Re: RH9 Poor performance, stability

From: chrisv (chrisv_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 06/16/04 

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:00:29 -0500

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:28:21 -0600, Zinn wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:38:39 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Zinn <zinn@spam.all.people> wrote:
>>
>>> Memory Requirements
>>> This section lists the memory required to install Fedora Core 2.
>>> Minimum for text-mode: 128MB
>>> Minimum for graphical: 256MB
>>> Recommended for graphical: 512MB
>>>
>>>So the 192MB quoted by the article as a minimum for graphical was
>>>wrong. The *minimum* for graphical is 256MB. The recommended is
>>>512MB.
>>>
>>>
>>>To tell you the truth, I'm not only shocked, I'm pissed off. I've
>>>got to upgrade from 384 fucking megs of memory just to get my Linux box
>>>to stop swapping and freezing? What in the fucking hell is this?
>>
>> Idiot. They almost certainly "rounded up" to 512M, as most machines
>> have an "even" amount of memory (256M or 512M or 1G).
>
>People like you are only interested in reality to the extent that you can
>fit it into your preconceived world view.

How ironic. By the way, how much memory do most people recommend for XP?
512M, I'd say.

>You say, "They almost certainly ..."
>based at best on a hunch. Hunches are not certainties, or even almost
>certainties. What's worse is that your real reason for this "almost
>certainty" is not a desire to understand the truth, but that you want to
>explain away Linux's shortcomings.

I suppose you think that the number 512M was precisely calculated?
Obviously not.

>The article I quoted mentioned 192MB
>of ram, which is a less round number in binary than 384.

No, they are exactly the same "less round".

>I use plenty of
>machines with non-round amounts of ram.

Doesn't refute my point that most are round. Plus, people just like round
numbers, especially when it makes no sense to precisely calculate the
"correct" value, in the context of common memory sizes and costs.

True, the minimum requirement stated was a "non round" 192MB, but the
minimum SHOULD be a more precisely-specified number, as anything below
that may lead to completely unacceptable performance of the OS. The
"recommended" amount of memory is a much more nebulous number, depending
on the individual computer (CPU, HD, etc), what it's running, and the
expectations of the user.

>> There's not much difference between 384 and 512. If 256 is minimum,
>> and 512 is recommended, 384 will work fine. You can easily tweek the
>> interface to turn-off some of the eye candy, also.
>
>384 is only 75% of 512. It is a significant difference.

It's a very small difference, and you'd know that if you had any clue as
to how computers work, i.e. virtual memory. It's very unlikely that your
particular computer usage works "just fine" with 512M but would experience
significant performance degradation if you had only 384M.

>You say, "384 will work fine." That is either your hunch or your wish,
>but it is not the reality. The reason I started this thread is that my
>machine, with 384 MB ram, does *not* perform well with Red Hat 9.

Bad logic. If the grass is wet, does that prove that it rained recently?

I'll note that I'm responding to you now from a RH9/KDE machine which has
only 256M, and it works fine.

>When
>you want to understand something, you do not start with your wishes and
>try to force them upon reality; you must start with the facts and seek
>explanations for them as they are.

How ironic.

>The fact is that 384MB does not perform well.

The fact is you're drawing unfounded and incorrect conclusions from your
(claimed) experience.

>The best explanation I have at this point is that Red Hat 9 and/or Linux
>and/or Gnome is simply so resource hungry that 384MB is not sufficient.

Explanations from trolls don't carry much weight.

>That is consistent with the recommended ram for Fedora, it is consistent
>with the article I quoted, and it is consistent with the experience of
>some other Linux users in this thread. According to the Slashdotted
>article, Linux is currently the most bloated general purpose operating
>system to have ever been written. I see no reason to doubt that
>assessment.

KDE is not Linux, and you're too stupid to have your "assessment" matter.

