Linux scheduler

Yes, which again is quite admirable given how little effort has been made (commercially) to push it towards the desktop. Compare that to the money/efforts made in pushing linux into the server and embedded devices market. There is simply no comparison.

Your entire premise is that Linux has been pushed hard as a desktop OS and has failed, while totally ignoring that practically all the money spent on linux development has been in the areas of servers and embedded devices, simply because there’s really no money in the Linux desktop.

It took a rich guy (Shuttleworth) to actually get some traction for Linux on the desktop through Ubuntu, and I have seen nothing indicating that he is making money from Ubuntu.

While Linux desktop does not offer the same desktop experience that you would be accustomed to with Windows or OSX, I am willing to sacrifice that for the benefits of a free fast and lean system of which I have total control. I perfectly understand if other people doesn’t. Obviously I’d prefer to have all these AND a better desktop experience, and this is what Haiku holds for me.

Now, having seen your posts here and on OSNews, I know you have a grudge against Linux and people who use it. And I’ve seen many more here on Haiku-os.org which are (judging by their comments) more interested in pouring hate over Linux than pouring love over Haiku, which is just sad. I’m not surprised that so few Haiku developers ever venture here.

Linux hasn’t tried to be on the desktop ? Really ? Its been a client system for a long time. I don’t think anyone here Hates linux. I think most of us see the flaw in the idealogy of its development and belive that its never going to really be good at anything but server applications. As for linux embeeded,well depends on the embeeded enviroment of which you speak,. There are plenty of embeeded MCU’s in all manner of products that will never see linux, nor would it be a good idea. The only thing helping linux today is the open liscense and the fact that phone manufacturers have really latched onto it. Which I suspect will change when sub1w x86 arrives mid next year in bulk and cheap and they can drop the exstensive costs and can simply load a stripped down version of x86 win7 and then they have a wider marketing platform.

  While freedom can be a good thing, its not always the best thing.

To truly develope a good product, someone has to have the vision to build it.

[quote=Rox][quote=tonestone57]
, meaning it has a presence in the desktop (home) market.
[/quote]
Yes, which again is quite admirable given how little effort has been made (commercially) to push it towards the desktop. Compare that to the money/efforts made in pushing linux into the server and embedded devices market. There is simply no comparison.

Your entire premise is that Linux has been pushed hard as a desktop OS and has failed, while totally ignoring that practically all the money spent on linux development has been in the areas of servers and embedded devices, simply because there’s really no money in the Linux desktop.

It took a rich guy (Shuttleworth) to actually get some traction for Linux on the desktop through Ubuntu, and I have seen nothing indicating that he is making money from Ubuntu.

While Linux desktop does not offer the same desktop experience that you would be accustomed to with Windows or OSX, I am willing to sacrifice that for the benefits of a free fast and lean system of which I have total control. I perfectly understand if other people doesn’t. Obviously I’d prefer to have all these AND a better desktop experience, and this is what Haiku holds for me.

Now, having seen your posts here and on OSNews, I know you have a grudge against Linux and people who use it. And I’ve seen many more here on Haiku-os.org which are (judging by their comments) more interested in pouring hate over Linux than pouring love over Haiku, which is just sad. I’m not surprised that so few Haiku developers ever venture here.[/quote]

[quote=The123king]windows 7 will never run on a phone. It’s failing hard on the tablet front. You have some terrible ossesion that x86 is the best processor architecture…

Do you work for Intel or something?[/quote]

As ARM gains more instruction power IE ARM64 its one little glimmer of advantage makes it more like x86. In fact some things just don’t make sense on ARM. I don’t work for Intel/AMD etc, but the software ecosystem is all about x86 " and will remain so for the forseeable future" from client to server and if your in the bussiness of running a bussiness. A flat ISA is more about reducing maitenance costs then anything else.

BTW WIN7 will be on tablets. And the new APU’s from AMD will do a much better job then the POS that was ATOM, which Intel will improve.I am more then betting the new AMD APU will completely change the tablet market and the newer sub and 1w APU’s will resolve the nagging competition issue with x86 in the phone market.

ARM is out of time and the one small advantage it did have will be over when longer words are invovled. Amdahls law commands it.Henceforth, more instruction power creates x86, which is why x86 beat arm in the first place.

windows 7 will never run on a phone. It’s failing hard on the tablet front. You have some terrible ossesion that x86 is the best processor architecture…

Do you work for Intel or something?

