Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Dispersing the Linux Lies
gnomez:
One of the biggest wails heard by the most vocal and fanatical zealots in the Linux community is that Windows and most of the programs that run on it are bloated and slow, while screaming about how fast and "un-bloated" Linux is. Where this myth started I do not know, but it is obvious that it is a deliberate effort by Linux fanatics to tarnish the good name of Microsoft and Windows and to lure Linux newbies and those curious about the OS into making the fatal mistake of installing it on their computer. The fact that this alleged truth seems to go unquestioned shows how reluctant most Linux advocates are to admit that their once lightweight OS has degenerated into nothing more than piles and piles of spaghetti code and a huge mess of cheesy, mostly unused apps that is characteristic of most Linux distributions these days.
Now to dispel the myths:
Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.
This Linux Lie is often perpetrated when a newbie wants to try out Linux, but is reluctant to install it on his or her main computer (with good reason) Others replying to his question will say that it is fine to erase the hard drive of his old Pentium 166 with Windows 98 SE to prepare it for the Linux revolution, but the fact is that Linux performs horribly on slow computers in comparison to Windows. Sure, Linux may turn an older computer into a feeble server or a router, but try running things that you could run fairly quickly under Windows such as anything GUI, particularly an office app or a web browser, and Linux crawls, stutters, grinds the hard drive for 10 minutes, and generally eats up all the RAM in your poor machine's system like an obese glutton.
Myth 2.) Linux is lightweight
Once, yes, but now it couldn't be further from the truth. Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux. No amount of RAM will satisfy Linux, it will eat it all until there is nothing left to do but start swapping. Many Linux purists will say that is not true, but since they choose to only use the command line or maybe blackbox or windowmaker they have no say. The very fact that they would be torturing themselves with such rubbish just goes to show that they find straining their eyes and wrists on the geeky command prompt or configuring their blackbox using text files less torturous than suffering through the unbelievably slow load times and bloated programs found in KDE and GNOME.
Myth 3.) Windows is bloated
This absurd statement is the most fictitious, and is spouted over and over again by the Linux faithful in the hopes that they will brainwash themselves into believing this most grievous of the Linux Lies. My computer, an Athlon 1600+ w/ 256 mb RAM running Windows XP, takes merely seconds to start, the whole system taking about as much time to load as KDE by itself takes to start up in Linux. Even on my old 166 Mhz IBM Aptiva Windows 98 SE runs very well, is quite snappy, and is just as featureful as KDE, even considering that Windows 98 is a four-year-old OS. None of this speed or functionality was even remotely matched by any Linux GUI I ran on it. The lie spouted by many Linux users that Windows 9x is an unusable crap OS is something that perplexes me, as I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I
voidmain:
Good name? And how can installing something that costs you nothing be a fatal mistake? It's not like you can't put Windows back on if you don't like it, which most people won't at first (hell, I didn't like it at first, until I gave it a serious effort). And I don't know about bloated. I do know about choice. I know that for what I do most MS apps have very few features that I really need and very many that I don't need. And you don't have to install all 6 CDs that you might get with your Linux distro.
I would agree with you that for desktop work you need at least the system requirements of a Windows box but for many server tasks (not all) you can happily do on a 486 with very little RAM. Certainly don't need to waste any resources running a GUI on a server that you never need to touch the console on.
And for some young kid who wants to learn how to program and doesn't have rich parents there's nothing better than Linux. What does Visual Studio and MS SQL server cost now days? Especially if you want to use your SQL server on a public IIS server and license it legally?
And the time thing is complete bull shit. I can't tell you how much time I waste dicking with Microsoft servers because the MCSEs don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, and never have to touch the *NIX boxes.
And automation is still just as much of a pain in the ass in XP as it was in DOS.
[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
gnomez:
I completely agree that Linux is very cost effective for servers and programming, and your comments are intelligent and well taken. (Why the hell do servers even need a GUI anyway?) I really should have emphasized that I was talking particuarally about Linux for desktop/home/office use, as that is what most people use computers for. Linux has its place, but I can't see it being in the desktop just yet.
voidmain:
And I would actually agree with you on that point. Although I see it getting closer to being viable. And it certainly can't hurt to encourage young people to learn how to program and make a contribution. As Linux get's closer to the desktop I think you will see more and more people contributing and more and more vendors porting. Then maybe you will not be dependent on a single company for your operating pleasure. Unless you work for Microsoft you can't help but at least be comforted that Linux and Macs are out there and if something ever happened to Microsoft you have something that is at least , if nothing else, usable.
I happen to find it very usable and am tickled that nearly 100% (if not 100%) of the people who came to this board looking for an alternative and tried it say they are very pleased. It is encouraging and makes me want to help them where I can.
Heywood:
While you post an intelligent argument, (a lot better than "Linux sucks..you fags!!!"), I would have to say the opposite is true, with me, personally. While everyone is different, I have found Linux to be 99.999% stable for me. Its been over a year since I had linux lock up on me, and the last time was when I had some bad memory sticks, and it would lock up regardless. Windows, however, has been a nightmare since 95.
I am one of those "old timers" (although only 24) who thinks DOS was Microsoft's last good OS. It was stable, powerful, just didnt multitask worth a crap. So I guess when they killed it, It started a grudge against Windows from Day 1. But I have had nothing but problems, and I pushed, and pushed, learned the OS inside and out, and still found, no matter what, "freak" things would happen, blue-screens, memory leaks, etc, data corruption, and in my Anger and hatred of 95, I turned to Linux. In 1996, someone gave me a copy, and it was rough at first (VI? THIS SUCKS) but I struggled with it, read the manpages, documentation, etc, and its been cake since then.
I have seen an improvement in Linux, without a doubt, in the last few years. It was clunky, it was shaky, and meant for a server. But I think its readiness for the desktop is approaching. While I think Gnome is mostly a pile of Crap (Sorry Gnomers, but KDE is for me) it's still better than any Windows system, for me.
While I have had to spend more time learning, now, years later, I spend more time productively, enjoying my computer, rather than fumbling with it, trying to make it work. Its really nice. I spend my time "tweaking" or "playing with things" at my own leisure, rather than "fixing" things. XP has been a heap of sh*t (Can you cuss on this board) that makes my tbird run like a duron, sorry. With a tbird 1400, with 512MB DDR, and Raid, yeah, it takes longer to boot up than XP, but once I get in and start the X server, its a Rocket from there. No waiting for anything.
And all I have to do, when I set it up is, install the OS, (with complete control of what happens with it)
setup my window manager, install a few programs, pimp out the kernel, slide it in, and its a joyride from there. Worry free computing. Thats what I love.
I have reinstalled XP three times since I installed RH 7.2 For a while, I just ran Redhat, without XP, and waited until I needed it, to put it on. (They need AutoCAD for linux dammit).
While it doesnt run on old hardware well, what OS does? But I must say, when I had setup a print and proxy server at home, I wouldnt have considered Windows for a second. It was a Pentium 100 with 16mb of Ram, and I'd like to see someone put Win2k on it, and have it do the job, like FreeBSD did, effortlessly.
While Linux may have been a bad experience for you, and I agree, its not 100% ready for the desktop, and not ready for my mom to use it, its great for me.
Just my opinion.
[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Heywood ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version