Ubuntu 9.10 Off To A Great Performance Start

[deanjo]

Are there actually some sensible corps that don't charge six figures for dead dos-era software?

Ya there are a lot. You just tend to hear about the 6 digit deals more as they are more "news worthy". No different then not hearing about the guy who got mugged vs a bank holdup, which do you think is going to make the news? Plus non-public companies do not have to publish press releases about acquirements like a traded company has too.

[Apopas]

Oh man that is a can of worms that you don't want to get into. It being essential or not isn't really why Loki closed the doors. Piss poor management and some crooked people are responsible for that mess. I'll let Svartalf rant on about that.

Exactly! That's my point, to show that always other things mainly financial and such keep Linux behind, no the way it evolves!

[yotambien]

The majority of this world's personal computers run Windows and are slow, infested with viruses and as stable as cardboards.

That is an outright lie born in the feverish mind of a fanboi. We all read bull like that far more often than we wished; every week there is yet one more would be blogger that posts the same old same old Ubuntu installation screenshots alongside the reasons why you really (really) want to trash windows. They are repeated as a mantra and, at some point, I even think they are believed by those who spread them. The problem, of course, is that they don't hold their own weight. It is interesting how one's own experience can be denied and substituted by religion. My personal favourite is that of 'stability', perhaps because it's just so in your face that I can't believe it's tossed on the table over and over again.

Linux is superior to any other proprietary filesystem, the benchmarks is out there as well as the technology is to test for yourself if you want, that means that the current model of creation indeed works!

I don't think that that is what is being argued. Benchmarks, you say? Maybe, I don't know. I certainly don't run linux because of its speed (or stability, heh). The point beind made is that the continuous code and destroy strategy is not all that great for the users, and that it has repercussions to the adoption of the platform as a whole. If you don't see why it is inherently positive (or even mandatory), to be able to run a program made 15-20 years ago on a current computer, then you are not seeing the big picture and are just thinking in Mr. Joe Average' computing needs--which are fully satisfied with a browser and a music player, anyway, so why on earth bother?

It surely seems that the reason for not having a stable ABI is a political one. There's a point in that decission, but a highly ideological one, and I fail to see how it really is bringing practical beneficts to the users. Of course, you could argue that this is the sort of pressure that companies feel until they decide to, for instance, open their drivers and play nicely with the community.

open source guarantees the code is open and work can picked up at any time.

I lied. THIS is actually my favourite linux fallacy. Somehow, having a bunch of code accessible is the magic bullet that will solve everybody's problems. Our army of coders will take on it and cook the ultimate solution for the masses. Again, sometimes no amount of reality can wake up some minds. The state (and future expected performance) of the open drivers after AMD released the especifications some time ago is one of those situations where reality and myth collide badly.

[deanjo]

That is an outright lie born in the feverish mind of a fanboi. We all read bull like that far more often than we wished; every week there is yet one more would be blogger that posts the same old same old Ubuntu installation screenshots alongside the reasons why you really (really) want to trash windows. They are repeated as a mantra and, at some point, I even think they are believed by those who spread them. The problem, of course, is that they don't hold their own weight. It is interesting how one's own experience can be denied and substituted by religion. My personal favourite is that of 'stability', perhaps because it's just so in your face that I can't believe it's tossed on the table over and over again.


I don't think that that is what is being argued. Benchmarks, you say? Maybe, I don't know. I certainly don't run linux because of its speed (or stability, heh). The point beind made is that the continuous code and destroy strategy is not all that great for the users, and that it has repercussions to the adoption of the platform as a whole. If you don't see why it is inherently positive (or even mandatory), to be able to run a program made 15-20 years ago on a current computer, then you are not seeing the big picture and are just thinking in Mr. Joe Average' computing needs--which are fully satisfied with a browser and a music player, anyway, so why on earth bother?

It surely seems that the reason for not having a stable ABI is a political one. There's a point in that decission, but a highly ideological one, and I fail to see how it really is bringing practical beneficts to the users. Of course, you could argue that this is the sort of pressure that companies feel until they decide to, for instance, open their drivers and play nicely with the community.

