Forum Moderators: bakedjake
Talks about the very real issue in my opinion of linux being too bloated.
Fedora Core 2, as specified by Red Hat: Minimum for graphical: 192MB and Recommended for graphical: 256MB Does that sound any alarm bells with you? 192MB minimum
When I first ventured into the linux world, I did the default workstation install under redhat, it disheartened me to find that it was much much slower to boot and to run programs then windows xp.(PC is 1.7GHZ Athlon AMD 256 DDR ram Nvdia Geforce 5200) Running multiple programs really bogged down my computer. I rarely booted into linux.
Although I know better now, with a bare minimum install with most of the unneeded services off, using fluxbox as my windows manager.I now boot into linux 90% of the time.
But still running Opera, anjuta(IDE) and occasionally compilling using gcc at the same time my pc starts getting sluggish. I know Linux has a powerful shell and I can not argue with that. But in Windows XP I can run Multiple windows many tasks and the computer does not slow down.
The article goes on to talk about the lost oppurtunity to replace thousands of windows 98 and Windows NT as Microsoft ends the lifespan for those operating systems,because the "average Win98 and NT4 box has 32 or 64M of RAM and CPUs in the range of 300 - 500 MHz --" which does not meet the requirments of Modern Distros. But then you could say use an older distro, but don't there end of lifespan finish a lot quicker then microsoft's OSes. Or maybe install Gentoo, Slackware or Debian, but as the article shows these Distro are aimed mainly at the power user.
I have always thought, and the article points it out that most developers of the GUI frontends like KDE and GNOME use high powered box's and really never get to use the desktop managers on older pcs. Which is Understandable because who wants to compile KDE or GNOME on an older box. But maybe they could test it out once in awhile on an older box to see how it measures up.
I will still stick to Linux as My OS of choice because, the abilty to make things run the way I want to, and its highly competitive price.
regards,
Mark
I first started using linux in 1996 (Slack'96!), but I disappeared off the computing map until 1999, and used Slack 4.0. It was great. I loved Slackware, it fit my needs perfectly.
I tried out Mandrake a while later, with my boss telling me it was "way better than Slack". OK, sure thing... I hated it. I felt at *that* point that some distros were getting too big.
Just recently we tried out RedHat 9 in our company, as an option for our servers. I discovered that it requires 3 CDs!
I know that Linux has several different versions of everything (a la X11-wm: Gnome, KDE, Flux, BlackBox, fvwm, etc etc), so I understand that they may need to include them all on there, but seriously... I found that ALL of the CDs were required, and the installation would not continue wihtout the 3rd CD.
On another point, and I understand that things are different regarding Desktops vs Servers, but the graphical portion of the installation *REALLY* bothers me. Why would you NEED to have a graphical install? I'm sure that there is an option, somewhere, to disable it, and have a text-based install. I didn't really look that hard, though.
I also find it funny that people complain about how bloated windows is -- yet, it fits on a single CD. Anything additional you want, you need to download and install. Why isn't there a "base install" CD for RedHat/Fedora/whatever, where it gets you up and running with a straight-forward system with web,email and a couple of other little things that you might need (solitaire? :), and the rest you have to install... People do it with Windows, and I kind of enjoy doing that to a new system, where I'm actually getting the newest stuff, and I can tweak things to the degree that I want.
So what am I trying to say? That, yes, I agree, Linux is getting bloated, but that's from trying to please everyone, and including a package for everything. Is there a better way to do it? Sure -- Look at FreeBSD's ports system, or Gentoo's portage. But those systems take a higher level of skill to maintain and update. There's no user-friendly interface that I've seen (not that I've bothered looking). I find it amusing that RedHat (et al) include 3 or 4 CDs worth of stuff, since at some point, there's going to be a newer version of something you use, which will require you to upgrade, which depends on newer versions or "foo" and "bar".
As for bloat in terms of processing power, I haven't really used a desktop Linux system in a while, and the last was Slackware, and that ran like a top. I have no complaints about FreeBSD's use of processing resources, but I have fairly minimal desktops -- Fluxbox, Moz (for web and mail), and the fanciest things I have are nice wallpapers and I use gdesklets.
To use Linux with older computers, I'm sure that there are distros out there that are RPM-based, or binary-package based distros that are geared for older computers. 300-500 MHz is hard to work with, but it's doable! Most institutions that I know of that use linux, will have a custom installation type where they have set defaults for everything, including WM, and installed apps, essentially building their own distro. They have their own specs laid out for what hardware works and what doesn't, and anything that isn't supported, just isn't used.
People use Windows 9x on their older computers, because that's what worked on them. People don't try to install Windows XP with Office XP on these old computers. They install Win9x with Office 97 because they're known to work with systems like these.
If people are installing old Win9x and old office apps, then why would it be a problem to install RedHat 7.3 or something similar, with OpenOffice (or Abiword, etc etc) that was included with the distro? Sure, it's unsupported, and you won't get any updates, but the chances are high that users of win9x aren't using windows update constantly, with the latest version of everything, including office. They used old software that worked with the hardware, so why would anyone expect to be able to use Fedora Core 934 with OpenOffice 1.1, and KDE/Gnome etc etc? IMHO, I'd just slap and old distro on it, and watch it fly. ;)
I know I've rambled on about a bunch of stuff somewhat incoherently, and I apologize for that. It's just that I find there are so many things that bother me about Linux, and Windows, and even FreeBSD, but I've found that FreeBSD fits with my personality, and how I do things, and has fewer things that bother me.
Whew. I hope that made *some* sense. I'm still on my first coffee :)
-MM
Why not try Arch Linux (or similar): 1 CD, more tools than Win on install, less memory usage, faster.
The issue is with how individual distros set up their Linuces...Red Hat goes with the kitchen sink on install: many daemons up and running without user interaction. In Arch (or similar) you have to start what you want.
I only use Arch Linux as an example, but there are many options out there that deal with these issues better than Red Hat or MS.
Thanks, I'll check it out. :)
No, this isn't flame bait but some of you will probably think it is.
But beniro's right - your objections are more towards the bigger all-inclusive distros such as Mandrake, RedHat (Fedora), and SuSE.
ArchLinux is a good distro for small needs. I love Gentoo (being a FreeBSD fan). Also, Mandrake can be trimmed to just over 50 MB if installed properly. So there are certainly a lot of customization options available to you.
We shouldn't forget, though, that the all-in-one distros do serve a purpose, and a lot of people like them because they do everything! It's nice to be able to stick a CD in, and have a fully running "network box" within an hour.
The average Win98 and NT4 box has 32 or 64M of RAM and CPUs in the range of 300 - 500 MHz -- in other words, entirely unsuitable for modern desktop Linux distros.
Unfortunately, this article smacks of "we need the newest software" syndrome. Why not install RedHat 6.2 on that box? I bet it'll work beautifully.
Windows XP wouldn't run on that box very well. Why are you trying to install the newest Linux distro, too?
<i>The average Win98 and NT4 box has 32 or 64M of RAM and CPUs in the range of 300 - 500 MHz -- in other words, entirely unsuitable for modern desktop Linux distros.</i>
Hehe...Win98 is a modern OS? Ok... :)
As for setting up a Linux desktop machine with those specs, try a distro like Arch or Slackware running XFCE4 with only GTK apps. This is very snappy and light. But, although I hate to admit it, 64 megs of RAM would be preferable (I'm not sure how well it would do with 32).
Also, you could try compiling your kernel with only support for the hardware on your machine included. That should lighten things up further.
Most important, though, is making sure that you have no unnecessary daemons running in the background on startup.