#1
"Your entire premise is that Linux has been pushed hard as a desktop OS and has failed"
Wrong!!! You even quoted me in your first reply but now you are making things up as you normally seem to do. Please look at my posts in this thread and quote me where I say it was pushed hard.
tonestone wrote "Linux has been pushed for the desktop since the very start."
I even proved this statement by telling you about Slackware, Debian and Red Hat. I never said pushed hard anywhere in my posts. That was you!!! I said, Linux was pushed or promoted as a desktop OS from the early years (the start). You disagreed that Linux was targeting desktop market because it never became popular and desktop users were only a side effect. According to you, Linux must be popular on desktop to be considered a real desktop OS. I even asked you what percentage of market Linux would have to get and you never answered. Popularity does not decide which market is targeted!

#2
You are the one that is fixated on Linux popularity. From my first post I was talking about Linux targeting the desktop market and Wikipedia says the same. You have been going on and on about how unpopular Linux is on the desktop and I agreed with this but I said Linux was still marketing (targeting) the desktop. Something you can’t seem to comprehend. Not sure what you’re trying to prove. The fact is that Linux is a desktop OS and marketed as such, from 1994 with the distros I stated, which you disagreed with. I said it was pushed (marketed) from 1994 as being desktop OS and nothing about how hard or strongly Linux was pushed/marketed. That was you. How do you get pushed hard from pushed from the very start??? Linux would have almost no desktop users today if distros were only for server or embedded systems like you keep saying.

#3
"Now, having seen your posts here and on OSNews, I know you have a grudge against Linux and people who use it."
That is very interesting because I haven’t posted to OSNews in a very long time like over 2 or 3 years. So, either you have me confused with someone else you hate or you recall my very old posts (which I can’t recall myself) and held a long time grudge against me (meaning you’re a vindictive person). Yes, I have posted to some Linux threads here recently telling people that Linux is a good OS overall (I’ve used for many years myself) and not to bash it because different. Now I use Windows 7 mostly and very happy and maybe why you started attacking me. Haiku developers don’t venture here to deal with users like you who give others a hard time. I never said Linux was popular for desktop but you constantly go on about this because in your mind I must have. The issue I pointed out was Linux is a desktop OS too! I proved Linux is for desktop by giving references and quotes. The issue was never about popularity of Linux on desktop or the actual desktop experience offered by Linux. You continued to steer the conversation that way and avoid saying you were wrong. Linux is also for desktop and been marketed like that since 1994 with distros whether you like it or not. And, on top of that, you bashed me in two different posts calling me a Linux hater and troll. You actually come off as the real Linux hater saying not meant for desktop OS (just side effect) but distros have been stating since 1994 that Linux is meant for the desktop too.

[quote=tonestone57]
I even proved this statement by telling you about Slackware, Debian and Red Hat. I never said pushed hard anywhere in my posts. That was you!!! I said, Linux was pushed or promoted as a desktop OS from the early years (the start). You disagreed that Linux was targeting desktop market because it never became popular and desktop users were only a side effect.[/quote]
No, while the ‘hard’ part was obviously a misquote by me, there’s quite a difference here when it comes to ‘targeting’. That mainly volunteers have created distros where they combine packages from the open source ecosystem with the linux kernel in order to create a desktop OS does not make it as if the Linux (kernel) has been pushed or promoted as a desktop os from the very start. The industry that grew around Linux grew based upon it’s strenghts, and that was as a server and embedded devices, NOT the desktop. Likewise if there is a industry that grows our of Haiku (yes please!) it will not be as a server and most likely not in the embedded device sector either.

No, actually I think Linux is surprisingly popular on the desktop despite how extremely little work on Linux (kernel) that has been done towards improving the desktop experience. Like I said I’d be ecstatic if Haiku would reach the same amount of desktop users that Linux has. Being entirely aimed at the desktop Haiku/Beos offers a desktop experience that Linux can (in my opinion) never reach, however the lack of hardware/software support is what’s stacked against Haiku, which is a direct result of having a small amount of developers.

