd, change your bios settings so that you can boot from the cdrom first, and you’re ready to go. It has great auto-configuration, it even runs my usb cable modem
, something that no other distro has been able to do.
There is many people here saying “Oh come on! running it on a celeron500!!! No wonder it’s slow”.
I don’t buy that statement at all. I have windows XP (much bulkier than ’98) running on similar machines and still quite responsive to operate. Linux needs to perform as fast as windows even on the low end machines otherwise it is not a viable alternative.
The sound on the laptop worked fine. The desktop machine doesn’t even have a soundcard (and the installer said “no soundcard detected”) – as I mentioned, I just use my computer to get my work done, if I want to play music, I put a cd in my stereo
Sergio hit part of it on the head here.
The linux ‘community’ is very hostile… to newcomers. It’s sad but true. M$ on the other hand has had the patience of a saint in this regard, despite years of abuse from those who swore the version of the OS they were using was the last. (Damnation, until XP came out I was one of them. 2K never supported half my hardware, 98SE was.. unpredictable, and ME just blew chunks) His use of the term zealot is quite appropriate, as we can see definate camps certain people not only flock to, but defend as if they are the holy scriptures. The linux community has begun to achieve cult status much like Mac users. I used to be an M$ basher from hell. I used it, but only because Nyetscape didn’t view half the web pages I frequent properly, Macs are out of my price range and BeOS has no REAL applications available. I mean, until Mozilla 1 came out, what was Be’s best Browser? Opera? Give me a break.
Every OS has it’s pros and cons, and they seriously need to be taken into consideration.
You want idiot proof with only a handful of mainstream applications? Get a Mac.
You want support for everything under the sun (except sun?) Get Windows
You want complete control over everything the OS does or can do? Get Linux.
The problem now for linux is that as it matures, the people who have used it since the 2.x kernel came out are going to be increasingly distressed over the various things being added to support the average user. You know, Crapplets.
On the other side, your nubes picking it up are still going to be lost by the unix nomenclature, the nature of the questions involved in setup, and the simple fact that adding software is still complex and difficult. RPM’s were a step in the right direction, but there really NEEDS to be more for the ‘average joe’ to use it.
My list of things I consider to be ‘holding back’ linux could go on for pages. The way device drivers are handled (in an inconsistant manner), the awkward ‘mounting’ drives legacy, etc. etc.
Personally, the reaction to Red Hat in the article is why I abandoned it back at r6. I went slack for a while since I had less problems with the text installer than the graphic, then Stormix (now defunct) and finally Mandrake starting with V7. While I keep BeOS and Mandrake 8 partitions on my 2nd hard drive, since I have installed XP I have not booted into either of them in months, except to test a handful of free pascal programs I’ve written to make sure they cross-compile.
For Linux the growing pains are really strong right now, and there is still a long way to go. The problem is big name products with real vendors like Apple and M$ behind them are doing leaps while linux is still barely managing baby steps. The pointless debate over desktops just adds to the confusion (one subject I’m indifferent on. I use KDE because it’s what Mandrake puts on by default. Maybe I’m odd but after years of different GUI’s I just don’t see the difference), and it seems like instead of ‘refining’ the desktops with goofy animations and pointless skinning, more effort should be put towards things like the REALLY CRAPPY FONT RASTERIZER and working on making X less… more… well, I don’t know what. XFree and Xwindows in general has always had a kitbashed, IBM Style K-LOC thing going on. It is slow, it is unresponsive. I always kind of chalked that up to poor implementation of hardware accelleration, but it seems to be more than that.
I want to like Linux. I want to like MAC. I want to like BeOS.
Unfortunately, none of them run any of the software I use daily, from Trillian (chat program) to IE6 (I’m already hitting pages that only work right in 5.5 or newer, how long before 6?) to my Game fix at home using titles like Morrowind or GTA3. All the good software these days, like it or not comes out for Windows first, which is why I still use it, despite the fact that every day I come here hoping to find something that is truly a replacement.
