Comparing Windows to Linux

I've just read a community blog on ZDnet, suggesting to stage a face-to-face run of Windows Server installation with Linux installation on the same hardware.

By getting (supposedly) much better results on Linux side, it claims then that Microsoft's claims about "stolen" intellectual property in Linux or other open source projects will be pointless. After all, using the same technology should provide the same results, isn't it?

I just so disagree with this. Understanding that there's so much more to operating system than couple hundred specific technological ideas making me think that implementing the suggested demonstration will not show any effect.

Besides, I probably could understand the reasoning if the difference would become tenfold, but if its consistently about 10% in average? And if Linux system will come worse in some scenarios? It doesn't mean anything at all. Yes, Linux developers may have used (unknowingly of course) some technique "patented" by Microsoft (all the value and meaning of patenting is beyond the scope here), and they even could've implemented it the same way, but then something else in Windows or Linux can cause for one of the systems work slower or faster than the other - and it will have nothing to do with this specific technological issue (patent?).

I just side Linus Tourvalds on this: just let Microsoft show the IP problems, and they will be fixed. If you don't want to show anything, I have nothing to fear about - how do I know you're not bluffing?

Knowing Microsoft I know for sure they bluff a lot.

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu, linux, technology, windows

Choosing a platform for work.

After meeting a friend yesterday and talking a bit about technology with him, and after reading a review today, I had an idea.

I recently understood that most of my "computer"-related work is either already done or can be moved to be totally online. Such a thing would lead me to one of the following (or combination of them):

1. I'm totally online. I never loose my data because I have it online all the time. The only moment when its not there is that split of a second I loose my wireless connection and my data not uploaded yet. I can do my work (or entertainment) anywhere, anytime.
2. I'm totally "dead" without internet connection. My powerful computer has no use for me. I can't access anything. I can't do anything. I'm so addicted to being online, that I have problems figuring out what are computers for. Although my movies and music are local and with me, I have no wish to "consume" them - after all, I can't access my email (don't tell me its unrelated! It is. I am not addicted).
   

Then I've thought about it even more.

We have an internet connection nowadays everywhere. I walk around my neighborhood and I catch easily 10 open WiFi spots. Many can check their email with 3G mobile phones, or even use them to connect to the "real" Internet. Many of those phones are good enough for Internet by themselves. WiMax us promised to come in couple of years give or take. So we have connectivity problem solved. That, probably, also solves me the "problem" with an Internet addiction usage. This means, I can work virtually everywhere anytime.

Now, what bothers me at this point, is the computer itself. I mainly use browser and email. I use simple editor for documents/blog writing. I use simple photo management application. I use somewhat more advanced pictures editing application. I use multimedia players.

These all are hardly resource intensive tasks. But my computer starts to crawl when I open more than 2 apps at a time. Besides, when I'm thinking about installing applications and maintaining the computer, I wonder: why should I invest so much time in it?

So, I know what I want. I want a TV-like usability computer - something that just works. I want a "work" appliance. I want an appliance which is lite, small, convenient, has a long battery life, and fast and responsive. I want to know what it does and how it does it. I want to be able to customize it. I want my computing everywhere with me.

Just like an OLPC with a larger screen and battery life.

-A.

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, OLPC, Ubuntu, apple, technology, windows

Responsive computing required!

Hey all. Thanks for spelling me out the obvious by commenting on my previous post - using swap out of memory is useless.

But I still want my computer to be faster and swap less. I know that today's userspace apps suck and use much unnecessary computer resources, but all I want for my computer is to be responsive!

I remember in DOS days, with much slower computers I didn't have to wait for it. Computers perform tasks much faster that people, so I want to use this tool and I want it to be usable. I don't want to wait for it to do something it "thinks" it needs to. I want it to respond in half of a second to any of my actions.

Is that too much to ask for?
Is it possible to be easily done? Without the suggestion to buy more hardware? If so, how?

-A.

Technorati : Linux, Ubuntu, technology, windows

Geeky Al Gore

While I consider myself a some sort of technically oriented fetish person, I never thought Al Gore is one as well.

Take a look :-)

-A