Where did I say that? You seem to have problems separating Linux (kernel) from distro’s (kernel combined with different software packages). I’ve never said distros where only for server or embedded systems, quite the contrary 99% of distros are probably aimed at desktop use, but anyone can make a distro, which is why there’s so many of them (a reality Haiku will likely face should it grow in popularity). But how many of these distros are used in the industries were Linux is huge? These are primarily the result of volunteer communities who wishes to use Linux + a combination of packages on their desktop, not the result of the Linux devs wanting to see Linux make a splash on the desktop market (again Con Kolivas who you referred to left kernel development due to the lack of interest there in improving the kernel for desktop use, should ring a bell).

And likewise if there’s suddenly a number of community Haiku ‘server’ distros then it doesn’t mean that Haiku is actually targeting the server market, because the programming work that goes into Haiku is aimed at improving it for desktop usage, the vast majority of work that has gone into Linux by contrast has been aimed at improving it for server/embedded usage, see the difference?

[quote=tonestone57]
That is very interesting because I haven’t posted to OSNews in a very long time like over 2 or 3 years. So, either you have me confused with someone else you hate or you recall my very old posts (which I can’t recall myself) and held a long time grudge against me (meaning you’re a vindictive person).[/quote]
Well likely I was just too lazy here and for that I apologize, I skimmed some posts of yours on OSNews like:

-‘What are you afraid of, that Linux will lose the battle? You like Linux so much, then stick with it and let the rest of us enjoy BeOS/Haiku.’

and drew what seems like faulty conclusions, so again I will apologize for that lazy mishap.

Hardware/software support is practically the entire purpose of an operating system.

Lack of support is in fact a direct result of decisions made by the “small amount of developers”. For example, if they had chosen to take an established kernel and use that, they’d have hardware support and more developer time to spend on the remaining tasks.

“where they combine packages from the open source ecosystem with the linux kernel in order to create a desktop OS does not make it as if the Linux (kernel) has been pushed or promoted as a desktop os from the very start.”

What? You’re trying to use the argument that the Linux kernel was not intended for desktop use from the very start. That distros decided this themselves. Not true. Linus intended Linux to be for desktop use himself. I even pointed to Linux Wikipedia entry showing Linux is targeted to desktop, servers and embedded.

comp.os.minix post from Linus (August 1991), “I’m doing a (free) operating system…”, “I’ve currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I’ll get something practical within a few months, and I’d like to know what features most people would want.”

That sounds more like making Linux for desktop use to me. Linus’ M.Sc. thesis was titled Linux: A Portable Operating System. Does that sound like he only wanted to target the server and embedded markets to you?

I would strongly say that Linus was making sure his OS would be adopted on the desktop also from the first day he coded the kernel. Linus never said his OS was just for servers. Corporations strongly adopted Linux because similar to Unix and very strong at security and stability - two very important things for servers.

“again Con Kolivas who you referred to left kernel development due to the lack of interest there in improving the kernel for desktop use, should ring a bell.”

You still don’t understand. The issue was not that Linux kernel could not be used on or marketed to the desktop but about lagging performance on the desktop. Linux is better suited to servers because it focused on throughput and not responsiveness. Likely a result of being similar to Unix in design. Below quote talks about performance on desktop and not Linux being just for servers.

Linux wikipedia:
“The performance of Linux on the desktop has been a controversial topic; for example in 2007 Con Kolivas accused the Linux community of favoring performance on servers. He quit Linux kernel development because he was frustrated with this lack of focus on the desktop, and then gave a “tell all” interview on the topic.[56] Since then a significant effort has been expended improving the desktop experience.”

I get what you’re saying. The Linux kernel is better suited for servers and embedded markets but that does not exclude its use from the desktop. Anyone can still use Linux on the desktop. You can say that Linux has failed to capture market share or popularity on the desktop. Still, Linux is very useable as a desktop OS and been so from the very start.

Think about these. Can Linux be used on the desktop? Has Linux been used on the desktop? Did Linus intend Linux kernel to be only for servers and embedded systems? Have distros marketed Linux for the desktop? Are certain Linux applications only for desktop (ie: bittorrent client)?

"Well likely I was just too lazy here and for that I apologize, I skimmed some posts of yours on OSNews like:
-‘What are you afraid of, that Linux will lose the battle? You like Linux so much, then stick with it and let the rest of us enjoy BeOS/Haiku.’"

