Linux is Fat
-
At least that's what Nicholas Negroponte thinks for his $100 laptop project
That's a great headline. After all, one of the huge things I've constantly been told by Linux advocates is how it can run on older hardware that isn't powerful enough for Windows. To hear some people talk about it, a 486 DX-50 is a great file server when running Linux.
Just like Windows and Unix before it, and VMS before that, and numerous other Operating Systems, and probably OS X soon, as you try to make the system better, it grows larger. And at some point it starts to require more and more power to keep going.
Now I know it's easier to strip down Linux for the average techie than it is for Windows. Services are easier to disable, but it is possible in Windows and as mentioned, Microsoft is working to get CE to try and fit into this small laptop. I think that's a great idea for a graphical environment, though honestly I'm not sure how a stripped down X-Windows type environment will work on Linux. I assume it will be similar.
I think it depends on what the goals of the project are. I think a text only laptop is a nice tool in some ways, but a graphical display is really required these days to take advantage of the networked Internet. Small scale group collaboration works well in text, though it's pretty much a single tasking environment. Besides, I used Lynx back in 91 to surf the small Internet and hated it.
I couldn't imagine it now.
Steve Jones
-
I agree, the reason O/S's get fat is functionality. Sure you can strip them down (and yes I tried running Red Hat on a 486 DX2-66 and after the 20 minute boot and shutdown it file served just fine). However once you start pulling stuff out they start to become less functional. What about playing a DVD or MP3's. Ooh now I need to make playlists. Now I need to run a Java app. Then there's email and I need to read HTML formatted messages. And since I'm getting email I need a virus scanner. And I need to do this all at the same time.All this equates to fat.
I tried web surfing on that 486 Linux file server and that was no fun whatsoever. So why would I do this to an end user?
By the way I also administer a VMS system. Sure it runs on pretty old hardware. But I can't even ODBC to it. And yes it has email - that can't get attachments or HTML formatted messages.
So I ask all those users who strip down linux to nothing: What are you doing on your systems?
-
Good points. However, we did lots of work with 486-66's and previous. There were many tasks that we could complete. It's as we evolved that we have built so much into the OS that is requires lots of hardware.
I think there are lots of tasks that could still run on older hardware. Granted, probably single duty tasks, but I'd like to see everything integrated into the OS, but optional. Let me build a web server that does nothing but web serving.
Easily.
-
Dear Mr. Jones,
I don't think you've been paying attention to the
modern Linux distributions. There are currently
several distributions that are running on PDA in a
full graphical environment.
I am an adjunct instructor at a college and one of my
students came to my evening class with an old Sharp
Zaurus that uses a Linux QT graphical environment and
it worked as well as the new pocket PC product from MS
and better than the old CE product you mention in your
article. Not only did it perform great as a PDA but he
loaded apache on it and had a running web server in
his pocket (Using his nights and weekend minutes.)
none of this slowed the PDA down.
Yes to do something like this requires extra tech
skills but the pared down version of Linux works
beautifully in a low resource environment. The GUI
options out there are I can't believe will be a
hindrance to the common user and their use of common
applications. I think the $100 laptop project will be
an unmitigated success and will raise the bar for all
operating systems to do a better job with hardware
resources.
I agree in your assessment that more functions beget
more code begets more resource requirements. I
believe however that this project prove system
resources are not being used to there fullest in any
current commercial operating system and with a little
customization the open source community can produce
competitive and in many ways superior products to
standard commercial alternatives.
Thank you for your time
Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum!
101010
-
I don’t think you’ve been paying attention to the modern Linux distributions. There are currently several distributions that are running on PDA in a full graphical environment.
I am an adjunct instructor at a college and one of my students came to my evening class with an old Sharp Zaurus that uses a Linux QT graphical environment and it worked as well as the new pocket PC product from MS and better than the old CE product you mention in your article. Not only did it perform great as a PDA but he
loaded apache on it and had a running web server in his pocket (Using his nights and weekend minutes.) none of this slowed the PDA down.
Yes to do something like this requires extra tech skills but the pared down version of Linux works beautifully in a low resource environment. The GUI options out there are I can’t believe will be a hindrance to the common user and their use of common applications. I think the $100 laptop project will be an unmitigated success and will raise the bar for all operating systems to do a better job with hardware
resources. I should also prove that there is no need for the user to do any more (heavy lifting) configuration wise on a Linux OS than you would find on a MAC or XP system unless that user wishes to do so. The option is in the hand of the user where it should be.
I agree in your assessment that more functions beget more code begets more resource requirements. I believe however that this project prove system resources are not being used to there fullest in any current commercial operating systems The ability that developers have in OS customization with open source systems will provide performance gains on these low resource systems and keep them viable without the user being aware. I think we will see that the open source community can produce competitive and in many ways superior products to standard commercial alternatives.
Yes installing a full Fedora Core 5 on a 486 will be sluggish the same as installing a “Win 2k3 server” on this hardware. However with Fedora I have far more control over what I install to improve my performance. You can see the range that Linux covers. They range from, PDAs and embedded OS’s on routers (linksys home broadband wireless internet routers) to full servers.
If you don’t see a Linux version you like for your hardware. Go look for another one. It’ll be hard not to find one since there are thousand out there. Check distrowatch.com. Don’t let a bad experience get you to believe that all Linux versions are the same. I have a 386 dx running a command line based FTP server and it runs like a champ. I have a 486 dx 66 that we use to surf with and you couldn’t tell that it isn’t a Pentium II +. On both of these systems I configured nothing but the application it is used for.
GUI or CUI if you don’t let MS FUD or bigotry get in the way you’ll be amazed with Linux. I’m an example and an MCSE MCDBA convert to Linux.
-
Cool!
-
Frank,
Excellent points and I may have to pick up an old Zaurus and see if I can get RDP running under Linux
-
I agree the Zaurus was neat. I had 3 doctors get them and had my staff spend over 2 months trying to get them to easily sync with Groupwise. Too bad they don't really work well with many enterprise calendaring apps.
If you have Exchange and Outlook they do sync pretty well. But that would require a Windows Server to run Exchange. Sorry.B
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply