Linux Faster?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

melteye

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2000
Messages
1,851
As I browse through various forums and websites I always come across those who speak of their linux distribution being less bloated and faster than windows. I am here to seek some clarity.

I have installed Redhat, Mandrake, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, and various others I'm having trouble remembering the names of... every distribution I've used (even the freshly compiled Gentoo) lags considerably in X-Windows. Launching programs, switching windows, browsing, looking at pictures, everything seems to take significantly longer than Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7. This is using an 8800GT with the appropriate drivers and acceleration working.

The only time I've ever noticed an improvement was during heavy multi-tasking when I was using 2GB of memory.

Has anyone else had this experience? Is there any distribution I should check out before I give up on linux as my main operating system?
 
I just love these kinds of posts! I'm not a Linux guru but I play one on TV. Seriously, I've played around with various distros, mainly Red Hat and currently Ubuntu. I've found Linux to be a somewhat faster on equivalent hardware. I've also noted it to be far less functional without a hell of a lot of effort.

With hardware like the my sig rig however, everything tends to be so fast the OS is largely irrelevant. My point is that if you are dealing with lower end hardware, then sure Linux will probably run better than Vista (though Windows 7 might change that). With good modern hardware the running Linux because of better performance is rather pointless for things like web browsing, office automation, etc. There's not going to be much lift there.

Yes, I'm a Windows nut. I personally don't have any need or use for desktop Linux, it's just too far behind Windows in support and capability to be of much use to me.

That said, if cost, licensing, and security from kids surfing for free porn are of concern, then Linux can be very practical. But for performance on modern hardware, no.
 
I've never found any Linux distro save for DSL (Damn Small Linux) that was what I categorize as "fast." Unfortunately, in most day-to-day usage the idea of "fast" is different from person to person. I know Linux enough to be able to install any distro on the planet and do what's necessary for tweaking the performance to the max as many others do, but I will flat out say...

Linux is fucking slow as far as day-to-day usage is concerned compared to Windows.

That's my personal opinion, and I back it up with decades of Windows usage and a shitload of Linux/UNIX stuff to boot. It's just not as well developed and not nearly as fast as the Windows GUI is nor in day-to-day usage, it just isn't.

"That's my story and I'm... stickin' to it..." :D
 
1) Most linux distros which are based around packages like Ubuntu have the software compiled for generic binaries which isn't optimized for you the end user.

2) If you don't properly optimize your kernel again you won't notice much difference.

3) Filesystem you choose can play a role.

There was an article put out that Ubuntu 9.04 can boot in 21 seconds on a sempron.
 
firebane said:
1) Most linux distros which are based around packages like Ubuntu have the software compiled for generic binaries which isn't optimized for you the end user.

2) If you don't properly optimize your kernel again you won't notice much difference.

3) Filesystem you choose can play a role.

There was an article put out that Ubuntu 9.04 can boot in 21 seconds on a sempron.
Click to expand...

The fastest "out of the box" distro I've used besides DSL is Arch, but that's because Arch is precompiled as i686 and damned fast already when you install it. Bit of a bitch learning about it but, the wiki and the tutorials at their website are fantastic and can have even the biggest n00bs up and running - with a window manager and desktop environment too - pretty quick. Damned impressive distro, it really is.

Aside from that, even Gentoo is slow to me after a long compiling routine... I always wonder "Why do people think this damned crap is fast?" :)
 
You take a distro like Ubuntu and Fedora and do a stock install and then compare it with ... XP,Vista then you aint gonna find much speed improvement (though multi-tasking is handled better)

HOWEVER where the power/speed comes from is from stripping stuff out.
There is very little you can/should disable or remove in windows and thus you do not have that much room to tweak it for speed. Add to that the fact you NEED an Antivirus application eats into your system resources

Take my Gentoo setup at home: I have GNOME installed for the wify and she feels at home with it - all those nice automagic things that people have come to expect from "windows" is there plus more BUT all those extra automagic things take services/programs running in the background

NOW when I log in I use openbox+thunar (thunar for automounting) and ZOOOOM its fast and responsive!!! I have stripped out all those automagic things that I don't require/annoy me and just left those which provide value-added for me to use my machine (there are others that take it even further with AwsomeWM)


If you compare recent Fedora/Ubuntu desktop with recent CentOS desktop, the CentOS desktop is alot more responsive because it is using older (but well-maintained) version of the packages more "cutting-edge" distro use, thus it is lacking more of the automagic


so in short Any linux distro can be made to be faster then windows or other linux distro's, it just takes some thought and some time to try new desktops (the key) its all about what you expect or want the OS/WM todo for you automagically - and unfortunetly you don't know until you start disabling :D

Archlinux is nice since it installs the MINIMUM needed for the system to boot (as opose to ubuntu which is filled with crud)
 
melteye said:
Has anyone else had this experience? Is there any distribution I should check out before I give up on linux as my main operating system?
Click to expand...