You were not lazy but trying to dig up dirt on me. It is an attack style tactic some people use to tarnish others. You bring up the post to make me look bad and then apologize to make yourself look good. I will respond to this:

  1. That post was from April 2007 (3 1/2 years ago). What does an old post like that have to do with this thread? It only attacks my character.
  2. It was a Zeta (Haiku) thread (to give context)
  3. A linux poster was being negative about Haiku. Saying it would amount to very little. This part was annoying “Haiku won’t do any better than BeOS on the desktop”. Of course the rest of his post seems accurate but he didn’t have to come to a Haiku based thread to dump on Haiku which hit a nerve with me.
  4. Opinions and attitudes can change over time. I may think differently about something today than I did 6+ months ago.
  5. You posted my quote here to show what? That I was angry with a Linux user? Or very likely to make me look bad.
  6. I was using BeOS (& Haiku) lots back then and was enjoying it. I didn’t need someone coming to Haiku thread to say it would never go anywhere and I should change to Linux. Irrelevant if he may have been right. It’s like me going to a Linux group and telling them to switch to Windows 7.

Hardware/software support is practically the entire purpose of an operating system.

Lack of support is in fact a direct result of decisions made by the “small amount of developers”. For example, if they had chosen to take an established kernel and use that, they’d have hardware support and more developer time to spend on the remaining tasks.[/quote]

What established kernel ? WindowNT ?

Beucase when it comes to hardware and software support. Really does anyone else even get close ?

For any interested, here is the history of Linux. Very good read.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/

A quick summary:

  1. In 1983, Richard Stallman started the GNU Project. In 1984, he began the GNU operating system.
  2. GNU OS was to compete with DOS on PCs. Other choices at that time were Apple Macs or Unix both of which were too expensive for average computer user.
  3. By 1991, most parts of GNU OS were ready except for a kernel. It would take a few years more to develop GNU Hurd.
  4. Linus could not wait and had a Linux kernel ready in 1991 for 386 & newer (x86) PCs.
  5. Linux was later ported to other hardware platforms as more developers joined the development.

Linux OS = Linux Kernel + GNU components

Reading the history clearly shows Linux was made for portable computers (PCs) to compete with DOS and later on with Windows. Linux later went after servers when ported to other hardware platforms. Most servers back in early to mid 90s would have been non-x86 since you only had 386-586 CPUs. Many corporations using Unix would have changed over to Linux because of cost. That would explain why Linux has 60% in server market. What % does Unix hold today? Microsoft also did not start going after servers until July 1993 with their NT 3.1 Advanced Server.

[quote=tonestone57]
That sounds more like making Linux for desktop use to me. Linus’ M.Sc. thesis was titled Linux: A Portable Operating System. Does that sound like he only wanted to target the server and embedded markets to you?[/quote]
What his initial target was and what ended up being the target(s) in reality are two separate things (as is VERY often the case). Fact is that the kernel development has been targeted at server and embedded devices, not desktop use. The companies that are funding the kernel development use linux predominantly as servers and in embedded devices, so it’s not exactly surprising. Shuttleworth created Ubuntu which tries to combine alot of the existing open source software into a simple to use desktop, but it’s not like they’re really changing anything in Linux to better suit desktop usage. Same goes for the myriad of community distros out there. Who knows, maybe this latest patch is the start of an interest from the kernel developers to actually improve the kernel for desktop use, but I’m doubtful. They are paid by companies to work on things said companies want after all.

I’ve never said Linux is excluded from desktop usage, hell I’m using it as my primary os every day. And yes it is very useable, just not as integrated/smooth/responsive under load as dedicated desktop OS’es are. But going from Linux being useable as a desktop OS to ‘Linux is being pushed on the desktop’ is totally different. In order for Linux to be ‘pushed’ on the desktop it would mean that the kernel devs would actually be improving the kernel for desktop use, but they really aren’t. Priority has been (and despite this patch most likely will continue to be) on servers and the embedded market.

No, I really was lazy, I thought your comments here were negative on Linux and I remembered you from OSNews so I googled and landed on some lucky13 page where there were quotes from you (and him) regarding Linux/Haiku from an OSNews thread and I drew faulty conclusions from that. It was lazy, but really no malice. And again I do sincerely apologize, and NOT because I think it will make me look good (not sure I understood the logic on that one).

[quote=thatguy]
What established kernel ? WindowNT ?

Beucase when it comes to hardware and software support. Really does anyone else even get close ?[/quote]

NT would be a good choice if it was available, certainly.

