Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Mike McCarty]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 15:25, Mike McCarty wrote:

[snip]

> KDE and Gnome are huge.  Start in runlevel 3 if you
> don't need X, switch to one of the lightweight window
> managers if you do but don't need the extra features.
> Look through Desktop/System Settings/Server Settings/Services
> and turn off everything you don't need.  Most have
> reasonable descriptions but be sure you don't need any
> of the various other services started on demand by
> xinetd (pop/imap/ftp, etc) before killing it.

I don't really think that this is the problem. I think
it's due to memory swap, cache, and flushing memory
to virtual.

>>Not my experience. I have a well-loaded Win95 and a
>>well-loaded Win98 machine, both of which load up
>>Word more than 10x as fast as Open Office loads
>>on my Linux machine.
> 
> 
> Word isn't a fair comparison.  MS cheats by pre-loading
> much of it at bootup.  Compare Openoffice to OpenOffice.

Yes, it is, because WinXp boots faster then Linux.

>>The 300 MHz Win95 machine even pulls it
>>across a LAN faster than my 2.71 GHz Linux box can load OO
>>from its local disc.
> 
> 
> It's not unusual for networks to be faster than local drives,
> and typical if the server side already has the file cached
> from some earlier use.

I use Word about 3 times per year. I don't think it's hanging
around in cache on the server.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!