[aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table

[Anne McCadden <ironrose@xxxxxxx>]

Maybe the comparision is desktop OS to desktop OS, linux seems to run 
slower than most versions of windoze.  I'm not sure as to why, but I 
have a lot more apps running in the background on the linux machines 
also, so it isn't a very fair comparision.  

A fair comparision is if I was running Win2k server, with IIS and SQL 
running, then the speed that the apps launch would be about the same as 
linux, but linux is much more stable than win2k server.  (Apples to 
apples) If I compare Win-xp pro with linux, then Win-xp pro is faster, 
xp pro isn't running any server or any other apps in the background. 
(Apples to oranges)  ~Anne

John Goerzen wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:05:17PM -0600, Jonathan Hall wrote:
>
>>Free software, maybe.  I don't think Linux should do it.  Call me
>>old-fassioned... but I like Linux on my servers.  It's doesn't make an
>>effecient desktop OS though.
>>
>
>What do you think makes it inefficient?
>
>>Perhaps if we get away from X, that could change.
>>
>
>XFree86 is really a pretty slick system these days.  Applications running
>atop a modern XFree86 installation will do a lot better than those running
>on a plain vanilla X11R6 installation.
>
>Of course, XFree86 is now doing more to advance the state of the art of X
>than the X Consortium / TOG is.
>
>The GNUstep people are also making a lot of nice progress.  GNUstep does run
>atop X, and yet it achieves a lot of the advanced rendering capabilities
>that are available on NeXT and MacOS X environment.  Sorta a best of both
>worlds thing.
>
>-- John
>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>
>


-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi