Fork the linux kernel?

[K.Mandla]

This is a storm in a teacup. If anything, the current performance issues are due to the size of the software that runs on top of the kernel (GNOME, KDE, etc.). I really don't see where people are claiming that the desktop is unresponsive; I've had amarok and gcc taking over the entire CPU time and time again and neither movies nor audio stuttered. If that happens to you you can blame the most likely unoptimizes graphics or audio drivers; worst case de disk I/O scheduler might be to blame.

But c'mon, even with the O(1) scheduler it handles loads much better than any other OS I've seen. At least I can have amarok and konqueror go wild without having to reboot, unlike Windows, where you can get your entire system locked up because Explorer.exe's decided time out on failed I/O next year.

GTK, QT, X.Org and pals are much more likely to blame for performance. Besides, like it's been said, the difference between a server load and a desktop load is quite minimal nowadays, and frankly a masive kernel quagmire for 2% performance increase is simply not worth it. If it is to you, run Gentoo.

Wow. I wish I had written that. Big +1.

[Polygon]

This is a storm in a teacup. If anything, the current performance issues are due to the size of the software that runs on top of the kernel (GNOME, KDE, etc.). I really don't see where people are claiming that the desktop is unresponsive; I've had amarok and gcc taking over the entire CPU time and time again and neither movies nor audio stuttered. If that happens to you you can blame the most likely unoptimizes graphics or audio drivers; worst case de disk I/O scheduler might be to blame.

But c'mon, even with the O(1) scheduler it handles loads much better than any other OS I've seen. At least I can have amarok and konqueror go wild without having to reboot, unlike Windows, where you can get your entire system locked up because Explorer.exe's decided time out on failed I/O next year.

GTK, QT, X.Org and pals are much more likely to blame for performance. Besides, like it's been said, the difference between a server load and a desktop load is quite minimal nowadays, and frankly a masive kernel quagmire for 2% performance increase is simply not worth it. If it is to you, run Gentoo.

i agree with this statement as well. I mean... what is the REAL difference between a server and a desktop/laptop computer? They are both still considered ' computers'... but one usually has a GUI..... but then if your saying that desktop computers arnt responsive. like daishiman said, your starting to get into the real of X/QT/GTK and all that stuff that could be the culprit