General TC > General TC Talk
some notes on the philosophy behind TC
bigpcman:
--- Quote from: althalus on June 16, 2010, 10:44:43 PM ---TC will be held back in this regard by being x86 - As long as ARM rules embedded land, TC has no place there.
--- End quote ---
Here's a nice little embedded system module that tc would be well suited for:
http://www.portwell.com/products/detail.asp?CUSTCHAR1=PQ7-M100G
Here's a bunch of Teeny weeny Linux SBCs:
http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/Teeny-weeny-Linux-SBCs/
I agree though snap dragon has got a big position in mobile devices.
althalus:
There are far more atom devices in that list than I expected... I like being proven wrong every now and then. Amusing to note that one of them even had a celeron processor :P
curaga:
Ya, it's battery-powered embedded stuff where x86 so far is a niche. Moorestown will help, but will still lose to ARM.
On Windows system rot, one of the big reasons is the registry. Resident in ram and always growing, how could it not start degrading performance? Linux so far doesn't have one; though gconf comes close. Luckily it's only gnome crap, not present on other systems (or maybe on xfce optionally?).
jamtat:
--- Quote from: althalus on June 16, 2010, 10:44:43 PM ---Bloat has quite a negative impact on apt's performance, in my experience.
--- End quote ---
As a counter-example, take the mythbuntu box that stands behind me right now. I believe it's currently on its 5th dist-upgrade in the mythbuntu release cycle. The OS was probably originally installed 3 years ago, maybe a bit more. I've never seen any degradation in apt's performance on this machine. There are some variables to take into account, though. I did a slight upgrade to the CPU (2.0 Ghz replaced by 2.6Ghz) and RAM (1 GB upped to 1.7 GB). I think the upgrades occurred about a year ago, and I'm prety sure I did three dist-upgrades under the old hardware. I don't recall seeing any appreciable degradation in apt's performance prior to the hardware upgrade, and have definitely not noted any after any dist-upgrade I've done since installing the newer CPU and additional RAM. To reiterate, I've noted zero degradation in performance on this machine since the initial installation/set-up about 3 years ago.
--- Quote ---system rot really only starts happening on bloated systems.
--- End quote ---
I have yet to see any system rot as I've defined it (i.e., as degradation of system performance such as I so commonly saw on Windows machines that had been in use for some time) on any of my bloated machines. Maybe some really sensitive equipment could detect a degradation, but I certainly can't.
--- Quote from: curaga ---On Windows system rot, one of the big reasons is the registry. Resident in ram and always growing, how could it not start degrading performance? Linux so far doesn't have one; though gconf comes close. Luckily it's only gnome crap, not present on other systems (or maybe on xfce optionally?).
--- End quote ---
Another counter-example is in line here. The two-year-old Arch system I cited in my OP for its resiliency and continued stable and effective performance actually uses gnome as the WM/DE (a concession to the technophobia of my wife: personally, I prefer minimalist WM's like dwm--which I have installed on my office computer and netbook). Despite the windows-likeness of gnome's design, it has not caused me anything like the performance degradation issues I used to experience under Windows. My Arch machine with gnome continues to operate just as effectively as it did in the days after I initially installed the OS.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the phrase "system rot" in TC parlance means, not degradation of system performance, but rather serves to villify a (non-minimalist) design philosophy prevalent within the Linux world and with which the TC development community disagrees. For the record, the minimalist TC design philosophy appeals to me as a healthy antidote to current trends in Linux development and computing in general.
James
thane:
"I'm coming to the conclusion that the phrase "system rot" in TC parlance means, not degradation of system performance, but rather serves to villify a (non-minimalist) design philosophy prevalent within the Linux world..."
What brought me to TC was the extreme customization features. I'd been using a Windows box and had come to the belated realization that 95% of my personal computing was websurfing and e-mail, with occasional downloads of mp3 and pdf files. I wanted to see what was the minimal number of apps I could actually get by with. TC and an old Compaq box gave me the chance -- I needed more than a browser but not much.
I've had plenty of experience with system rot on Windows systems, but haven't used other Linux distros for long enough to say if it's a problem with those. Some people think it is and appreciate TC's attempt to deal with it. Not sure what your quarrel with TC's design philosophy is -- there are lots of free Linux distros to choose from.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version