Given Linus Torvalds’s recent leave of absence from Transmeta to take a full-time position at OSDL to work on Linux kernel development, and with the approaching release of Linux 2.6, NewsForge thought now would be a good time to quiz Torvalds by email. Version 2.6 of the kernel is expected to come out late this fall. Here is a summary of new features. UPDATE: Another Torvalds interview, at C|Net.
Torvalds on OSDL, 2.6, the future; Summary of Upcoming 2.6 Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
He is just cool! Can’t wait for 2.6 to come out.
The 2.6 kernel should be part of the next version of RedHat Linux. I’m buying it. I already have a RH Network subscription for one year, but I’ll buy another one, maybe even two more.
>> So I’m aiming for the high-end desktop,
>> because that will be “normal” in a few years.
Hmm .. I don’t know if that’s the better approach. Someone should take away Linus’s 3GHz machine, and replace it with a 1 GHz celeron with 256 megs of ram
. If he feels the pain the rest of us feel, he will be forced to think different 
Anyway, 3GHZ machines and 1 Gig of memory will be quite affordable and normal in a year or two, but I don’t think they will be everywhere or in most places. Ordinary people, meaning non-geeks, don’t move ahead that fast with technology. My main desktop still run 400 MHz AMD, and @work, we’ve got some 166Mhz pentiums. They all run xp. And they run fine.
Linux should take a page from Microsoft and do something about speed on the desktop, even on the low end. Especially since most of the important apps are still immature and not optimised. Microsoft is beating the pants off linux and everybody else on this issue. I have been impressed with the speed improvenments that Microsoft keeps making. Unlike before, newer Microsoft OSes run pretty well, speed wise, on old hardware. Those 166MHz machines I mentioned all run xp, and people still earn salaries working on them. 2003 server seems to be even better.
So if the kernel dudes wouldn’t focus on the “low”, non-3GHz end, I hope the distributions will.
I agree with Linus. What he is using now will be the norm in 1 or 2yrs (Distributers wont be using the 2.6 kernel for another 8mths appox). Those pentium166 came out in 95 I think, so they should start to hit there use by date. Building operating systems to run low end stuff causes lower performace for better stuff ie my Redhat9(i386) runs slower than Mandrake9.1(i586) and its a shame because I have a 2yr old pentium3 CPU. Thats my 2cents worth.
we’ve got some 166Mhz pentiums. They all run xp. And they run fine.
BULLCRAP!! 166mhz pentiums running XP.. yea sure!
“Hmm .. I don’t know if that’s the better approach. Someone should take away Linus’s 3GHz machine, and replace it with a 1 GHz celeron with 256 megs of ram
. If he feels the pain the rest of us feel, he will be forced to think different 
“
It doesn’t really matter what machine he personally uses, since a good chunk of the main Kernel developers all have the best to worst machines you can think of. Alan Cox is a big proponent of optimization for older systems, so is Marcello and others.
Linux should take a page from Microsoft and do something about speed on the desktop, even on the low end. Especially since most of the important apps are still immature and not optimised. Microsoft is beating the pants off linux and everybody else on this issue.
First of all, Linux is a Kernel. *NOT* an operating system. Many improvements have been made that now bring what the *kernel* is capable of performance wise to a level beyond and above even BeOS and Windows in some areas. For example as little as 1-4ms average sound latencies depending on the system.
However, the *GNU* operating system that Linux distributions usually package with the Linux kernel contains many programs that are indeed not fully optimized, and have a lot of room for improvement.
You also seem to treat Linux as this “singular” entity, and is if it’s in competition with Microsoft. It’s really not. Only the commercial distributors are really in competition with Microsoft. “Linux” itself is only written to provide the foundation for a truly free, alternative operating system for users.
I will wholeheartedly agree that Linux *distributions*, and the *GNU* operating system are in need of usability improvement and optimization.
However, I disagree that *all* of it is slower than it’s Windows or Mac counterpart. That’s just a faux pas. For example, Oracle on Linux beyond a doubt runs much faster than it’s Win32 countepart, why? Because application vendors like Oracle have been able to have direct input into the Kernel development process that has allowed them to ensure that Kernel is architected in a way that’s suitable for high-performance enterprise-class database systems.
So if the kernel dudes wouldn’t focus on the “low”, non-3GHz end, I hope the distributions will.
Only the main “Kernel dude” does. Most of the Kernel people do not. Most of them own machines like the ones you described above. Research a bit more before making claims based on a single article.