>As for tweeking the interface, I do not run eye candy. My Gnome desktop
>does nothing remarkable. I run XEmacs, Mozilla, Pan, Evolution, some
>terminals, and occasionally a file manager. There is nothing
>extravagant to turn off. I just want a gui interface following the common
>paradigm, along the lines of other desktop operating systems like
>Windows, MacOS, OS/2, etc. Compared to most others, Gnome is not very
>capable to begin with, so I don't see what I'd be turning off.

If you haven't turned it off, you are running the default "eye candy".
It's not hard to turn off.
 
>>>I've got a 300 mhz machine with 128mb ram running Win2000 Pro fine. I
>>>notice the disk requirements have also ballooned out of hell. They
>>>require between 900mb and 7.5 gigs hard disk space! This is out of
>>>control. This is insane. The Gnome desktop doesn't even do all that
>>>much. To think I'd been ditzing around wondering what *I'd* been doing
>>>wrong.
>>
>> Idiot. Hardrive space is about a dollar a GB.
>
>The current cost of hard disks is not the only issue. There are many
>inherent advantages to keeping operating systems leaner, like OS/2, Mac,
>or even Windows, rather than extremely bloated down like Linux.

I guess you're just a common troll, if you are claiming Windows to be
"lean". I'll treat you accordingly. Idiot.

>Upgrading a hard drive is not a pleasant task. In some cases, it is not
>feasible to upgrade a hard drive.

Who said anything about upgrading a harddrive? Looks to me like your
usage: "I run XEmacs, Mozilla, Pan, Evolution, some terminals, and
occasionally a file manager." would easily fit on a 10G hardrive that
might be found on a 5-year-old machine. Any machine built in the last few
years will likely have 40G or more of hardrive.

>This is the case with 4 laptops I own,

You own 4 laptops huh? And despite their age, they all need to run a new
OS? Sure.

>none of which can run Linux because it is too slow, inefficient, and
>bloated.

But "lean and mean" Windoze XP works just fine, right? Laptops of course
have small and slow hardrives compared to desktops. If you want to put a
modern OS on an old laptop, maybe you shouldn't expect blazing performance.

>In fact, there is a great deal of legacy hardware that is not worth
>upgrading, but which could be put to good use running Windows 2000 or
>OS/2, but which couldn't support a system like Linux, which is too
>bloated out of control to run on any but the fastest hardware.

Why are you compring a 4-year-old Windows OS with the latest Linux with
all GUI features enabled?

>Bloatdown,
>even on new systems, also complicates a lot of disk maintenance problems
>like synchronization, backup, search, integrity, etc.

Tell that to Billy Gate$.

>Like I mentioned above, I have a 300 mhz machine with 128MB ram and a 2
>gig hard drive. I picked it up for $15 at a junk shop. I brought it in
>to one of my offices. The sysadmin, a unix guy, would have preferred I
>run Linux, as would I. However, Red Hat 9 doesn't run reasonably on
>it, so it had to be Windows 2000.

See above about your stupid comparisons. Also, hardly fair, considering
the RH9 comes with a ton of useful apps and utilities, while Win2k by
itself is virtually worthless.

True, RH9 may consume $4 more of your precious harddive space. Now, how
much will you pay to buy the Windows apps that come free with RH?

>Linux is the most bloated, memory hungry, operating system to have ever
>been written.

Liar.

>Many of the recent distributions, such as Fedora, and apparently
>Mandrake 10.0, are also buggy.

Windows is buggier AND far less secure.

>In my own experience, these
>distributions are buggier than anything I've ever used from Microsoft.

Sure they are, Wintroll.

>Compound this with the expense of having to upgrade hard drives and
>memory to get decent performance,

And Windows users never have to do this, huh?

>and the Linux proposition is not that compelling anymore. Linux
>advocates would be better off insulting the maintainers of Linux and
>Gnome and Fedora, etc., and asking them to get their act together, than
>insulting me. Insulting people like me, who just want to get things
>done, and aren't in love with one piece of software or another, will
>only push us away.

You have to grow yourself a brain. We can't do it for you.

>I'm just telling it like it is.

Not.