I've generally found that bootup, login, and the big one....getting to a functional desktop..is generally quicker versus Windows. But overall, once up and running..roughly the same.

Felt the same going back a few years, and even today on my T60P Core Duo 4 gigs of RAM 7,200rpm laptop that's dual booted with OpenSUSE and Vista. A rather lean Vista install with NOD32 too. As time goes on....Vista is showing the typical Windows symptoms I see on my laptops of taking longer and longer to actually complete the bootup and have a functional desktop.
 
Linux is a lot FASTER. It isn't even a debate. Windows "usually" get slower with each release. Linux gets faster.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
I've generally found that bootup, login, and the big one....getting to a functional desktop..is generally quicker versus Windows. But overall, once up and running..roughly the same.

Felt the same going back a few years, and even today on my T60P Core Duo 4 gigs of RAM 7,200rpm laptop that's dual booted with OpenSUSE and Vista. A rather lean Vista install with NOD32 too. As time goes on....Vista is showing the typical Windows symptoms I see on my laptops of taking longer and longer to actually complete the bootup and have a functional desktop.
Click to expand...

I have an R25 Toshiba convertible tablet pc that was originally installed in November 2006. I did upgrade the hard drive from a 5400 RPM to 7200 RPM about a year ago but it seems to boot faster than ever after SP1.

Personally boot times are so dependent on startup processes, disk speed and fragmentation that its not a very useful thing to talk about without a lot of information. Vista auto defrags and I've seen people turn that off as well which is a BIG mistake. And an issue with laptops is that many are set to defrag and the when the things are off, so that's another problem.

Vista systems that don't have a ton of crap and bloatware and startup processes that defrag on a schedule don't slow down at bootup from my experience.
 
You know this site is becoming so bias by people who can't seem get their Linux hardware working. There is no doubt that Windows have more apps to choose and hardware is easier to configure than Linux. However, if we are talking about the speed, Linux is a clear winner. You can bench test 586 to 686 with various hardware specs, Linux will always win the speed test. Even Samba has a lot faster file transfer than Vista. Linux's MS compatible file transfer is FASTER on Linux than Windows. Some Linux distros can boot under 10 secs to a window manger with the recent Linux kernel.

If Windows only people spend more time with Linux, they will understand. Most Windows users give up, because they assume Linux is a Windows drop down replacement. Linux will never be Windows. People have to relearn many things. It isn't a smooth migration like many hardcore Linux users claim. If you understand both OSes, it is very obvious, Linux is a clear winner when it comes to speed. This isn't even a contest. Some modern Linux distros even boot faster than Win98.
 
YAY another Linux versus Windows debate. This comes up at least once every week. As far as which is faster, depending on how you compile Linux, by nature of it's design, it will be faster than windows almost every single time. It's more customizable. As a result, you can tweek Linux to insane levels, there's videos on YouTube now showing people booting up Linux with window manager in under 10 secs and still having most of the services that one would expect in an OS.
 
When being used as a typical desktop, on a marginally modern PC with adequate ram they are going to perform similarly in typical desktop use. If I was to use linux regularly again on a desktop for typical uses, it would be set up in a fashion similar to how I would set windows up. The overhead would end up being nearly the same. Performance differences are not really an issue between Win/Nix til you start talking about low ram situations or outdated processors when it comes to typical desktop uses.
Now, cold boot speed is another matter, dependent on the distro and how much you strip out, and tweak, Nix can boot extremely fast.
 
GORANKAR said:
When being used as a typical desktop, on a marginally modern PC with adequate ram they are going to perform similarly in typical desktop use. If I was to use linux regularly again on a desktop for typical uses, it would be set up in a fashion similar to how I would set windows up. The overhead would end up being nearly the same. Performance differences are not really an issue between Win/Nix til you start talking about low ram situations or outdated processors when it comes to typical desktop uses.
Now, cold boot speed is another matter, dependent on the distro and how much you strip out, and tweak, Nix can boot extremely fast.
Click to expand...