If SuSE 8.2 runs fine on my Pentium II, and feels more responsive and quicker than SuSE 6.4, I do not fear 🙂
Not that I use Linux now. I have lost my home directory twice, once with raidreconf and once by breaking my /boot, after which the Gentoo rescue CD broke the LVM partitions 🙁
Therefore I have tried FreeBSD and NetBSD, the former feeling really responsive, about as responsive as SuSE 8.2, but with soundcard “problems” I switched to NetBSD, which feels as responsive as Debian, thus as Linux without the Low Latency Patch, I think.
But I am sure I will try 2.6 when it comes out. And after trying “NetBSD on the Desktop” with KDE3 on a Pentium 350, and with that working good enough, I have no fear that anyone using Linux on a recent PC will encounter real speed issues. I do not believe that Linux goes from snappy and responsive to slow like a snail.
I will also have to say that I don’t like seeing the OS being optimized for high-end machines, when my main computer is still a dual Celeron at 533 Mhz. There are a LOT of people/programmers/geeks (more than 50% according to a Slashdot poll) who their main machines are between 300 Mhz and 1 GHz. Linux’s strength in the past was its ability to run well on slower computers, now the new kernel changes made it possibly to run well on high-end machines but perfrorm slower than before on lower-end machines.
Run is not the right word here. Crawl is a much better choice. Actually, the correct words would be “crawl with great difficulty, choke, then die.”
This is from Microsoft’s own web page about WinXP’s minimum requirements: “PC with 300 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233-MHz minimum required”
Actually, from reading the interview, I didn’t get the feeling that lower-end systems will be left out in the cold. To quote Linus: “we still do care about low-end machines too, so it’s not like we’re trying to leave those behind either.” In any case, no one’s forcing anybody to use the newer kernels. I know I won’t if I end up with worse performance on my Athlon 900MHz…Again, so far I have yet to read anything about the 2.6 kernel series that would make me expect a degradation in performance – we’ll have to wait and see.
…new kernel…but perfrorm slower than before on lower-end machines.
What made you jump to that conclusion? Even if Linus might not be actively optimizing for the low end, that doesn’t mean performance regressions are acceptable. They’re not. Anyway, 2.6 will definately run better on your machine due to the finer grained locking.
I run xp/wingate on my P2 200Mhz (home server), it runs fine, you just need to disable luna and give it enough ram.
Just go ahead, spend money and buy a new PC fpr goodness sake! Why still use fscking old 200 MHZ PCs? Technology is advancing and we should all embrace it- not linger in the dark ages. Wake up people and stop griping about the 2.6 kernel losing optimizations for older machines!!!
“Re: “166MHz machines I mentioned all run xp”
All of this talk about running winxp on P166 & P200 and running just fine is crap. Come on. What do you use it for? Are you surfing the web, playing games? Watching just how slow it can possibly run??
If it’s a file server ok, for home use who cares but I can bet your not doing much with it, if you are it is SLOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. I have a sparce p200& 133 that I don’t even use becasue I don’t care to run hardware that slow. Yes if I want a ftp or firewall/router I’ll through linux on it w/out the GUI..
Stop the garbage talk about xp on old hardware. I have XP running at work on two P3 700 & 733 systems, compared to Linux, XP runs like a dog on those.
You people are just full of it.
Im running the latest kernel on a couple 486s. No GUI of course, but it runs a mail/print server fine.
Can WindowsXP run on a 486? NO!
Linux has THE BEST support for older hardware. This isn’t going to change too much. Yeah, maybe I wont be able to run 2.6 on my 486 anymore, but big deal, im gonna upgrade to a 266Mhz machine soon anyway.
My girlfriend still have a P1 233MMX and she’s (somewhat) happy with it. Why should she upgrade? Should we all upgrade to the next Pentium 5 DX HT2 FG UEW DSN 4 bazillion Hz as soon at it comes out?
I agree that they shouldn’t bother to optimise the kernel for computers from the Stone Age (386s, 486s) as they’re now too slow for being really useful… but optimising the kernel only for newer hardware would be a really bad move. Some people do upgrade frequently, but they’re what, 5% of the whole userbase? Fact is that the majority WON’T run 3GHz/1GB RAM machines in one or two years like he seems to suggest. It’s not because we could buy those babies that we’ll do so.
As a reply to some comments here:
I’m starting to get fed up with the GNU people trying to advertise their project and ideology by touting everywhere that Linux is just a kernel and the OS is really their GNU OS. They themselves confuse things like what an OS really is (not just a loose collection of free softtware) and how important the kernel is to an OS.