I lied. THIS is actually my favourite linux fallacy. Somehow, having a bunch of code accessible is the magic bullet that will solve everybody's problems. Our army of coders will take on it and cook the ultimate solution for the masses. Again, sometimes no amount of reality can wake up some minds. The state (and future expected performance) of the open drivers after AMD released the especifications some time ago is one of those situations where reality and myth collide badly.

Well spoken truth.

[Apopas]

That is an outright lie born in the feverish mind of a fanboi. We all read bull like that far more often than we wished; every week there is yet one more would be blogger that posts the same old same old Ubuntu installation screenshots alongside the reasons why you really (really) want to trash windows. They are repeated as a mantra and, at some point, I even think they are believed by those who spread them. The problem, of course, is that they don't hold their own weight. It is interesting how one's own experience can be denied and substituted by religion. My personal favourite is that of 'stability', perhaps because it's just so in your face that I can't believe it's tossed on the table over and over again.

Whatever you are going to say in that manner it will make sense to the absent minded only! Because I'm sure the vast majority of people who wish to not read more of that bull (as you say) are windows users who are not going to make the switch even if god himself comes down and tell them that they should. Because YES! Windows are run from a lot of guys who don't know/care/interested about computers and such are all the time infected of viruses and thus slow and instable. But unfortunately these guys (whose only copncern is to surf, chat and listen music) don't know that with this other "program" (as they say everything that exist in PCs) is gonna make their life easier.
You can keep argue ofcourse if you wish but I don't wait to read whatever fanboy writes in his blog because I see these things almost everyday with my own eyes on the puters of my young sister's friends and the friends of my old father who pay "experts" to clean their pcs or give hundreds of euros to buy idiot programs rough equivalent to open source ones. YES! The guys who show the old screenshots of Ubuntu and try to persuade the average user to throw their windows in the trash have 90% the truth on their side.

I don't think that that is what is being argued. Benchmarks, you say? Maybe, I don't know. I certainly don't run linux because of its speed (or stability, heh). The point beind made is that the continuous code and destroy strategy is not all that great for the users, and that it has repercussions to the adoption of the platform as a whole. If you don't see why it is inherently positive (or even mandatory), to be able to run a program made 15-20 years ago on a current computer, then you are not seeing the big picture and are just thinking in Mr. Joe Average' computing needs--which are fully satisfied with a browser and a music player, anyway, so why on earth bother?

My point was only to show that since Linux goes well in banchmarks then its evolution goes well as it is and I repeat that the reasons most users to adopt Linux are totally different than computerish... but well, I'm tired of speaking in general. Point me exactly where is that problem in Linux, name these old programs you can't use!

[kraftman]

That is an outright lie born in the feverish mind of a fanboi. We all read bull like that far more often than we wished; every week there is yet one more would be blogger that posts the same old same old Ubuntu installation screenshots alongside the reasons why you really (really) want to trash windows. They are repeated as a mantra and, at some point, I even think they are believed by those who spread them. The problem, of course, is that they don't hold their own weight. It is interesting how one's own experience can be denied and substituted by religion. My personal favourite is that of 'stability', perhaps because it's just so in your face that I can't believe it's tossed on the table over and over again.

Rather then writing crap can you give some real arguments like tests etc?

I don't think that that is what is being argued. Benchmarks, you say? Maybe, I don't know. I certainly don't run linux because of its speed (or stability, heh). The point beind made is that the continuous code and destroy strategy is not all that great for the users, and that it has repercussions to the adoption of the platform as a whole. If you don't see why it is inherently positive (or even mandatory), to be able to run a program made 15-20 years ago on a current computer, then you are not seeing the big picture and are just thinking in Mr. Joe Average' computing needs--which are fully satisfied with a browser and a music player, anyway, so why on earth bother?

Bullshit. You can say the same about nvidia when comes to 'code and destroy strategy' and about many other closed source projects. In example service packs for Windows which break compatibility with some apps, introduce new bugs and regressions. Give some real arguments not just stupid imaginations.

