The thing I'd like to know is if your running an ftp server, apache, mysql,
postfix, and three million other services. How do you check? at command
line:
services --status-all
If there are a bunch open, that's part of the problem. Your windows 95
system would expire on bootup if it was trying to run even just a few robust
services. Also, be sure you have no hardware misconfigurations/errors. Check
every log in /var/log, but importantly /var/log/messages .. also do a dmesg
| more and look for IRQ conflicts or other such nastiness. Remember, you are
running a system setup for MOST people. If you only want it to do the
equivalence of win95 operations (word-processing, solitaire, maybe telnet
and some web) then you need to trim it down a LOT. I turn off about 50% of
the services enabled by default on my workstations. I also go into
/etc/inted.d and make sure ALL services listed there say disabled when you
do a more <filename here>. Also, for security, make sure you have
/etc/hosts.deny with the following line in it:
ALL:all
If you want to run FTP, Apache or other services, you don't want that line,
so caveat emptor. If you DO want to run Apache and you already ARE, along
with 3 or 4 other services that you want to serve out to others, then shame
on you. Win95 can barely run apache when compiled correctly for it.
> > I'm serious about these questions, not trying to be a smart ass. The
> > story being told is believable to me. But, I keep hearing that Linux's
> > approach of using all available RAM (not paraphrased accurately) is the
> > best approach, yet in a Windows 95 system with 64 MB of memory I can
> > keep 30 IE 5 windows open and get snappy response switching between
> > windows, yet in a Linux (Mandrake 7.2) system with 128 MB of RAM (and
> > comparable processors, identical motherboards and video cards),
> > everything works much slower even with only one window open, and by the
> > time I get to 15 to 20 open (Konqueror 2.0 or 2.1) windows, the system
> > is like molasses.
> >
> > I think part of the problem is theat kde/konqueror need to learn some of
> > the tricks that Windows uses. I can't describe those tricks accurately,
> > but I see the results. One example: in Windows, if I create a new
> > instance of IE, it appears almost instantly, and the disk doesn't make a
> > peep. In Linux, if I do the same thing in konqueror, the disk starts
> > chugging, and 15 to 45 seconds later the new instance of konqueror
> > appears (and on the wrong desktop if I've switched desktops in the
> > interim).
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I want Linux to succeed, but I think some new tricks
> > are needed. (Also, in Linux, if I make some wrong keystrokes, it seems
> > that they are all queued up and executed (slowly) one after the other.
> > In Windows, it seems that if I type (or click) the wrong command, but
> > then type (or click) the right command, the initial incorrect command is
> > interrupted and never completed (at least under some circumstances). I
> > know I am not describing this stuff accurately or completely, but it
> > sure makes a Windows system much more responsive than a Linux system.
> >
> > And yes, "until it crashes" -- but I have learned to watch my resource
> > usage in Windows and reboot once or twice a week whether I need to or
> > not, and thus rarely if ever get a crash. Yes, I would prefer not to
> > have to reboot periodically, but I get more done quicker in Windows
> > between reboots that I do in Linux waiting for the molasses.
> >
> > If you (anyone) can collaborate these stories, and help me get them to
> > the right developers, it would be to the benefit of all of us. I don't
> > know whether these things need to be addressed at the OS level or the
> > desktop level, or someplace else, but someone needs to consider them.
> >
> > (And, if the desktop developers tell me they can do nothing, it all
> > depends on the OS developers, I will not believe them. I might believe
> > that the cleanest fix must be done at the OS level (if that's what they
> > tell me), but I believe that fixes can also be done at lower levels.
> > Perhaps performance can be improved by always keeping a buffer of free
> > RAM large enough to immediately clone a konqueror window. At the
> > desktop level, one or more such buffers can be created, even if you do
> > something dumb like precreating an unused instance of konqueror. Then,
> > when an instance of konqueror is requested, display this one immediately
> > (with no disk chugging). Then start the disk chugging to create another
> > free buffer for the next request.
> >
> > I know these kind of things can be done. I am not enough (or any) of a
> > programmer to do them myself. I imagine all the developers are busy
> > doing important things. Are they aware of and planning to implement
> > techniques like these, or better?
> >
> > If this email has any value, please feel free to copy or quote portions
> > of it to anyone, anywhere, anytime.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Randy Kramer
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
