[News] Telegraph Covers Linux Laptops Story from Africa

Mark Kent wrote:

> Linux performs well on low-end hardware, though.

hmmm... the OS that nobody wants runs "well" on the hardware that nobody
wants.

____/ Mark Kent on Monday 23 July 2007 10:43 : \____

> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups.DeleteThis@schestowitz.com> espoused:
>> Connecting the world [with OLPC]
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| The XO-1's frugal power requirements are due in part to a highly efficient
>>| central processing unit with on-board graphics processor and memory, and by
>>| using microchip memory instead of a hard drive to store data and the
>>| operating system - in this case a version of Linux, the open-source
>>| platform, although a Windows version may be available later.
>> `----
>>
>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/07.../dlchil
>>
>> Don't let Erik watch this. He would accuse these kids calling them spammers.
>
> Why would you want to run Windows on a low-spec machine at all? There
> must be some real masochists around. Linux performs well on low-end
> hardware, though.

It is not just about performance. Think about all the architectures this runs
on. The same software children grow up with is likely to involve into a
wonderful specialised system that serves the /local/ people best, whether they
live in America, in Africa, or in Australia. Should children be forced to
accept the "Aero Glass" paradigm just because one company wants consistency,
control, and 'addiction'?

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | chmod a-r *.mbox
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:20:02 up 36 days, 16:48, 5 users, load average: 1.94, 1.97, 2.26
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:46:42 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Linux performs well on low-end hardware, though.
>
> hmmm... the OS that nobody wants runs "well" on the hardware that
> nobody wants.

Such a blatant lie.

Now vista is an OS that many thought they wanted only to find it
doesn't run many of their apps, support many of their peripherals and
requires expensive HW. Incompatible bloat sums up vista.

Linux + OSS gets updated continously (no 5 year wait), offers more and
more features, better performance / stability / security and runs on
more and more HW from embedded systems to the fastest super computers
in the world.

Windows survives due to lock in by a company proven to have abused its
monopoly position.

p5000011 wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:46:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Linux performs well on low-end hardware, though.
>>
>> hmmm... the OS that nobody wants runs "well" on the hardware that
>> nobody wants.
>
> Such a blatant lie.

100% true.

In the real world (see for instance the customers at www.newegg.com) we're
interested in the latest and greatest: overclocked Intel Core 2 Duos and
QuadCores and GeForce 8800 video cards and 2-4gb of Corsair Dominator memory
and 30" LCD monitors and 1kw power supplies and high-end sound cards. Only
on cola do you find wackos bragging about installing a command-line only,
stripped-down version of Linux on a 10-year old headless Celeron w/ 96mb of
RAM.


> Now vista is an OS that many thought they wanted only to find it
> doesn't run many of their apps,
True

> support many of their peripherals
True

> and requires expensive HW.
Lie. And MS needs to be countering this particular lie, which is repeated
often by Linux hack writers/liars.


> Incompatible bloat sums up vista.
To a degree, yes it does. But it's still better than the nearly 100%
app/game incompatibility of Linux.


> Linux + OSS gets updated continously (no 5 year wait),

There's no doubt it improves year after year, but I recommend they finish
the documentation from 8 versions ago before cranking out another minor
point release.


> offers more and more features,
OK.


> better performance / stability / security
slower performance, marginally better stability, and marginally better
security (than XP SP2 and later).



> and runs on more and more HW from embedded systems
> to the fastest super computers in the world.

Yawn. Who cares? Home users don't have embedded systems or supercomputers.
We want to listen to iTunes and play Prey game and run various Windows-only
apps.



> Windows survives due to lock in by a company proven to have abused its
> monopoly position.

Windows survives due to the strength of Windows Servers, the masterful MS
Office, and extensive 3rd party support (apps, games, hardware). Because
there's so little money revolving around the Linux desktop, that 3rd party
support will never materialize for Linux/OSS in nearly the scale it has for
Windows over the last 16 years.

p5000011 wrote:

>
> Such a blatant lie.
>


Update your blog Culley.

____/ p5000011 on Wednesday 25 July 2007 03:24 : \____

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:46:42 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Linux performs well on low-end hardware, though.
>>
>> hmmm... the OS that nobody wants runs "well" on the hardware that
>> nobody wants.
>
> Such a blatant lie.

Yes, from a troll.

> Now vista is an OS that many thought they wanted only to find it
> doesn't run many of their apps, support many of their peripherals and
> requires expensive HW. Incompatible bloat sums up vista.
>
> Linux + OSS gets updated continously (no 5 year wait), offers more and
> more features, better performance / stability / security and runs on
> more and more HW from embedded systems to the fastest super computers
> in the world.
>
> Windows survives due to lock in by a company proven to have abused its
> monopoly position.

The abuse is working /against/ it at present, so it seems to have retracted
this strategy. It became 'gentler', but it's too late. Developers flock from
Windows to Linux (as shown by a recent survey) and all major OEMs begin to
offer Linux PREINSTALLED.