I don’t think it’s Linux being slow here, but the distribution bloatness. There are many leaner Linux distributions that will quite happily work with a Celeron 500 system or much less. One distribuition like this is Slackware, but there are quite a few others.
I have been a Linux user for years now.. I’m running KDE 3.0.3 on XFree86 4.2.0 on a Pentium II @ 333MHz with 384MB RAM.. Everything is fast. Since RAM is cheap nowdays, why don’t you upgrade your computers to have lots of it =) change from 192MB to 384MB is very noticably.
My distribution is based on http://www.linuxfromscratch.org (i mispell that scratch often, beware
. I have tried both RH and Debian.. RH’s packet management sucks and Debian is too stable (meaning that if you go by the packaging system, you’ll use months old software (yes, this can be argued, and you will probably win)).
That’s all folks
-rzei
i’ve read the article last night, and seems like it really caught the attention of the people.
firstly, i have to declare that i really do respect people who are contributing to open source, i might seem whining about how slow and hard to use is linux after all, but i really think code developers and almost everyone contributing to open source is really putting hearths to their work and i really do believe that they deserve appreciation for their efforts.
I have been trying distros(not cause i’m so curious, but just to find a linux distro that i would use at home for internet and some office work.) Unfortunately, i haven’t yet find a distro easy to use (installation has never been a problem to me, and i think its now easier to install linux than ms windows), fast, stable and complete system. In all my experiences with different distros i have confronted the same problem of dependency when i try to install a simple software. There was always missing *.lib, tarball etc. And i can honestly say i am not lazy or stupid(some geeks say that to people who faces problems like that;) lol and sure i’m not a computer engineer as well, but do really have to be one to use linux or freebsd? Would one of the experts explain me why it has to be hard to install a software or why it must a pain to uninstall it, or why would i have to read the manuel to find where it has been installed? I am not against source files or tarballs, but why don’t people develop an easier file format(lets say linux executable file *.lef) whats worng with that isn’t it the time, it was the first thing mac did while creating OSX from freebsd. Why hundreds of the same things installed when u install a new distro, how can user guess which one is more usefull? i am not agaisnt variety of software or diversity on dekstop, but isn’t it the lost of time and labor to develop two of the almost same thing like KDE or GNOME. I think main problem against the rise of linux is the extreme diversty in it. And maybe like a mature kid(after all those years), its time for linux reconsider its strategy and path. People might say, linux is more a server OS for networks,servers etc. but i just want ask them one question; WOULD MICROSOFT SUCCEED UNLESS HE SUCCEED ON DESKTOPS AT OUR HOMES? PEOPLE USUALLY PREFER TO USE THE OPERATING SYSTEMS THEY USE AT HOME.
.. there is only way for linux to succeed, has to make a chooice on gui, or has to create a unique GUI, optimized and tuned just for linux. and has to solve the ongoing file systems conflict.. but like i said its only my opinion , i might me wrong since i’m not a computer engineer. but i do have idea about what normal user like
The linux ‘community’ is very hostile… to newcomers. It’s sad but true. M$ on the other hand has had the patience of a saint in this regard, despite years of abuse from those who swore the version of the OS they were using was the last.
The linux “community” doesn’t get paid to fix your installation. I commonly spend many hours out of my day in the Red Hat Linux newsgroups, helping folks out… on my dime. Granted, lots of folks will whip out “RTFM” before you can get the question out of your mouth. But you have to remember that the majority of these folks have spent a lot of time learning this stuff _on_their_own_. When the people they’re trying to help show no interest in helping themselves, they’re leaving themselves open to flaming.
Distributions, on the other hand, DO get paid and DO provide good, quality, “saint-like” assistance. Did you pay for the Red Hat boxed set? Good for you… you get 30/60 days (personal/professional) of paid, top-notch support. You downloaded the ISO’s free of charge? You better learn to ask the right questions on IRC/NNTP/BBS. Sorry if this sounds blunt, and I’m sure not everyone will agree with me, but you need to quit comparing the OSS community to MS/Apple/whatever. Get a clue.