First of all, what is GNU? Just reading the GNU.org web pages makes it clear that GNU is usually understood more like a political free software project, not just some single OS. Playing with all sorts of various kernels and OS parts in the GNU project is a very clear example of that.
The GNU project has a strong political ideology, that of opposing any use of proprietary software in any forms or ways, how ever legitimate they might be to others. The goal is even to stop all use of proprietary software in the whole wide world for ever.
Now, how could all Linux distributors – who often have nothing against using at least some proprietary software in their distros – use such a strong ideological and political term like GNU when talking about their OS?
The OS has been called Linux from the very start. As far as I know Linus and other important developers have never seen themselves as GNU OS developers. Some GNU software has been used in the project but that does not mean that the whole OS should be renemed.
Also just read any new computer dictionary etc. and you are likely to see that almost always Linux refers to a whole OS, not just a kernel.
When you read news stories about the kernel development, the authors have to speak of the “Linux kernel” not just “Linux” so that they make things understandable to their readers. And, no, that is not confusing at all, but the way the GNU people try to adopt software that does not belong to their GNU project certainly is.
Some GNU software like GCC has, of course, been an important part of Linux distributions, but there’s lots of important software from lots of other projects too, in fact, more than what’s the GNU part of the whole. Now, just tell me, why should that other software be called GNU software??
I’m sure that the GNU people would like to get all that other software, like KDE software, seen as part of their great GNU project, so that they could better promote their political goals. But how right and correct would that be to the other projects not related to the GNU project in any way?
Though I may support some goals of the GNU project, I just cannot agree on all matters. So for that reason alone, why should I use the term GNU of my Linux OS (especially as there are some proprietary components too)?
I’m running the 2.5.x series (with mm patchset) on an AMD Athlon 650 Mhz with 256 Mb RAM with reiserfs and the thing absolutely flies! The changes made in the kernel not only help out high end systems but apparently from experience help out low end systems too. Test before you talk folks. No reason to down 2.6 before you’ve even used the kernels that are leading up to 2.6.
Karl
I’m starting to get fed up with the GNU people trying to advertise their project and ideology by touting everywhere that Linux is just a kernel and the OS is really their GNU OS. They themselves confuse things like what an OS really is (not just a loose collection of free softtware) and how important the kernel is to an OS.
Well, if they claim that the GNU userspace is independant of the Linux kernel… It means that Linux is also independant of the GNU userspace. I think it can be good news, as Linux isn’t necessarily tied to their political views. Well, that’s my 2¢, and it can be wrong.
I agree, you people aren’t reading very well. Linus never said that it wasn’t going to run on a old systme. He’s saying it will be highly optimized for faster system. There isn’t much optimizing a slow box. You can only do what you have.
Also, I wasn’t trashing people that use p200’s I was trashing people spreading FUD that Wincrap XP runs just fine on a p200. It doesn’t and your full of it.
>> BULLCRAP!! 166mhz pentiums running XP.. yea sure!
I know, I would be saying the same thing if I wasn’t the one managing those systems. They are compaq machines. I have to say I was quite very surprised to find xp running on those, especially since xp was dog slow to the point of being unuseable on on my pentium 111 750 Dell laptop.
>> All of this talk about running winxp on P166 & P200
>> and running just fine is crap. Come on.
>> What do you use it for? Are you surfing the web, playing >> games? Watching just how slow it can possibly run??
>>
I personally don’t use those machines, I don’t think I will have the patience to use them. But they are used in our support, sales and billing departments, and while they are not eminently fast, they work just fine. Each has between 370* and 500 megs of ram.
Re: @shawn
>> First of all, Linux is a Kernel. *NOT*
>> an operating system.
It is? Do you think people really care what “Linux” means for linguistic purists like you??
I use a linux desktop 95% of the time, and I just want better speed WHEN I AM USING IT. Nobody is going to prefer a linux desktop over a windows machine just because “linux” = “kernel”, and “kernel” = “better than windows kernel”.
Linux is in competition with windows at every level -kernel, distribution, embeded, support, documentation .. whatever.
I just realized while I sit here and type from work that my foot stool is a p300 (might be a pII) I forget the range. Anyway, I had winxp & 2k on it and it ran dog slow. More like sloth slow. That is why my feet rest on it.
Honest to God truth, I’m not jokeing about that. The funniest thing I look down and realize I was footing an old box running Xp. So it will run, I’ll give you that. But it also SUCKS!
I actually found another use for my 166MHz Pentium using Linux. A friend of mine is sharing our appartment for a couple of months, and his computer (a Motorola PowerPC) is toast. So I set him up an account on my Athlon 900MHz and have him connect (automatically, since he’s no computer guru) to my box using XDMCP. So the only thing he’s running on the older machine is a shell and a X session, and nothing else. Everything else (Desktop Manager, Applications) runs on my machine. Since all he uses it for is e-mail and Web browsing, it doesn’t really have an impact on performances if we are both computing at the same time (remember, I only have one X session running on my machine).
Sure, he did have to get used to GNOME, but again, I configured everything for him in advance (even have gotmail download his hotmail messages so he can read them in evolution). The only drawback is a very slight lag on the UI (menus, etc.)…actually, I was wondering if anyone knows how I can tell if my network is using 10 Mbps or 100…I’m pretty sure I have 10/100 cards in all my boxes. Does it automatically use the higher speed, or do I have to set it up?
In any case, this is a great way to reuse an old PC. I can’t wait to get a new 2.4MHz box and use that as a central server! XDMCP rocks!
“obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim.”
— Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group. August 2002
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6293
Check out the 8th paragraph!!
—————————————–
By the way, scox stock price has surged in the last few sessions, and insiders have just filed to sell another 300,000+ shares.
Linux is in competition with windows at every level -kernel, distribution, embeded, support, documentation .. whatever.
Did we forget licensing and cost? The two main points of competition between GNU software and Microsoft. See, it isn’t Linux Microsoft is scared about. Its GNU. And us GNU supporters knew this day would come many many moons ago. Everything is happening as planned.
First they laugh at you.
Then they ignore you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
You might want to check what type of cable you are using as well. Go for CAT-5 and or 5a ( is 1-gigabit cable a standard yet ? ) and oh yeah do you use a router, is your router capable of running at 100 megabit ?
Okay, I checked it out, and it seems I only get 10 Mbps, and that my hub (a cheap 5-port Kingston hub) is the culprit. I’ll get a new hub and that should solve the UI lag thing…
Im running the latest kernel on a couple 486s. No GUI of course, but it runs a mail/print server fine.
Can WindowsXP run on a 486? NO!
I hate this argument – you are making the wrong comparison. If you are not going to run a gui – then the more appropriate comparison would be linux (w/o gui) vs windows 2.1
too funny
Oh yeah, because Windows 2.1 is as powerful, stable, feature rich, and secure as the latest linux.
I can run a completly modern linux system, thats as secure as anything, on a machine that can only run a 10 year old version of Windows.
Does that tell you something?
Somewhere in one of the articles did said something about Opteron-64. One question suddenly pop up in my head;
Can I connect one 32 bit dumb terminal (486, P75, P100 etc) to Opteron-64 server running under 64 bit Linux? Have anyone aroud here ever tried it with other 64 bit server such as Sun server? The condition is that the dumb terminal must be running under GUI.
I wouldn’t see why wou cant. All you’re doing is controlling the Opteron computer by issuing the commands from the DT.
You should only need a compatable stanard, like SSH.
What I means is that a diskless dumb X terminal which run Xwindows on the Opteron-64 but display the output on the DT. The DT user have his account on the 64 bit server and must be able to do whatever he want (web browsing, word processing, programming etc) as he is working on the the server itself.
Yeah, you should be able to do it.
Just use SSH and use X forwarding.
Careful though, as its a security risk, if its a server.
hub nothing, get a switch – that outa help with UI lag tremendously. Latency is always lower on a switch vs a hub, and lately switches are much more reasonably priced then they used to be.
Well, since I’ve kernel 2.5.something running here on a 486 (and that’s including XFree86 3.3.6!) you shouldn’t fear for the future.
Remember that whats on your desktop now is going to be embedded a decade later, and perhaps Linux along with it. For instance my graphing calculator (TI 89) is, if anything, more powerful then my Amiga 500. Considering the use Linux is having in embedded devices, and Linus’s conviction that specialized OS’s is an evolutionary deadend, I don’t think people with old computers should worry about a lack of support (though folks with old weird hardware is another matter, which he talked about in the interview).
Can’t wait for 2.6… the number 2.6 just sounds so high-tech, I guess its from reading all this hype.
Anyone else find this part of the second article amusing, as well as enlightening to how little the author seems to know about OS design/programming/current state of Linux kernel?
“”At OSDL, Torvalds will focus on abstruse programming issues such as “block input-output” communications with devices such as hard drives, virtual memory for accommodating large databases, “scaling” Linux to work on large multiprocessor servers, and threads that let Linux juggle more tasks simultaneously. “”
Who writes these things?