This is spot on. With modern hardware Linux will by very little if anything in terms of performance once booted.
 
in my experience, your typical linux installation will run pretty much the same as windows on equivalent hardware....

in terms of being "faster", linux wins hands down when you get into the more lean installation configurations, and especially on super old hardware (like 600mhz Pentium 3 and below) when you use GUIs like the *boxes and customize the packages that are installed yourself....
 
I got a bit bored of convincing people to try the 60 days Linux experience. It isn't for everyone. I enjoy testing various OSes. Testing OSes is probably a favorite part of technology for me. Linux is superior in every hardware even mainframes. There is a good reason the fastest website in the world, Google uses Linux servers. However, like I said it isn't for everyone.
 
dude... i think people would take you more seriously if you used better grammar/sentence structure...

*not a grammar nazi, but sheesh...
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
dude... i think people would take you more seriously if you used better grammar/sentence structure...

*not a grammar nazi, but sheesh...
Click to expand...

You are right. Oh, but I always thought you are a serious newbie who likes to chime in with BS answers. Maybe, next time you should offer a clear technical response.
 
My Linux distro of choice is openSUSE using KDE3 and I find it to be a bit quicker overall than Windows OSes. It's not an amazing difference but it is something I notice. My config for openSUSE is similar to how I would have a Windows OS setup as well.

I do not tweak the kernel but I do kill startup processes I do not need and things of that sort. I also tweak UI settings and just about anything else I feel like. It seems to me, the memory management of Linux is a lot better than Windows, this includes Vista and 7, especially when I take into account that Linux very rarely hits my swap partition and keeps everything in RAM on the rig in my sig. It may not preload a bunch of stuff into RAM at startup like Superfetch does, but that doesn't really affect me at all as I rarely shut down my systems or even reboot. However, Linux does keep things in RAM even after the program is closed until the RAM is needed for something else. I actually find that many programs seem to startup faster under Linux compared to Windows. One of the most easily noticed is Firefox. I use the same profile on both OSes which means the same extensions and preferences but it takes less time for the browser to start under Linux. I can't explain it, but the difference is there.

However, once you talk about pure hardware limitations such as video encoding and distributed computing programs, I don't notice any real difference in speed between the two for the most part. There are some exceptions such as the F@H SMP client which was originally built with Linux in mind and the port to Windows isn't perfect. I also take into account using different video encoding programs and different settings which I might use between Windows and Linux and that can cause a difference in speed.

Basically, the huge difference between the two is customization. It's a hell of a lot easier to customize Linux and there are a hell of a lot more options to customize compared to Windows. Windows is designed to run one basic setup for everything and no major changes can easily be done to streamline it. Because of that, it's rather difficult to speed up Windows like you can Linux.

 
requiemnoise said:
I got a bit bored of convincing people to try the 60 days Linux experience. It isn't for everyone. I enjoy testing various OSes. Testing OSes is probably a favorite part of technology for me. Linux is superior in every hardware even mainframes. There is a good reason the fastest website in the world, Google uses Linux servers. However, like I said it isn't for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the reason is Linux is free - paying the money it would require in licensing fees for what, 127,000 servers running Windows Server or even OSX Server... geez, even Microsoft couldn't afford to do that. ;)

ps
As most people, especially the n00bs, don't get my sense of humor sometimes, that is a JOKE and is meant as such...
 
heatlesssun said:
I have an R25 Toshiba convertible tablet pc that was originally installed in November 2006. I did upgrade the hard drive from a 5400 RPM to 7200 RPM about a year ago but it seems to boot faster than ever after SP1.

Personally boot times are so dependent on startup processes, disk speed and fragmentation that its not a very useful thing to talk about without a lot of information. Vista auto defrags and I've seen people turn that off as well which is a BIG mistake. And an issue with laptops is that many are set to defrag and the when the things are off, so that's another problem.

Vista systems that don't have a ton of crap and bloatware and startup processes that defrag on a schedule don't slow down at bootup from my experience.
Click to expand...