I lied. THIS is actually my favourite linux fallacy. Somehow, having a bunch of code accessible is the magic bullet that will solve everybody's problems. Our army of coders will take on it and cook the ultimate solution for the masses. Again, sometimes no amount of reality can wake up some minds. The state (and future expected performance) of the open drivers after AMD released the especifications some time ago is one of those situations where reality and myth collide badly.

And those VERY IMMATURE AMD OS drivers beat binary blobs in many aspects. You accuse others as fans, but your entire post is like stupid fanboy talk without any arguments.

[yotambien]

Because YES! Windows are run from a lot of guys who don't know/care/interested about computers and such are all the time infected of viruses and thus slow and instable. But unfortunately these guys (whose only copncern is to surf, chat and listen music) don't know that with this other "program" (as they say everything that exist in PCs) is gonna make their life easier.

You are conveniently choosing a particular cross section of users to back up your argument. You must be aware that the majority of computer users run some version of Microsoft OS, and shit works, no matter how you want to paint it. In the two companies I worked for and in my present academic environment, I count with one hand's fingers the number of people using linux. Now, these companies are making profits year after year, and the guys around the department get grants for projects and publications out in a constant manner. I have no heard of viruses, slownesses, instabilites nor any other particular problems related to their computers. Actually, nobody talks about their computers for any reason, they just care--and get--their work done.

You don't have to convince me of the goodness of linux, I am aware and take advantage of them daily; it just happens that I also suffer from its drawbacks and refuse to be blind before those.

My point was only to show that since Linux goes well in banchmarks then its evolution goes well as it is and I repeat that the reasons most users to adopt Linux are totally different than computerish... but well, I'm tired of speaking in general. Point me exactly where is that problem in Linux, name these old programs you can't use!

I got your point. And surely good performance is a good indicator that things are up and running well under certain scenarios. However, it is not the only measure of the overall goodness of the OS. A bad analogy could be made with the different programming languages; if performance was all that mattered, why not do it all in assembly and forget about the slow crap the rest must be?

That _I_ found 1, 10, 100 or none applications that I can't use nowadays is not relevant. I was thinking more than anything else in private companies that, when it comes to weighting out the possibility of adding linux among the supported systems for their applications/drivers, decide that it's not worth it due to the lack of a stable ABI. In any case, to satisfy your curiosity, I did have problems with some code to analyze X-ray diffraction data that is not maintained anymore and it won't run on any reasonably current linux system. Luckily enough, I found an alternative, how long is it going to last?

[kraftman]

However, it is not the only measure of the overall goodness of the OS.

Of course it's not. Linux has much more advantages. In many parts it's far better then proprietary systems and it's free.

A if performance was all that mattered, why not do it all in assembly and forget about the slow crap the rest must be?

Because assembly code will be very hard to maintain. Some of critical parts are actually written in assembler in Linux, but rather of some other reasons then performance.

You are conveniently choosing a particular cross section of users to back up your argument. You must be aware that the majority of computer users run some version of Microsoft OS, and shit works, no matter how you want to paint it.

It matters how things works and if you can get such things for free only fool will pay for them.

I was thinking more than anything else in private companies that, when it comes to weighting out the possibility of adding linux among the supported systems for their applications/drivers, decide that it's not worth it due to the lack of a stable ABI.

Can you backup your statement?

@Deanjo

Well spoken truth.

Bullshit. Only idiot will bring AMD OS drivers as argument here.

[deanjo]

Can you backup your statement?

That was one of the reasons why PTC dropped linux support with Pro/E.

@Deanjo

Bullshit. Only idiot will bring AMD OS drivers as argument here.

OK lets talk about the state of audio or webcams or printers even when the documentation is freely available to linux devs.

[kraftman]

OK lets talk about the state of audio or webcams or printers even when the documentation is freely available to linux devs.

Everything works great here out of the box (except printer, because I don't have it). Without 3rd party drivers. Don't make entropy even bigger then in your previous posts, because you jump from one thing to another too much sometimes ;p.