Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!

External Since: Apr 10, 2007 Posts: 619

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:24:08 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> waterskidoo wrote:
>>
>>> Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.
>>> Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
>>> the kernel. IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.
>>
>> uh huh. And "in theory" Linux should be on everyone's computer,
>> 'cause according to Linux bozos it runs rings around Windows. In
>> reality... well, just open your eyes.
>
> In reality, Linux *does* run rings around Windows. That said, because
> they are not the same, nor do they operate the same, one must apply
> appropriate usage patterns to each to get the best out of them.
>
> As a simple example, in Windows the usual procedure to edit a
> document is to launch your word processor, edit the document, close
> your word processor; if you need to do another document 10 minutes
> later, repeat the process.

Close. What I've observed is the vast majority of times the Windows user
navigates to a folder in Windows Explorer (open full-screen) and dbl-clicks
the document, launching the associated app and document in one step. This
app and document load usually takes no more than two seconds using MS Office
apps.

I would think any reasonably experienced Linux user, that works with
office/productivity documents, would operate the same way.

> That's fine as far as it goes, but it requires certain design
> considerations which give the foreground app a degree of "snap" when
> loading - and those decisions have an impact on the system as a whole.
> Windows' designers chose to provide fast loads at a reduction of
> overall performance; Linux' design took the opposite approach - keep
> overall performance up, while app loads may take longer.
>
> Thus to get the maximal response in Linux is to not pretend it is
> Windows, but to accept that it is a different OS with different
> performance characteristics and treat it as such; in the example
> above, it is better to simply leave the word processor running in the
> background, perhaps on another virtual desktop, so that it is
> immediately available. Unless your machine is severely
> memory-limited, you'll never notice, except when you need the app
> again.
>
> Treating the OSen the same, using the same interaction patterns,
> makes no more sense than trying to drive a pickup and a sports car
> the same way; they have different characteristics, different designs,
> different areas where their performance comes to the foreground.

Except for the first sentence, which is ridiculous and easily disproven,
this post is an example of really good Linux advocacy: keep a positive tone
throughout and calmly describe a difference using an example many people
will relate to. I don't agree with it - it's a waste of resources to leave
apps running all day, and it's a hassle to remember where to go to find
them -
but it's well said.

Note: I'm not going to pretend you're anything but a hostile maniac, but
posts like this are few and far between in the Linux world, let alone on
cola.

External Since: Apr 10, 2007 Posts: 619

Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> waterskidoo wrote:
>>
>>> Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.
>>> Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
>>> the kernel. IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.
>>
>> uh huh. And "in theory" Linux should be on everyone's computer,
>> 'cause according to Linux bozos it runs rings around Windows. In
>> reality... well, just open your eyes.
>
> I dunno, DFS, this 64-bit Linux box screams. It is by far the
> speediest system I have.

Cool. How does it compare to 32- and 64-bit Windows?

>> A solid decade of wasted "Linux potential" is getting real old.
>>
>> I notice in cola la-la land that Linux always wins in the future,
>> always has the potential to best Windows, is in theory better than
>> Windows, is a better gaming platform, etc. Outside of cola these
>> claims have NEVER happened.
>
> You left yourself a lot of wiggle room, except for the last sentence,
> which is, of couse, dead wrong.

Show me.