After doing some google-fu, I’ve been puzzled further as to how the finnish man has done it.
What I mean is, Linux is widely known and praised for being more efficient and lighter on resources than the greasy obese N.T. slog that is Windows 10/11
To the big brained ones out there, was this because the Linux Kernel more “stripped down” than a Windows bases kernel? Removing bits of bloated code that could affect speed and operations?
I’m no OS expert or comp sci graduate, but I’m guessing it has a better handle of processes, the CPU tasks it gets given and “more refined programming” under the hood?
If I remember rightly, Linux was more a server/enterprise OS first than before shipping with desktop approaches hence it’s used in a lot of institutions and educational sectors due to it being efficient as a server OS.
Hell, despite GNOME and Ubuntu getting flak for being chubby RAM hog bois, they’re still snappier than Windows 11.
MacOS? I mean, it’s snappy because it’s a descendant of UNIX which sorta bled to Linux.
Maybe that’s why? All of the snappiness and concepts were taken out of the UNIX playbook in designing a kernel and OS that isn’t a fat RAM hog that gobbles your system resources the minute you wake it up.
I apologise in advance for any possible techno gibberish but I would really like to know the “Linux is faster than a speeding bullet” phenomenon.
Cheers!
Windows has an entirely different set of objectives. The coders have to layer on so many services that are insisted upon by marketing that no matter how optimised they make the kernel, it’s always doing to be a little boat carrying far too much cargo.
There’s also a lot of fairly reliable rumour that the Windows codebase is very messy. Evolved and complicated, supporting many obsolete things and has suffered from different managers over the years changing styles and objectives. We don’t know for sure because it’s proprietary.
But that said, I use both and find each good for different things. Windows is much more stable than it used to be, and speed is adequate for most things, largely because we’ve become used to buying better hardware every few years.
I never thought of it this way. My first reaction was “What do you mean ‘different objectives’, they’re both operating systems!” But Windows is an operating system with the objective of making profit for Microsoft. Linux is an operating system with the goal of… being an operating system.
It really puts it in perspective. Windows (and Mac) can and will only use useful to the consumer up to a point.
deleted by creator
That is of course where Linux shines - you can have an up to date operating system on 12 year old hardware that is secure, usable and responsive In fact, it’s the only option.
I was actually talking about the royal ‘we’ - generally we have become trained to buy new shiny things. Computers, phones, tvs, every few years. Marketing works, folks. Apologies if it rubbed a bit raw for you.
You’ve accidentally triggered a core thing with me. I’ve done the poor thing, I have actually had zero money and no way to pay rent. I’ve had pretty much nothing at one point in my life. Although I’ve got some spending money now after 35 years of working too hard for it, that never really leaves you - if you’ve been truly poor, then you’ll always be looking for money off deals when buying food, and you’ll always be several steps behind the latest hardware just because it doesn’t feel right to spend that much. The laptop I’m typing this on was one I found in a skip. It’s a HP pavilion about 8 years old. Runs just fine on Debian.
Sounds like a you problem. I’m poor AF working at a grocery store and I still have a decent PC just by buying new parts here and there and saving money where necessary to do so.
deleted by creator