Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] GNU/Linux Installation Very Simple, Virtual Appliance Make Things Easier

____/ Mark Kent on Monday 31 March 2008 07:54 : \____

> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 March 2008 23:11 : \____
>> 
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> ____/ 7 on Saturday 22 March 2008 19:16 : \____
>>>> 
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Flipping the Linux switch: Disturbingly easy installs, now with sound
>>>>>> and action
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>> | Last week, we walked through installing Ubuntu Linux.
>>>>>> | It's not a particularly hard process, and Ubuntu is great because it
>>>>>> | clearly illustrates the basic steps every Linux distribution goes
>>>>>> | through when it installs on a hard drive. Even if you don't use Ubuntu
>>>>>> | or a derivative, just looking at the installer screenies gives a nice
>>>>>> | story arc to a generic Linux install.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/03/21
>>>>> flipping-the-linux-switch-disturbingly-easy-installs-now-with/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I used virtualbox http://www.virtualbox.org to install Ubuntu
>>>>> in a virtual machine. The virtual Ubuntu can play MP3 files
>>>>> and youtube flash movies just fine - even though it is running
>>>>> PC EMULATION!!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Leaving one idle virtual machine running adds about 10% CPU overhead
>>>>> to a dual core (3800 Athlon) PC.
>>>> 
>>>> Dual core, eh? I never tried these. I assume these are useful only for
>>>> programs that are build to require hardware 'upgrades'. I'm happy with
>>>> primitive sub-2GHz single cores.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's very impressive, though.  I've a dual-core 2.4 G machine, it's
>>> like greased lightning...
>> 
>> I don't see myself upgrading any time soon. I could use more than 256 MB of
>> RAM at home, but that only becomes an issue after a long uptime (sometimes
>> months), in which case memory leaks get aggregated and a lot of swapping is
>> needed.
>> 
> 
> I've never been one for being at the bleeding edge.  It's an expensive
> game, and never-ending.  Linux, by virtue of its modularity and code
> quality, is extremely efficient, and what's more, as the code bases
> improve in design, what tends to happen is that later versions of large
> packages (eg., kde, firefox, even the kernel itself) tend to be leaner
> and faster in later versions.
> 
> I'm hoping that the openoffice.org folk manage to look at efficiency and
> modularity in their code base in due course.

KDE 3 seems to have remains quite constant and KDE 4 is no resource pig. About
Firefox, I know it leaks _a lot_ less (IE is the worst in the regard, with
Safari doing badly too) and is claimed to be fast, but I wonder how they set
the RAM tradeoffs... you know, caching of pagse and other considerations that
don't necessary adjust themselves dynamically to the available portion of RAM.
Mozilla probably will assume more modern hardware.

In KNode, I have great RAM imbalance sometimes because holding the index of
200,000 posts in RAM (all at the same) time requires a more decent machines...
that's why I post to COLA in a bursty fashion.

-- 
                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      | Disclaimer: no SCO code used to generate this post
http://Schestowitz.com  |  Open Prospects   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 119 total,   1 running, 118 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
      http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index