In my experience, every computer is faster with Linux than with Windows. But if this measures just the processor performance on similar tasks I guess it’s news.
I think it comes down to the culture. A minuscule improvement to a file system is big news in the Linux community. There’s also lots of academic interest in the performance critical parts of the kernel that you just can’t emulate with a closed source model. Is anyone writing papers on how to obtain a 2% improvement in the task scheduler on Windows?
Linux dominates the server market, so even small improvements matter when you’re talking about a server farm with thousands of machines or the latest supercomputer. Many, many people care about the scalability of Linux. On Windows, we say: NTFS? It’s good enough. The user won’t notice on modern SSDs.
A lot of the software components under the hood in Linux are replaceable.
So you have a bunch of different CPU and disk IO schedulers to suit different workloads, the networking stack and memory management can be tweaked to hell and back, etc etc.
I’m not sorry that the CIA is using your closed-source software you mistakenly thought you owned anything because you paid way too much for anyone else to actually control your shit, you ignorant slave.
Edit: You’re a bunch of ignorant fuckwads. You can’t read shit and know who’s on what side because your sensitive to sarcasm and blatant…nevermind. Fuck off.
Add comment