Read the history of Linux link I gave in previous post.
You’ll see 1) that Linux was a Unix style OS for PCs (home users) 2) Linus created the kernel on x86 (386?) and was first intended for x86 computers which were not used as servers back then. Later, Linux replaced Unix on servers because similar design, same or better performance and free.

And yes it is very useable, just not as integrated/smooth/responsive under load as dedicated desktop OS’es are.

What does this have to do with Linux as a desktop OS? - performance is irrelevant. My original comment was about Linux being promoted for desktop use and not about which OS performs better - that’s a different issue you bring up.

“But going from Linux being useable as a desktop OS to ‘Linux is being pushed on the desktop’ is totally different. In order for Linux to be ‘pushed’ on the desktop it would mean that the kernel devs would actually be improving the kernel for desktop use, but they really aren’t.”

No, just means the distros have to push Linux for desktop use. You see, your argument is about performance again when you say “improving the kernel for desktop use.” Yes, Linux kernel is more suitable for servers but it still works on the desktop.

The major disagreement comes from this. What is considered a desktop OS? A desktop OS is an operating system which a home user can install, configure and use desktop applications - that is it! Most Linux distros allow the average computer user to simply do this.

Your arguments are flawed, focusing on performance (which OS is better for desktop) and market share (popularity). The definition of a desktop OS does not include performance and market share. Your comments only say that Linux OS is better optimized and performing on servers compared to desktop use.

A desktop OS is about ease of use & configuration and desktop applications not about performance (from APIs, component integration, kernel design) or market share. Linux distros have been targeting the desktop market since 1993 and Linux from the start as that was the intended market for the OS in the first place.

And again I do sincerely apologize, and NOT because I think it will make me look good (not sure I understood the logic on that one).
Apology accepted. You used a quote that made me look bad while you were apologizing - like saying, I am sorry I called you a Linux hater but what do you expect when you said this comment that I’m posting now for everyone to see with my apology.

So,

  1. Linus creating Linux for desktop systems in the first place
  2. Linux defined as a desktop, server and embedded OS
  3. distros saying Linux is for desktop use
  4. Linux users saying Linux is great for the desktop
  5. developers adding improvements to make Linux desktop friendly
  6. developers adding in kernel patches to improve desktop use (and support additional hardware)

is not considered PUSHING Linux to the desktop? Seems like they’re still promoting for desktop to me. Your argument is still weak. Ask a Linux developer and they will tell you that Linux is for desktop, server and embedded. They don’t PUSH it for one use over the other. A developer won’t say that Linux is only for servers. You’re still wrong. Linux is not optimized for desktop use but it is still and has been PUSHED for desktop by developers. With devs saying Linux is for desktop systems they are PUSHING it for that use also. The kernel does not have to be optimized for desktop use to be PUSHED. Only requires developers saying “Linux is for desktop too” and that is considered PUSHING Linux. You don’t need an optimized kernel for desktop to PUSH Linux to desktop. Difference with Haiku is that developers say Haiku is targeted for desktop use even if useable for servers. ie: Haiku not PUSHED for servers. Linux listed for desktop, server and embedded use meaning PUSHED for all three of these markets.

What you’re really saying is:

  1. Linux kernel development is not focused for desktop systems
  2. Linux kernel is unoptimized for desktop use

[quote=tonestone57]
What you’re really saying is:

  1. Linux kernel development is not focused for desktop systems
  2. Linux kernel is unoptimized for desktop use[/quote]
    YES, and this means Linux is NOT ‘PUSHED’ as a desktop OS. Unlike Haiku which IS PUSHED as a desktop OS, given that the Haiku development IS focused for desktop systems, and Haiku IS optimized for desktop use.

[quote=tonestone57]
What does this have to do with Linux as a desktop OS? - performance is irrelevant. My original comment was about Linux being promoted for desktop use and not about which OS performs better - that’s a different issue you bring up.[/quote]
And again, by the kernel devs, as proven by what they are optimizing Linux (kernel) for they are not pushing Linux as a desktop OS.

These was your original questions:

-‘Why it took so long to make this 224 line change makes me really wonder what is going on with Linux.’

-‘My second point is that CFS was first included in kernel 2.6.23 released around October 2007. It took 3 years to make this small change to improve scheduler performance on Linux. Why didn’t anyone look into doing this sooner?’

