Performance testing (pass 1)

[Joe]

Stephan Schutter wrote:

>  
>
>>>1. If Open Source writes better software; then why is it fatter and 
>>>slower?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>In most cases it is neither fatter nor slower - one might well ask why, 
>>    
>>
>
>Open office was slower on Linux than Windows.
>
Yes indeed,  OO is not your typical linux app - the performance suggests 
that it was written with windows in mind, and ported to linux in a 
mindless fashion. There is no reason why any app should be slower on 
linux than on windows. Take for example a classic 3D FPS like quake 3 
arena. The performance is identical on the 2 platforms, which really 
shows that something like an office suite has no excuse for taking 30 
seconds to start up on linux, especially when it takes much less time to 
start up on windows.

>soooo... this makes it a good choice for the desktop GUI???
>
I don't understand your point - X11 has been the unix GUI framework for 
many years - are you suggesting someone start from scratch and write a 
legacy free windowing system? Well, there are efforts underway, but keep 
in mind also that there are some real good reasons to have the 
capabilities of X11, and it's not going away any time soon.

>  
>
>>- it's a complex and sophisticated client/server, network-transparent 
>>windowing system, whereas on windows you have a simple pc gui: 
>>single-user, and local-only.  you're not really comparing apples to apples.
>>
>>    
>>
>WinXP is multi user. Like 2000 server it has RDP and supports multiple 
>logins... 2000 server (in app mode) and XP (app mode is disabled in the 
>registry) 2003 (app) all have the multiuser kernel. so apples are 
>apples. :=)
>
I think you'd need to have a better understanding of X11 before 
comparing it to pc anywhere or other windows remote GUI solutions - oh, 
and linux can do RDP as well.

>  
>
>>Even so, linux desktop performance is not bad, apart from pathological 
>>cases like yours - and is getting better. Just as all the  server room 
>>shortcomings were addressed, so now the desktop shortcomings are being 
>>addressed.
>>
>>    
>>
>I gave a RHL CD set to one of my coleagues and the first thing out of his 
>mouth was: "it's slow". Hows that for first impressions? 
>
Dunno, maybe he had name resolution issues? that's the most common cause 
for such complaints - but for every such impression I have impressions 
from folks who say it's snappy - although admittedly RH9 did have some 
desktop performance issues compared to earlier RH releases. But I am 
happy to report that the fedora test release seems  much snappier than RH9.

;-)

Joe