**
Yes, Linus does look like Data from tnng. Now the question would be can Linux run on Data? :>
Is the 64 bit and 32 bit differences didn’t give any issue here?
“Linux has THE BEST support for older hardware.”
Just for interest sake, I ran FreeBSD 4.8 and Linux 2.4 .20 side by side on an old 486 and compared compile times for Mozilla. As it happens, Linux took 25 minutes longer than FreeBSD at this gruellingly long task. Yes, both systems were COMPLTELY optimised for the 486 and the same version of GCC was used (3.2). I watched the swap usage skyrocket on each occasion. So much for Linux havving a better VM!
> “”At OSDL, Torvalds will focus on abstruse programming issues such as “block
> input-output” communications with devices such as hard drives, virtual
> memory for accommodating large databases, “scaling” Linux to work on large
> multiprocessor servers, and threads that let Linux juggle more tasks
> simultaneously. “”
>
> Who writes these things?
LOL! I didn’t notice until you pointed it out.
But quite truthfully, CNET isn’t aimed at the typical OSNews/Slashdot reader. All articles are designed so that Joe the builder or Fred the plummer can read them without knowing any technical jargon. I don’t know about you but I “walked” (so to speak) away from that article feeling as though my (what I thought was somewhat limited)knowledge of OS innards had been insulted. CNET lowered the bar even further, boosting my self esteem
I don’t remember seeing anywhere that Linux had a better VM system, it’s well known that FreeBSD has a superior VM system, that’s why the linux developers look at it quite abit. 2.6 should hopefully be a major improvement, being a reverse mapping RMAP system like that of FreeBSD
> I don’t remember seeing anywhere that Linux had a better VM system, it’s
> well known that FreeBSD has a superior VM system, that’s why the linux
> developers look at it quite abit. 2.6 should hopefully be a major improvement,
> being a reverse mapping RMAP system like that of FreeBSD
Linux had coined many times that he believed 2.6 would have a superior VM implementation to that of FBSD 5.x. You may remember some benchmarks that supposedly confirmed this. As far as Linux 2.4.x is concearned; yes I agree (as do the rest of the earth) that FreeBSD 4.x & 5.x’s VM implementation is far less jerky and substancially more responsive than Linux < 2.5.
Think it aint possible to have Windows XP run comfortably on a really low-spec machine. Well I’ve tried it at the one I’m typing at and it does fine. It’s a Pentium 300Mhz, with 128MB of RAM. The RAM is key to getting the latest versions of Windows working. Of course, you have to take off Luna and remove a few services for better response. If you throw enough RAM at any OS it’ll usually perform quite well even if the processor power is low. Except Linux.
I installed Mandrake 9.1 with GNOME and saw how it performed, *boy*, was it slow. You call WinXP a dog? I’d call Linux a snail. And the boot-up time, about 4 minutes. Click on a menu and after about 2 seconds of disk activity it will appear. Loading Galeon takes about 1 1/2 minutes. Sure, I could just boot into the BASH interface, but I want a GUI, and let’s make this a fair comparison.
It’s both the fault of GNOME and Linux for performing so bad.
> Think it aint possible to have Windows XP run comfortably on a really
> low-spec machine. Well I’ve tried it at the one I’m typing at and it does
> fine. It’s a Pentium 300Mhz, with 128MB of RAM. The RAM is key to
> getting the latest versions of Windows working. Of course, you have to
> take off Luna and remove a few services for better response. If you throw
> enough RAM at any OS it’ll usually perform quite well even if the processor
> power is low. Except Linux.
FreeBSD boots up in 18 seconds (eg. loads XDM) on an old AMD K6-2 380Mhz w/64mb RAM, Laptop I had lying around. Redhat 9 took about 50 seconds to boot into GDM when all non-essential services were disabled. XP on the same machine (I didn’t use it, a friend borrowed it) took 3-4 minutes to boot up. And OMG it swapped like there was no tomorrow. Lucky I gave it it’s own VM partition or the HDD would have fragged to a nearly un-repairable state!
> I installed Mandrake 9.1 with GNOME and saw how it performed, *boy*,
> was it slow. You call WinXP a dog? I’d call Linux a snail. And the boot-up
> time, about 4 minutes. Click on a menu and after about 2 seconds of disk
> activity it will appear. Loading Galeon takes about 1 1/2 minutes. Sure, I
> could just boot into the BASH interface, but I want a GUI, and let’s make
> this a fair comparison.
