Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time

From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Yaroslav Rastrigin <yarick@it-territory.ru>
Cc: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>,
	Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk>,
	andersen@codepoet.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:07:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1136822827.6659.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200601091656.48355.yarick@it-territory.ru>

On Llu, 2006-01-09 at 16:56 +0300, Yaroslav Rastrigin wrote:
> No. Fully loaded KDE session (without kdesktop and kwin, since I don't
> use first and using my own WM instead of second).
> So almost all necessary libraries are hot and loaded, and all what's
> missing is a dozen of Window's and Pixmap's to allocate and two
> threads to 
> handle events. And it takes seconds, not tens of a second, as in
> UltraEdit case 

Currently Linux performance loading large binaries is at least
perceptually worse than Windows (some of that is perceptual tricks
windows apps pull, some of it real). There is an openoffice.org related
analysis project currently under way to sort that out.

A second problem is the popularity of some very inefficiently written
desktops which badly need a good optimise, a diet and/or stuffing where
the sun doesn't shine. The kernel can only do so much of the work and
comparing xfce4 with gnome/kde shows that the kernel isn't the only
party involved in this....

Alan