Cheating: Not just for Microsoft anymore
Cheating: Not just for Microsoft anymore
Posted Oct 3, 2008 19:37 UTC (Fri) by Janne (guest, #40891)In reply to: Cheating: Not just for Microsoft anymore by farnz
Parent article: LPC: Booting Linux in five seconds
You are describing a situation where the user is twitching to do something with the computer. Where the user even pre-positions the mouse in order to be able to do stuff as fast as possible. Those cases are very, very rare. Normal users do NOT work like that. Normally people don't start their computers thinking "OMG, I need to get online NOW!". And even if they did, the fact that the system boots in 5 seconds, means that they could get online a lot faster than with "normal" boot-sequence.
That said, I don't really understand the complaing about networking. My OpenSUSE-laptop takes ages to boot. And after it finally get to the desktop, it STILL spends few seconds connecting to the network! It would be A LOT better if it booted in 5 seconds, and then spend few seconds connecting to the network.
It makes sense to exclude networking from this experiment, since connecting to the network is not really part of what we call "booting". It's not up to your computer, it's basically being held back by the network. And hacking the boot-sequence of your computer does not touch your network in any shape or form. Network is completely outside the scope of this test. And just because you do not have working networking for few seconds does not mean that the computer is not usable. And still, the "normal" distros are just as slow as far as networking is concerned, so there are no drawbacks in this experiment, as far as networking is concerned.
So how would your wife benefit if the recipe-machine was using Ubuntu (for example)? Instead of booting in 5 seconds, the machine would boot in 45 seconds. Even if you had fully working networking after that 45 seconds (you wouldn't), it would still take about 30 seconds longer to get online than with this fast booting.
"Secondly, note that Firefox's start up will be slowed down if the computer is also trying to bring up the network"
Starting FIrefox taxes the HD and the CPU. Neither of those are taxed when your NIC is getting an IP-address.
"start printing services"
That could be started when the user actually wants to print. Why should we sit around, twiddling our thumbs, when the system starts printing-subsystem, even though the times we print are few and far between?
Posted Oct 4, 2008 11:11 UTC (Sat)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (1 responses)
Then you're missing the entire point of the exercise - why does
she have to wait 45 seconds for the OS to boot? Why should she be waiting
up to a minute for things to be ready to use? Why can't she turn the
computer on and use it immediately?In short, why is using a computer with
a 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo and 4GB of RAM full of delays, when using an IPTV set
top box with typically 100MHz CPU and 32MB RAM is not? Granted, the tasks
are different, but the computer is so much more powerful than the STB that
it's a fair question.
The idea Arjan and Auke were working to is to set a hard challenge - a
typical Linux distro takes 30 seconds to get to the same point, they chose
5 seconds - and remove all the obstacles. If you allow delayed service
startup to not count, the danger is that you'll discount services that
matter to users. Indeed, you're already trying to handwave away an
important service for some use cases as "takes too long, and anyway users
can wait"; this is exactly why someone doing the challenge
must set a defined state in which boot is finished. Given the
defined state, I can now look at it, compare it to my use cases, and
say "yes, that's good enough", or "no, I need to work out how to fit WiFi
startup into that 5 seconds".
Again, as I've
said several times, you can go from "5 seconds power applied to idle and
ready" to "3 seconds power applied to usable, 3 more seconds to idle", and
that's a much easier task than going from "60 seconds power applied to
idle" to "3 seconds power applied to usable, 120 more seconds to idle.
Plus, my experience of normal users is very different to yours - they
don't have computers waiting and switched on, they don't start the
computer up without a task in mind, they start the computer thinking "Do I
have any e-mail waiting?", "Can I look up a recipe to use lemon sole,
potatoes and tomatoes?", "What do I need to say in this letter to my bank
manager?", "I need to get that proof printed for marking up" and things of
that nature. To them, a computer is just a tool; you wouldn't get out your
woodworking kit without something to build in mind, so why start up a
computer without a job in mind?
Posted Oct 7, 2008 12:59 UTC (Tue)
by Janne (guest, #40891)
[Link]
She doesn't. I mean, you can apparently boot Linux in 5 seconds ;).
"In short, why is using a computer with a 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo and 4GB of RAM
Well, that set-top box is designed to do one thing, and it's designed to do
that said, my DVR takes about 5-10 seconds to boot. My DVD-player takes few
"If you allow delayed service startup to not count, the danger is that
But the thing is that we already have slow as hell boots, even with delayed
In other words: it takes just as long for the two systems to connect to the
And how would you connect to the WiFi befire getting to the desktop? I
"Indeed, you're already trying to handwave away an important service for
But Wifi is not part of what we usually think of when we talk about
"Plus, my experience of normal users is very different to yours - they
Sure. But let's compare two scenarios:
Normal distro:
User turns the computer on. It boots for about 45 seconds, and the user
Arjans EEE:
User turns on the computer. It boots in five seconds. User needs to wait
How is that normal distro handling networking better than the EEE is? It's
removing WiFi from the equation we can focus on the subject at hand:
Cheating: Not just for Microsoft anymore
Cheating: Not just for Microsoft anymore
full of delays, when using an IPTV set top box with typically 100MHz CPU
and 32MB RAM is not?"
it on one hardware-configuration. So they can optimize it like crazy. Those
do not apple to Linux.
seconds as well. My router takes about 10 seconds to become reachable.
you'll discount services that matter to users."
services. Like I said, my laptop running OpenSUSE takes ages to boot, and
when I DO get to the desktop, it's STILL not connected to the network! So
the difference between this fast booting and my OpenSUSE is that Arjans
system takes 5 seconds to boot, after which it takes few more seconds to
connect to the network, whereas my laptop takes 45-50 seconds to boot,
after which it takes few more seconds for it to connect to the network.
network. The difference is that the things that happen before that net-
connection take 45-50 seconds on my laptop, whereas on Arjans EEE it only
takes 5 seconds.
mean, you might need to enter passwords and the like? Should the computer
stop booting and prompt you for your WPA-passowrd? No. It should get you to
the desktop and in to an usable state, and prompt you for any needed WiFi-
passwords as needed.
some use cases as "takes too long, and anyway users can wait"; this is
exactly why someone doing the challenge must set a defined state in which
boot is finished. Given the defined state, I can now look at it, compare it
to my use cases, and say "yes, that's good enough", or "no, I need to work
out how to fit WiFi startup into that 5 seconds"."
"booting". And like I said: I see no difference between this 5-seconds boot
when compared to normal booting, if we think of Wifi alone. In either case,
WiFi is disconnected at the end of the boot.
don't have computers waiting and switched on, they don't start the computer
up without a task in mind, they start the computer thinking "Do I have any
e-mail waiting?""
logs in. After he gets to the desktop, he needs to wait for few seconds for
the network to become usable. Then he can check his mail
for few more seconds for network to become usable. Then he can check his
email.
not online either, at the end of the boot.
booting. WiFi relaies on other things that are totally outside the scope of
this project.