Every OS has it’s pros and cons, and they seriously need to be taken into consideration.
Absolutely. Not to steal a page from Rob, but it’s true… when’s the last time you saw someone post a “editorial” on OSNews about how their 200mhz/64MB PC couldn’t handle XP? Is Linux (Red Hat or otherwise) 100% ready for the desktop? Hell no. Will it ever be? Maybe, maybe not. One thing to chew on… Linux makes the easy things difficult, but makes the difficult things possible. I can’t always say the same for Windows.
You want idiot proof with only a handful of mainstream applications? Get a Mac.
Agreed. I think OSX (pronounced /ecks/!) is beautiful, but I don’t really need it. Hell, it doesn’t matter… I can’t afford it.
You want support for everything under the sun (except sun?) Get Windows
Or continue to promote a movement, knowing that the volume of users proportionally increases the number of bug reports, the number of driver downloads, etc. This all results in a better product for all of us… and the vendors take notice.
You want complete control over everything the OS does or can do? Get Linux.
Or *BSD. Or any other number of open-sourced OS’s.
On the other side, your nubes picking it up are still going to be lost by the unix nomenclature, the nature of the questions involved in setup, and the simple fact that adding software is still complex and difficult. RPM’s were a step in the right direction, but there really NEEDS to be more for the ‘average joe’ to use it.
Everybody’s a “nube” at some point. Even you. Even me. Somehow, I managed to wallow through the darkness. Does this mean that every version of “Linux” needs to be “dumbed down”? Nope, let’s leave that at the distribution layer.
My list of things I consider to be ‘holding back’ linux could go on for pages. The way device drivers are handled (in an inconsistant manner),
Inconsistent how? The fact that you can build a driver into the kernel OR as a module? You consider that a bad thing? I think it’s wonderful… thanks to modular drivers, we can use non-free drivers (Nvidia) that wouldn’t normally be allowed via the GPL. Perhaps you’d like to qualify this statement (even if it takes a few pages).
Personally, the reaction to Red Hat in the article is why I abandoned it back at r6. I went slack for a while since I had less problems with the text installer than the graphic, then Stormix (now defunct) and finally Mandrake starting with V7. While I keep BeOS and Mandrake 8 partitions on my 2nd hard drive, since I have installed XP I have not booted into either of them in months, except to test a handful of free pascal programs I’ve written to make sure they cross-compile.
I’m glad you found an OS that works for you. Did you know that lots of folks use Linux without problems? Or BeOS? Or OS/2? Oh, and did you know that operating systems generally become more stable as they age? What a concept.
I want to like Linux. I want to like MAC. I want to like BeOS.
All of which could probably care less about you. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. They’re still there if you change your mind (well, at least Linux).
Unfortunately, none of them run any of the software I use daily, from Trillian (chat program) to IE6 (I’m already hitting pages that only work right in 5.5 or newer, how long before 6?) to my Game fix at home using titles like Morrowind or GTA3. All the good software these days, like it or not comes out for Windows first, which is why I still use it, despite the fact that every day I come here hoping to find something that is truly a replacement.
Wow, quite a chicken-or-egg philosophy you’ve got there. Ever tried Everybuddy? Gaim? Mozilla? I find it humorous that you claim you want Linux to become more mainstream, but you don’t want to invest the effort to simply become a usable statistic for the world’s developers. Without end-users enforcing open standards, monopolies are allowed to promote their proprietary extensions as the de facto standard.
*whew*. G-damn, you got me worked up.