Microsoft has resorted to squeezing money from poor people in the East and a
few easy targets (e.g. Linspire) in the rival market. When the shopkeeper no
longer open the register, the bully just shoots some knee caps. Microsoft is,
as the OpenOffice.org team said, now "desperate". It looks ahead and it sees
only the opportunity to squeeze money while customers and and developers walk
away.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz \ Spread Mozilla Firefox.
http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 445100k used, 70400k free, 1856k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

On 2007-07-25, DFS <nospam.RemoveThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
> p5000011 wrote:
>
> In the real world (see for instance the customers at www.newegg.com) we're
> interested in the latest and greatest: overclocked Intel Core 2 Duos and
> QuadCores and GeForce 8800 video cards and 2-4gb of Corsair Dominator memory
> and 30" LCD monitors and 1kw power supplies and high-end sound cards. Only
> on cola do you find wackos bragging about installing a command-line only,
> stripped-down version of Linux on a 10-year old headless Celeron w/ 96mb of
> RAM.

But by the same token, what are the *true* requirements of the typical person
walking into BestBuy or Circuit City to purchase a system?
Browsing, email, IM, maybe a few games, a basic word processor and
such. Does that type of person really need the kind of machine you
mention above?
Newegg caters to enthusiasts for the most part, just like Circuit City
caters, for the most part, to average users.
Older machines can be brought back to life with Linux, or people can
just continue to use whatever version of Windows came with the
older system.
The entire hardware upgrade run-a-round is built on hype and the average
person is never going to see much gain out of these super systems for
average tasks.
I would say gamers and people heavily into multimedia would be interested
in the latest and greatest and could benefit from the technology.
A older system running Linux is fine for the rest of the people.

waterskidoo wrote:

>With he exception of the LCD monitors or more disk space,
>how many people actually need to replace their
>current systems with that stuff?

Hell, who needs LCD monitors or more disk space? I never come close
to filling my HD, and my old monitor works fine.

It seems to me that advances in graphics cards are the only truly
compelling reason to upgrade hardware at a "rapid" rate, and for the
those who do not play 3D games, even that reason disappears, making
6-7 years lifespans for hardware quite reasonable.

On 2007-07-26, chrisv <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:
> waterskidoo wrote:

> Hell, who needs LCD monitors or more disk space? I never come close
> to filling my HD, and my old monitor works fine.

LCD monitors are a good replacement for dying CRTs, which the user
of said older hardware is most likely to own.
Disk space for mp3 and other multimedia storage. Who would
have known a few years ago the explosion of multimedia.

> It seems to me that advances in graphics cards are the only truly
> compelling reason to upgrade hardware at a "rapid" rate, and for the
> those who do not play 3D games, even that reason disappears, making
> 6-7 years lifespans for hardware quite reasonable.

Gaming or high end multimedia (encoding/rendering video etc)
is really the only valid reason for average Jane to upgrade.
With respect to gaming, Linux is not really the way to go.
While it's getting better, hardcore gamers will stick with
Windows for the software selection.
Better yet, they will buy a console instead.

waterskidoo wrote:

>On 2007-07-26, chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> waterskidoo wrote:
>
>> Hell, who needs LCD monitors or more disk space? I never come close
>> to filling my HD, and my old monitor works fine.
>
>LCD monitors are a good replacement for dying CRTs, which the user
>of said older hardware is most likely to own.

Of course, but I thought the issue was using old hardware, with the
*assumption* that the old hardware still functioned. If it's
non-functional, replacing it is not really an option, is it?

>Disk space for mp3 and other multimedia storage. Who would
>have known a few years ago the explosion of multimedia.

Okay, I have 200 CD's. How many GBytes of MP3's is that? Can't fill
much of a HD with it, can I?

Most HD's never come close to being filled-up.

waterskidoo wrote:
> On 2007-07-26, DFS <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> wrote:

>> Hence: the OS that nobody wants runs "well" on the hardware that
>> nobody wants
>
> I wouldn't say *nobody*.

The OS that 2% wants runs "well" on the hardware that 2% wants. Better?

On 2007-07-26, chrisv <chrisv.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> waterskidoo wrote:
> Of course, but I thought the issue was using old hardware, with the
> *assumption* that the old hardware still functioned. If it's
> non-functional, replacing it is not really an option, is it?

Systems don't wear out over time, well maybe hdisks do, but in general
they don't.
CRT's have a very specific lifespan in general before they
get fuzzy and just don't work well anymore.


>>Disk space for mp3 and other multimedia storage. Who would
>>have known a few years ago the explosion of multimedia.
>
> Okay, I have 200 CD's. How many GBytes of MP3's is that? Can't fill
> much of a HD with it, can I?
>
> Most HD's never come close to being filled-up.

Not true.
With P2P, grandma's video collection and downloading of video
hdisks get filled up very quickly.
You do realize that the downloading of movies and shows
on cable is huge amongst average Joe.
Much of this gets edited and burned to DVD but still
hdisk space gets used up very quickly especially on
older less capable machines.
If anything is keeping usenet alive it's the binary
groups and now that Joe has discovered that he
can download *lossless* binaries rather than
lossy mp3's and in effect get the exact same
quality as a purchased CD, Joe is in heaven.
All of this takes huge amounts of space and kids
and Joe alike are into this stuff to the disappointment
of the riaa of course.

On 2007-07-27, waterskidoo <water.skidoo DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

To clarify my point, what I mean is that shows that are on cable,
Sopranos, Deadlyist Catch, Madmen etc are very popular
downloads on usenet and P2P. Sorry for the confusion.