Well, once you can get bash (assuming your at runlevel 5), it usually takes a matter of seconds to bring up a graphical login screen like XDM, WDM, GDM or KDM.
> It’s both the fault of GNOME and Linux for performing so bad.
GNOME actually uses less than 10m of memory in most instances whereas just explorer (on windows) uses at least 15m when it isn’t doing anything. Nautilus is quite snappy and doesn’t freeze up like explorer does during network requests. Lalalaal.. I could go on for hours, hence, I fail to see your point.
Originally got this from yahoo message board:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2877578…
<quote author=”Darl McBride” when=2002>
We get several dozen requests a month just to come in and see AIX or HP-UX code base. And C++ programming languages, we own those, have licensed them out multiple times, obviously. We have a lot of royalties coming to us from C++. It was interesting to see the depth of Caldera’s intellectual capital.
</quote>
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02_Story03.
html#C++_Issues
<quote>
C++ Issues
MozillaQuest Magazine: C++ appears to be one of the properties that SCO acquired through Novell’s acquisition of AT&T’s UNIX Systems Laboratories and subsequent purchase of Novell’s UNIX interests by SCO. At this time most Linux and/or GNU/Linux distributions include C++ compilers and editors. Is this something for which SCO currently charges? If so, just what are the current arrangements? If not, will C++ licensing and enforcement be added to SCO’s licensing and enforcement program?
Blake Stowell: C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that. Those arrangements are done on a case-by-case basis with each customer and are not disclosed publicly. C++ licensing is currently part of SCO’s SCOsource licensing program.
MozillaQuest Magazine: How about GNU C++? Does GNU C++ use
SCO IP? If so, could SCO license and/or charge for use of its IP in GNU C++?
Blake Stowell: I honestly don’t know.
MozillaQuest Magazine: Does the C++ that currently is included in most if not all Linux distributions contain SCO IP?
(a) If so, is that being done with or without SCO
permissions/licensing?
(b) If so, what impact/affect does this have on the ability
of people to freely distribute and use copies of those
Linux distributions? (Under GNU licensing, anyone may
make as many copies of a GNU/Linux distribution as they
please, freely distribute them for no charge and/or for
a charge, and use a GNU/Linux on as many computes as they
please — at no charge. Etc.)
Blake Stowell: Again, I don’t know. That’s something we would have to research.
</quote>
I didn’t have whatever OS that exist but sometime get tired of zealot. I always came across posting from FreeBSD supporter in Linux thread. It is OK if it for a mature discussion but it is bad whenever it seem to be a flame bait. It is the same for the case where Linuz zealot post in FreeBSD thread.
But one thing for sure is that mostly those are related to FreeBSD. Although many said Theo de Raadt (especially those from the ******* camp) is rude but since the firts day I visiting OSNews I’ve never came across OpenBSD supporter disturbing Linux thread.
I think it is better for us to use whatever we love and let others keep on using whatever his like.
It supposed to be “I didn’t hate …”.
Hmm, strange. I didn’t knew that.
Do you know if MS, Borland or any other C++ compiler developer are paying royalties to SCO? I suspect they want to bully people/companies like Rambus did 2 years ago.
Problem is, C++ is also an ANSI/ISO standard. I’d bet you don’t have to pay SCO unless you want their C++ code or some proprietary implimentation they own.
>> Many improvements have been made that now
>> bring what the *kernel* is capable of
>> performance wise to a level beyond and above
>> even BeOS and Windows in some areas.
BeOS from 3 years ago runs circles around today’s linux (even good distros like Mandrake 8/9 and RH 9). What “some areas” are you referring to? You surely aren’t talking about boot-up time and not about GUI responsiveness. Even doing things that should require absolutely no time in linux like pausing/stopping video playback don’t occur immediately. Don’t get me wrong, Linux is great and all but it’s not about to steal any speed records from BeOS. Windows XP is also beginning to mimic Linux’s unresponsiveness lately.
Windows XP is also beginning to mimic Linux’s unresponsiveness lately.
I don’t know why people are complaining of Linux’s responsiveness. It’s quite good when you are using low latency & -ck patches. Then again, I didn’t tried FreeBSD and BeOS…
i’m sorry, if you looking for preformance, you can’t expect it from RH/MDK, try slack/gentoo. and to say Microsoft products are starting to behave like linux is wrong, it makes me wonder if you really use linux. maybe the BeOS of 3 years was better then linux of 3 years ago, but i’m sorry, BeOS isn’t nearly advanced as Linux now.