-fp
wish I could put it as well as you do; agree completely.
only wish osnews could find a bit of variety; the linux baiting is just getting so ‘yesterday’..
this week IRIX was great, VAX was great (both were very well written too) and I am just hoping that next week brings more of the same! Osnews occasionally has ‘xyz week’, how about ‘linux free week’ and ‘ui free week’? Just to let things calm down a little?
only problem I have is with —.ne.client2.attbi.com being such a regular poster 😉
/Nice
and they all run perfectly fine. now, i don’t know what sup with all these people having problems. another thing we should seperate here is Linux the kernel from the GUI. What is really making those distros slow on your computers? I can tell you that my RedHat nor Mandrake runs FlightGear well, not playable anyway, on my P4 1.4GHz like WinME does. But that I believe is a video problem. Cause EVERY things else works perfectly find and FAST.
Oh, and the Linux 2.4.x kernels are slower than than 2.2.x. But then 2.4 supposedly has more features. But hey, WinME seems to be faster than Win9x. But I am plenty happy, I use Linux 98% of the time. Windows machine is for tax and gaming.
Thanks for allowing to share my experience.
.v
at Computerbank, we refurbish old hardware, install Debian, and donate it to low income groups, charities, anscchools and individsuals. Average box spec – P166 + 64 mb ram. We customised Sid a little bit (unstable), and run KDE3.03.
No issues, very happy recipients – the boxen run sweetly.
Dont see all the fuss!
How come it is that everyone must compair WinXP or anything other WinOS to Linux? Windows is a GUI OS, Linux is not. That is why X was created. This is like compairing WinXP with DOS. As for the Hardware, thats an odd thing. My 266 Pentium 1 laptop runs Win2k faster than my old Celeron 500. I have yet to install XP on my laptop, but when I did on my P3-800 I noticed that is was slower than Win2k on the same system. I have yet to have a problem with any of my linux installs. X and KDE run almost as fast as the GUI on Win2k, and thats a good thing. Also if your system hardware is labled “Made for Windows XP” or something like that might be were your speed problem is. I made sure all my hardware was linux compatable, and I have all the drivers needed by linux. After I get Mandrake 9 in the mail I’m thinking about using that as my full time OS. I don’t have the speed issues some of you do.
Great editorial Brian. I ordered RH8 myself and if UPS shows up I’ll be installing it tomorrow night. My box has a bit more horsepower than yours so I’m not too concerned about performance. Your editorial brought out enough people saying that they are running RH8 and aren’t having any problems that I’m hopeful I won’t either.
Maybe some of the “experts” who commented here can help get your box running well. Then you can post a follow-on editorial about how much better RH8 is over MS products.
I know that being a zealot is no fun. In fact, it contributes to taking the joy out of computing. When I was younger, I was a Mac zealot. It was not hard to become one because the conditions were ripe for it – feeling cornered by Windows and Apple management making terrible decisions, one after another. Ultimately, I stopped being a Mac zealot and have enjoyed using Macs much more since then.
I could have become a BeOS zealot easily, but fortunately, had learned from my Mac experience and avoided that. As a result, I enjoyed using Be to the hilt.
And now Linux…I *know* Linux is the kernel, but I’m talking about Linux distributions. It is so odd to me – Linux is the one OS where we have so many choices, so many distros, so many types of distros – distros for geeks, for mid-level users, for newbies and many in each category. Yet, despite this, Linux creates the most arguments. What is there to argue so vehemently about? And yet some of you can do nothing but state that so and so is an idiot, a moron, tells nothing but lies, simply because their experience was different than yours.
Almost 200 posts and only a handful pointed Brian to something like Vector Linux that might be the answer for him. All else, nothing but rigid, indoctrinated thinking, smugness, absolute self certainty, hot air, pompous ballast and just plain un-helpful, un-illuminating, un-insightful yammering. I don’t blame Eugenia for being out of patience after a year of this. Zealotry is truly no fun, has no joy in it and sucks openmindedness, honesty and the willingness to learn from others and help others out of a person.
BeOS is dead.. live with it and move on!!!! Next?
[wL]