Linux: It doesn't get any faster • Hacker News Board

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#11

Post by cracki » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 4:41 PM UTC

jncraton wrote: post #3

The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with monopoly. This is pretty flawed reasoning. Sure, Linux is much faster than Windows when it comes to supercomputing and raw processing power, but that doesn't mean that it is a better operating system for everyday users. Linux doesn't have a standardized or…

i'd vote you up more than once if i could. you make valid points and the linux fanboys don't want to hear it.

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#12

Post by surki » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 4:46 PM UTC

LogicHoleFlaw wrote: post #5

jncraton wrote: post #3

The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with monopoly. This is pretty flawed reasoning. Sure, Linux is much faster than Windows when it comes to supercomputing and raw processing power, but that doesn't mean that it is a better operating system for everyday users. Linux doesn't have a standardized or…

Um. Have you ever tried Ubuntu? The "standardized gui" and "desktop environment" are a non-issue these days. The list of non-monopoly reasons for Microsoft dominance is growing thin. Though, I'll go ahead and contradict myself by noting that manufacturers such as Dell are today shipping Linux with some PCs.

May be ubuntu has "standardized gui"(arguably they too have kubuntu, edubuntu..), not Linux. When I want create an application for Linux, I am still baffled with the wide variety of distros and their libs. To start with - (.deb or .rpm etc), (gtk or qt or etc)

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#13

Post by jncraton » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 4:53 PM UTC

LogicHoleFlaw wrote: post #5

jncraton wrote: post #3

The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with monopoly. This is pretty flawed reasoning. Sure, Linux is much faster than Windows when it comes to supercomputing and raw processing power, but that doesn't mean that it is a better operating system for everyday users. Linux doesn't have a standardized or…

Um. Have you ever tried Ubuntu? The "standardized gui" and "desktop environment" are a non-issue these days. The list of non-monopoly reasons for Microsoft dominance is growing thin. Though, I'll go ahead and contradict myself by noting that manufacturers such as Dell are today shipping Linux with some PCs.

I run Ubuntu daily. I love Linux, and I want to see it improve. Linux dominates in the area of raw performance, but that isn't the main thing that matters to an end user.

When I sit down at a Mac, I know exactly how to do everything because all the tools and utilities are organized in a way that I understand. When I sit down at someone's customized Linux machine, it isn't always going to be easy to sit down and actually get work done.

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#14

Post by DanielStraight » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 4:55 PM UTC

jncraton wrote: post #3

The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with monopoly. This is pretty flawed reasoning. Sure, Linux is much faster than Windows when it comes to supercomputing and raw processing power, but that doesn't mean that it is a better operating system for everyday users. Linux doesn't have a standardized or…

You raise the point that should come to everyone's mind as soon as they read that article. Ability to perform well on supercomputers and ability to perform well on desktops or laptops are not necessarily related.

As for Linux not having a standard GUI, "Linux" and Windows are not really directly comparable. I could say that win32 doesn't have a consistent GUI, since it's been used on multiple Windows operating systems. Linux is a building block, not the whole package. Windows is a whole package. Let's compare apples and apples.

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#15

Post by msc » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 5:12 PM UTC

jncraton wrote: post #3

The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with monopoly. This is pretty flawed reasoning. Sure, Linux is much faster than Windows when it comes to supercomputing and raw processing power, but that doesn't mean that it is a better operating system for everyday users. Linux doesn't have a standardized or…

I gave up on using Linux as my desktop, my family just didn't get it, and it was a pain to configure on a laptop I had. The main problem back then was that some hardware manufacturers would not produce drivers for Linux because it wasn't popular, or because of licensing issues. Has this changed much? I do think the GUI was intuitive, the problem I saw at home was that some people drove automatic shift cars their whole life, and they had a problem switching to stick shifts.

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#16

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 5:34 PM UTC

stevecooperorg wrote: post #8

The author suggests that popularity should be related to raw processing power. If his premise was true, Beowulf clusters would be more popular than Nintendo DS's. "The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with monopoly. Nothing shows that better than the semi-annual TOP500 list of the world's most powe…

Quite. It's like saying the Honda Civic is no good because the Terex Titan (world's largest truck) is so much more powerful. Mind you, I have heard exactly that argument from protectionist zealots.

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#17

Post by trezor » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 5:48 PM UTC

I don't remember where I read this, but in respect to the topic raised in this article I remember someone criticized lots of the big players (IBM) for focusing too much on server technology and things which would make Linux scale rather than things which would be useful for desktop users.

As for the article being junk, I see lots of other posters have addressed that already.

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#18

Post by Goladus » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 6:15 PM UTC

How did BSD come in behind windows?

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#19

Post by icefox » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 6:28 PM UTC

surki wrote: post #12

LogicHoleFlaw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um. Have you ever tried Ubuntu? The "standardized gui" and "desktop environment" are a non-issue these days. The list of non-monopoly reasons for Microsoft dominance is growing thin. Though, I'll go ahead and contradict myself by noting that manufacturers such as Dell are today shipping Linux with some PCs.

May be ubuntu has "standardized gui"(arguably they too have kubuntu, edubuntu..), not Linux. When I want create an application for Linux, I am still baffled with the wide variety of distros and their libs. To start with - (.deb or .rpm etc), (gtk or qt or etc)

Yah and when I go to windows I am baffled, (exe or zip), (win32, dotnet, java, qt, mono, com, python, wxwidgets...., visual studio look-n-feel, explorer look-n-feel, Office look-n-feel)

Re: Linux: It doesn't get any faster

#20

Post by scott_s » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 6:54 PM UTC

amalcon wrote: post #4

Don't take this the wrong way, but the article's data doesn't say what they want it to. While it is true that Linux can be stripped down farther than Windows (and thus do raw calculations faster), that isn't necessarily the only reason that supercomputers use Linux. For example, Windows licenses for supercomputers are very expensive, as historically they're server editions priced by CPU count. This is a drop in the b…

Linux installs on supercomputers often aren't "stripped down" when compared to a typical server install. Instead, they're customized, often at the kernel level. A Linux install on a PS3 is mostly just a stock PowerPC kernel and user-land binaries, with some kernel patches for communication with the Cell's SPEs. Such customization is infeasible in Windows. (It's possible, just really hard. You could try to get Microsoft to do it, but that's unlikely. Microsoft does allow certain groups to get access to the source code, but that's not easy. And even with access, I assume it's hard to make changes since, as proprietary code, there's less global knowledge and resources to help you.)

That is the key reason why Linux is used instead of Windows for supercomputers: customization.

As for Linux versus BSD, the short answer is Linux is more popular. The long answer - why Linux is more popular - I don't know.