Could be going from 5400rpm to 7200rpm gave you that nice feeling of "boots up now faster than ever". ;)

This is a lean mean clean install of Vista, no bloatware...I run my PCs tighter than a nats arse. Default Vista settings are far as services...non killed like auto defrag, no bloatware, no toolbars, believe me, she's lean. I just notice laptops that I travel with get an increasingly long "from login to functional desktop" time....but I believe that's probably due to the increasingly large number of networks I connect to..often wirelessly, as I travel to different clients. I think WCZ runs through the growing list checking each one looking for a connection.

My several desktop Vista rigs remain steady in bootup/login, and they don't travel.
 
When I was using Windows XP, Debian appeared to run very smooth over XP. I recently reloaded Ubuntu on another computer and comparing it to my Vista machine, it doesn't seem to be faster but opening up programs (ie., FireFox) takes longer.

It's probably due to a few reasons but on a fresh install with default options, that's what happens.
 
Joe Average said:
Yeah, the reason is Linux is free - paying the money it would require in licensing fees for what, 127,000 servers running Windows Server or even OSX Server... geez, even Microsoft couldn't afford to do that. ;)



ps

As most people, especially the n00bs, don't get my sense of humor sometimes, that is a JOKE and is meant as such...
Click to expand...



Oh right... Windows servers have came so far with their take on distributed and parallel computing. Yea, kids and corporations go nuts for a screensaver parallel computing. If a large website uses MS servers, they probably have to replace their webservers every few years, because it has no support for various modern technologies. I wonder why Ebay’s technology budget is incredibly high in the recent six years and the original CEO got canned for unable to keep the operating cost low. Oh, NASA wouldn’t have discovered various things without Beowulf.
 
requiemnoise said:
Oh right... Windows servers have came so far with their take on distributed and parallel computing. Yea, kids and corporations go nuts for a screensaver parallel computing. If a large website uses MS servers, they probably have to replace their webservers every few years, because it has no support for various modern technologies. I wonder why Ebay’s technology budget is incredibly high in the recent six years and the original CEO got canned for unable to keep the operating cost low. Oh, NASA wouldn’t have discovered various things without Beowulf.
Click to expand...

/me hands requiemnoise yet another Enter key, and a copy of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" just for good measure.

You need a break from this place, seriously. :D
 
heatlesssun said:
I just love these kinds of posts! I'm not a Linux guru but I play one on TV. Seriously, I've played around with various distros, mainly Red Hat and currently Ubuntu. I've found Linux to be a somewhat faster on equivalent hardware. I've also noted it to be far less functional without a hell of a lot of effort.

With hardware like the my sig rig however, everything tends to be so fast the OS is largely irrelevant. My point is that if you are dealing with lower end hardware, then sure Linux will probably run better than Vista (though Windows 7 might change that). With good modern hardware the running Linux because of better performance is rather pointless for things like web browsing, office automation, etc. There's not going to be much lift there.

Yes, I'm a Windows nut. I personally don't have any need or use for desktop Linux, it's just too far behind Windows in support and capability to be of much use to me.

That said, if cost, licensing, and security from kids surfing for free porn are of concern, then Linux can be very practical. But for performance on modern hardware, no.
Click to expand...

I disagree about the not needing to be fast for the web comment. On my spare PC with an Athlon 3200+ and GeforceFX 5600 256mb, full screen flash videos run like slide shows. It's perfectly fine in XP :p
 
eeyrjmr said:
HOWEVER where the power/speed comes from is from stripping stuff out.
There is very little you can/should disable or remove in windows and thus you do not have that much room to tweak it for speed. Add to that the fact you NEED an Antivirus application eats into your system resources
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Joe Average said:
Yeah, the reason is Linux is free - paying the money it would require in licensing fees for what, 127,000 servers running Windows Server or even OSX Server... geez, even Microsoft couldn't afford to do that. ;)
Click to expand...
MS would wet themselves if google ran on MS software. They'd cut google such a deal that MS would probably be paying google for every installation.

Cost isn't a factor. Neither is customization, really. google is big enough to warrant special access to windows source. That only leaves the inherent speed of the underlying kernel and politics. I'd say it boils down to about 50/50 of each.
 
Azhar said:
I disagree about the not needing to be fast for the web comment. On my spare PC with an Athlon 3200+ and GeforceFX 5600 256mb, full screen flash videos run like slide shows. It's perfectly fine in XP :p
Click to expand...

possibly a driver problem?

my pentium m at 1.2ghz and an intel GME 855 can run full screen flash no problem under linux....
 
Windows vs Linux troubleshooting.