And it’s as I’ve been saying, this scheduler change improves DESKTOP responsiveness, an area which the kernel devs have not bothered optimizing for since the Linux business lies elsewere. It’s not a big mystery.

[quote=tonestone57]
No, just means the distros have to push Linux for desktop use. You see, your argument is about performance again when you say “improving the kernel for desktop use.” Yes, Linux kernel is more suitable for servers but it still works on the desktop.[/quote]
And yet the Linux KERNEL is not pushed for desktop use, again as proven by the lack of work in order to make the kernel perform better for desktop use, which has always been a sore spot for those using Linux as a kernel in their desktop OS.

[quote=tonestone57]
Your arguments are flawed, focusing on performance (which OS is better for desktop) and market share (popularity).[/quote]
Again, my arguments are on the LACK of work on the Linux kernel in order to make it perform better for desktop use (which is primarily about responsiveness during heavy load). Where did I bring up market share as an argument against Linux as a desktop OS? If anything I’ve said it’s amazing that it has such a market share despite the lack of Kernel development towards making it better for desktop use.

Are you saying that if the kernel developers are optimizing the kernel for server use, that they are pushing it for use on the desktop? No, they are pushing it for use as a server. Likewise Haiku devs are pushing Haiku to be used on the desktop since they optimize it for use on the desktop, that you may in fact use Haiku as a server doesn’t change this.

[quote=tonestone57]
like saying, I am sorry I called you a Linux hater but what do you expect when you said this comment that I’m posting now for everyone to see with my apology.[/quote]
No that quote was for your benefit as in what context I misread you as someone being anti-Linux, and I seriously doubt anyone except you and me is actually reading this discussion anymore so I doubt you have to worry about what ‘others may think’.

True, my first post was looking at Linux performance issue (responsiveness) on the desktop. I wanted to show that Linux has issues too and takes time to resolve them. You were the one that said Linux is not intended for desktop use.

"And again, by the kernel devs, as proven by what they are optimizing Linux (kernel) for they are not pushing Linux as a desktop OS."
Nope, that only shows they’re not improving performance on the desktop. You don’t need to have an optimized Linux kernel for the desktop for Linux to be pushed as a desktop OS. Linux desktop performance and Linux for the desktop are two different things. An OS can still be for the desktop but not have the greatest performance. Your point only shows that Linux kernel is tuned more for servers but does not exclude it from desktop use and promotion.

To prove Linux is also pushed for the desktop I gave:

  1. History of Linux OS (with link) - showing it was meant to take on DOS on PCs & Linus creating it for x86 systems (386 & 486 back then - home PCs).
  2. I provided links to Wikipedia which stated “Linux is marketed as a desktop, server and embedded OS”, multi-functional OS.
  3. I gave the definition of a desktop OS - showing performance does not factor into it.
  4. I tried to point out that optimized for desktop (performance) versus being useable and targeted to desktop are different things.
  5. I showed that distros have been pushing Linux as desktop OS from day one

You have:

  1. not given any definition of desktop OS or said if you agreed with one I gave
  2. provided only 1 or 2 Wikipedia links which actually agreed with me. Showing that Linux is desktop OS but lagging in performance
  3. made your argument about kernel performance on the desktop (ie: kernel is not optimized for desktop so therefore Linux is not a desktop OS - weak argument)

[quote=tonestone57]You were the one that said Linux is not intended for desktop use.

  1. made your argument about kernel performance on the desktop (ie: kernel is not optimized for desktop so therefore Linux is not a desktop OS - weak argument)[/quote]
    No you keep dancing around what I actually said in argument to what you actually said. I said Linux is not PUSHED as a desktop OS since the kernel devs are NOT optimizing it for desktop use but for server use. Your argument was about Linux being ‘PUSHED’ for the desktop (you claimed it was), not wheter or not Linux is being used as a desktop OS. Again I could use Haiku as a server, it doesn’t mean it is ‘PUSHED’ as a server OS. Linux is used for a TON of things, most likely many that Linus had never envisioned, it doesn’t mean that Linux (kernel) is being ‘PUSHED’ for that use. In order for Linux to be PUSHED for use in an area the devs would have made an effort in optimizing it for use in that area (unless of course it already performs perfectly well for that type of use, but in the case of desktop usage we know that is NOT the case).