The Fast-Food Syndrome: The Linux Platform is Getting Fat

[Zombie9920]

Or in other words it is getting more and more bloated. Don't you guys criticize MS for bloat?

Myself, I don't think bloat is a big deal because drive space is less than $1 per gig nowadays. Modern CPU's can run the bloat without any trouble. Bloat = more features(even with MS software). Bloat is only a problem on ancient computers.


http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324

[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]

[Refalm]

Yes, Red Hat is quite amazing at boosting the minimum system requirements.

[WMD]

1.  Screw FC2, it's a lousy release.

2.  My FC1 with XFce 4.0.3 boots up into 107MB RAM.  Not great, but ok for a Redhat release.

3.  I'd say Slackware could really help in this case.  All that's hard about it is setting it up - actually using it is fine.

[ June 27, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]

[Refalm]

quote:WMD: I'd say Slackware could really help in this case. All that's hard about it is setting it up - actually using it is fine.

I agree. XFCE, Gnome or KDE make Slackware real easy to use.

[worker201]

Yeah, I wonder if your koan 'bloat = new features' is the whole story.  I kinda think bloat is bigger file size with no added features.  Occasionally the file will be bigger, and you have less features.  I haven't kept track of the changing size of core Linux packages, but I would guess that they haven't changed much at all - there's just more of them.  No comment on how Windows has changed from release to release.

[Refalm]

quote:Refalm: I agree. XFCE, Gnome or KDE make Slackware real easy to use.

Uhm, I kinda take that back though... if anyone get's the wrong idea about Slackware, I just wanted to say Slackware is not meant for beginners  

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by worker201:
Yeah, I wonder if your koan 'bloat = new features' is the whole story.  I kinda think bloat is bigger file size with no added features.  Occasionally the file will be bigger, and you have less features.  I haven't kept track of the changing size of core Linux packages, but I would guess that they haven't changed much at all - there's just more of them.  No comment on how Windows has changed from release to release.

Did you know that a XP install is less than 600 MB? The reason why it topples over a GB after being installe is because of the 700MB+ paging file. Having a paging file is no different than having to create a swap partation for Linux.

Less than 600MB for the OS isn't really that big at all considering drive space is less than $1 per GB these days. It costed me $1 to store Windows. Big whoopidity doo. lol

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:

Did you know that a XP install is less than 600 MB?

Did you know that Linux fits on an old floppy?
   

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Or in other words it is getting more and more bloated. Don't you guys criticize MS for bloat?

Myself, I don't think bloat is a big deal because drive space is less than $1 per gig nowadays. Modern CPU's can run the bloat without any trouble. Bloat = more features(even with MS software). Bloat is only a problem on ancient computers.


http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324

[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]

Because most normal people can't just go out and buy a $5000 machine off the shelf!

The most common PC is a PII! with around 64mb of ram!

because Linux can do all of M$ without all the constant upgrading and without all that 'powerful' hardware just to do the same job!

Pluse the gain of security, stability and ease of use not to mention no need for extra 'required' software and or big ass updates!

P.S.  

I'm running FC1 on 24mb ram/pII 233hz  USING KDE3.1!

my laptop: a PII266 runing 96mbram using SuSE 8.1!

old machines rock!!!


   

[ July 06, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:



Did you know that a XP install is less than 600 MB? The reason why it topples over a GB after being installe is because of the 700MB+ paging file. Having a paging file is no different than having to create a swap partation for Linux.

Less than 600MB for the OS isn't really that big at all considering drive space is less than $1 per GB these days. It costed me $1 to store Windows. Big whoopidity doo. lol

Your forgetting all the 'l33t' software that windows does not come with, all the service pack patches, all the 'required'  software (anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware etc..) All the patches an updates  for those 'required' software and all the trojans, spyware, viruses etc....

     

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
Did you know that a XP install is less than 600 MB? The reason why it topples over a GB after being installed is because of the 700MB+ paging file.

Incorrect.  My Win2k directory is 1.07GB, and the page file is on another drive.  Similar situation for my brother's XP machine (I can't go check it now for exactness).  Windows hasn't placed the page file in /windows since 98, I think.

[Orethrius]

quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:


Your forgetting all the 'l33t' software that windows does not come with, all the service pack patches, all the 'required'  software (anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware etc..) All the patches an updates  for those 'required' software and all the trojans, spyware, viruses etc....

           

Isn't that called "freeware" these days?
::: gets assaulted with a barrage of "free AOL" CDs:::

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
I'm running FC1 on 24mb ram/pII 233hz  USING KDE3.1!

Really?  How'd you get the usage down so low?

I ran Slack 9.1 on a P166 with 32MB, and I could use KDE but it required full RAM usage plus 35MB swap. (It was slow but usable.)

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:


Really?  How'd you get the usage down so low?

I ran Slack 9.1 on a P166 with 32MB, and I could use KDE but it required full RAM usage plus 35MB swap. (It was slow but usable.)

Thats an intresting question.  It is slow here too but then I find I have patients and it really isn't that slow.  Like it wouldn't take a full minute or two for the menu to pop up or something.  I find windows XP doing that even at 512 mb of ram!

It just takes a few 15 or so seconds for an application like Netscape to come up.  Pritty worked right from the install.  So I really don't know why exactly.  I just know that after the install on 24 mb's it was fine  

[Aloone_Jonez]

This is so true, Linsux and Winbloze are both bloatware.

It's stupid you shouldn't have to buy a new PC every three years to run the latest software, you don't with any other appliance. I've  not up graded my CD player for over 14 years, and it still plays the latest CDs.

A history of my past upgrades:

1993
386 33MHz 4MB RAM, 43MD disk, 640x480 16 colours, DOS 6 & Win 3.1
Soon upgraded to 8MB RAM, 800x600 64K colours (slow) sound card CD-ROM drive.

1994
New mother bored upgraded to 486 100MHz, 100MB disk.

1997
P200 32MB RAM, 4GB disk, Win 95.

2004
1800MHz, 256MB RAM, Xpee, 40GB disk, DVD ROM CD Burner.

I was excited I thought no more swap files surly 256MB is more than enough, disapointed with Xpee, 336MB swap file    .

Soon bought another 80GB disk to run, Redhat 9, disapointed with Linux, it guzzels just as much if not even more memory.

Notice a pattern. - My upgrades are becoming less an less frequent. I have never bothered with the latest hardware. I only upgrade when I have to.

The only thing I do with my new PC that I couldn't do with my old one is burn CDs & watch DVDs.

Fuck this for a lark, time to hop of the tread mill, I will not upgrade for another 10 years or maybe even never. By then I hope that Windows is on it's death bed and Linux has got it's act together, or some better OS has replaced it.