Issue 1 with Windows
User1: How do I fix this problem?
Support: Did you reboot and modify the registry?
User1: Which one? I only wanted to fix this registry issue. I searched the web for CSID {09343984843984398OZZ} and found nothing. Also, what the hell is {47547200fdff}?
Support: Have you tried reformatting your drive?

Issue 1 with Linux
User1: No need to ask. Just search within Google for various Linux forums. So what to search? If the issue is Ubuntu Hardy will not load the Bluetooth service, search “ubuntu hardy” bluetooth startup. If you don’t find a fix, it will be coming soon. Once a developer has a similar chipset and hardware, he will be soon working on a fix and document the changes in his/her blog.
 
Azhar said:
I disagree about the not needing to be fast for the web comment. On my spare PC with an Athlon 3200+ and GeforceFX 5600 256mb, full screen flash videos run like slide shows. It's perfectly fine in XP :p
Click to expand...

Upgrade to Adobe 10.
 
requiemnoise said:
Windows vs Linux troubleshooting.

Issue 1 with Windows
User1: How do I fix this problem?
Support: Did you reboot and modify the registry?
User1: Which one? I only wanted to fix this registry issue. I searched the web for CSID {09343984843984398OZZ} and found nothing. Also, what the hell is {47547200fdff}?
Support: Have you tried reformatting your drive?

Issue 1 with Linux
User1: No need to ask. Just search within Google for various Linux forums. So what to search? If the issue is Ubuntu Hardy will not load the Bluetooth service, search “ubuntu hardy” bluetooth startup. If you don’t find a fix, it will be coming soon. Once a developer has a similar chipset and hardware, he will be soon working on a fix and document the changes in his/her blog.
Click to expand...

How's that fantasy world you're living in? :rolleyes:
 
I've unleashed a torrent of bullshit apparently ;-) My apologies for that. I find it strange that I said I've installed and used Gentoo which was compiled optimized for my hardware and people still mentioned that linux being slower is due to generic binaries...

As far as the people responding "linux is faster" without any data or references isn't very convincing. I have run many many distributions both generic and optimized and for everyday activity it is noticeably slower.

My post: In my experience linux distributions seem slow for everyday activies. Why are people saying its faster?
Response: Linux is faster!

Yes... that was highly scientific wasn't it. I was looking for advice about distributions before I abandon linux as a non-server operating system. I like the technical community and the licensing better but the elitism and misinformation that seems to be associated with the community is a bit annoying.
 
eeyrjmr said:
You take a distro like Ubuntu and Fedora and do a stock install and then compare it with ... XP,Vista then you aint gonna find much speed improvement (though multi-tasking is handled better)

HOWEVER where the power/speed comes from is from stripping stuff out.
There is very little you can/should disable or remove in windows and thus you do not have that much room to tweak it for speed. Add to that the fact you NEED an Antivirus application eats into your system resources

Take my Gentoo setup at home: I have GNOME installed for the wify and she feels at home with it - all those nice automagic things that people have come to expect from "windows" is there plus more BUT all those extra automagic things take services/programs running in the background
Click to expand...

Wait... so you're saying that indeed linux isn't much faster than windows off the bat and to actually benefit from the switch I have to remove features that may decrease productivity and actually slow me down later when I am upgrading?

I'm not sure anti-virus applications such as NOD32 with less than 1% overhead would change the circumstances by much.
 
requiemnoise said:
If Windows only people spend more time with Linux, they will understand. Most Windows users give up, because they assume Linux is a Windows drop down replacement. Linux will never be Windows. People have to relearn many things. It isn't a smooth migration like many hardcore Linux users claim. If you understand both OSes, it is very obvious, Linux is a clear winner when it comes to speed. This isn't even a contest. Some modern Linux distros even boot faster than Win98.
Click to expand...

I've been multi-booting various windows and linux installations for quite some time now (10+ years) and I've spent many hundreds of hours working in linux at both work and home. I still don't "understand". I see linux as a very viable operating system for servers, databases and for outdated machines... I still don't see how anyone with decent hardware would want to run linux outside of licensing issues much less brag about its performance compared to windows for daily activities.

This thread was not intended to bash linux. I am honestly trying to understand the reasoning behind many peoples choices on these forums.

There is no question if you are hosting a server or do heavy computing (engineers and scientists) linux can benefit you considerably. Even when this day arrives for me I will still be dual-booting windows for everything else.
 
To simply say something is faster is totally meaningless without context. One can say that Linux boots faster and be correct but then how does that correlate to a real activity like working on photos or playing a game or surfing the web?
 
melteye said:
I've unleashed a torrent of bullshit apparently ;-) My apologies for that. I find it strange that I said I've installed and used Gentoo which was compiled optimized for my hardware and people still mentioned that linux being slower is due to generic binaries...

As far as the people responding "linux is faster" without any data or references isn't very convincing. I have run many many distributions both generic and optimized and for everyday activity it is noticeably slower.

My post: In my experience linux distributions seem slow for everyday activies. Why are people saying its faster?
Response: Linux is faster!

Yes... that was highly scientific wasn't it. I was looking for advice about distributions before I abandon linux as a non-server operating system. I like the technical community and the licensing better but the elitism and misinformation that seems to be associated with the community is a bit annoying.
Click to expand...

If you really want to understand Linux, you really have to understand why certain distros exist. You have to research each companies or developers history. Yes, it is a burden to understand, but that is part of understanding Linux. Maybe, the creation of too much freedom caused many headaches to new users. There are practically no revenue to be earned as a Linux developer unless you belong to the big supported groups. Most Linux revenue is earned from companies who offer commercial supports. Many IT tests are supported by Microsoft. The large independent studies require funding. There are various fan boy stats you will encounter if you search the internet. Most people will assume these fan boys are bias. I guess you can clearly see, it is very hard to get the words out without the money in the technology business.

If you are a fan of tradezines, you will mostly get the wrong information. Tradezines exist to sell ads. Linux is free, developers will not pour their entire savings to expose their products if they don't even have a revenue model. Every commercial companies exist to support and feed their employees, so why would they constantly support Linux unless they found a niche revenue market for it? When the developers who moonlight as a Linux developer at night has enough money to fund a test by large IT research firms? There are great CEOs like Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu) who has poured few millions with constant loss for many years. How long Ubuntu will survive with a constant loss is unknown. They took hardcore Linux like Debian and made it a lot easier.

The information you seek are available everywhere on the net. But, it is good idea to know Linux is the kernel. How they operate is up to developers who package them. If you search around, there will be even a large debate based around Fedora vs Ubuntu's speed test. These speed charts change after each new releases as the kernel, window managers, X, and apps run on top it constantly go through changes. Also, each distros have their own philosophies. Some are cater to newbies, hackers, servers, 100% open, speed, etc. Anyway, you will find your information if you look around. Unless you are asking us to search the links for you.
 
requiemnoise said:
If you really want to understand Linux, you really have to understand why certain distros exist. You have to research each companies or developers history. Yes, it is a burden to understand, but that is part of understanding Linux. Maybe, the creation of too much freedom caused many headaches to new users. There are practically no revenue to be earned as a Linux developer unless you belong to the big supported groups. Most Linux revenue is earned from companies who offer commercial supports. Many IT tests are supported by Microsoft. The large independent studies require funding. There are various fan boy stats you will encounter if you search the internet. Most people will assume these fan boys are bias. I guess you can clearly see, it is very hard to get the words out without the money in the technology business.

If you are a fan of tradezines, you will mostly get the wrong information. Tradezines exist to sell ads. Linux is free, developers will not pour their entire savings to expose their products if they don't even have a revenue model. Every commercial companies exist to support and feed their employees, so why would they constantly support Linux unless they found a niche revenue market for it? When the developers who moonlight as a Linux developer at night has enough money to fund a test by large IT research firms? There are great CEOs like Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu) who has poured few millions with constant loss for many years. How long Ubuntu will survive with a constant loss is unknown. They took hardcore Linux like Debian and made it a lot easier.

The information you seek are available everywhere on the net. But, it is good idea to know Linux is the kernel. How they operate is up to developers who package them. If you search around, there will be even a large debate based around Fedora vs Ubuntu's speed test. These speed charts change after each new releases as the kernel, window managers, X, and apps run on top it constantly go through changes. Also, each distros have their own philosophies. Some are cater to newbies, hackers, servers, 100% open, speed, etc. Anyway, you will find your information if you look around. Unless you are asking us to search the links for you.
Click to expand...

O. M. G.

He split his post... into... are those paragraphs? Wow... Obama... and now this... I don't know how much more I can take. :D

</severe_sarcasm_tangent>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top