Why is Linux so slow and sluggish compared to Windows?

It just makes no sense. Wasn't one of the main selling points of Linux supposed to be speed and snappiness?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

[citation needed]

System specs, what distro and which windows are you comparing to.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Are you playing games without video drivers again?

Yes it was, but it depends on distro / DE and other shit. Still when im running neural style implementations on both in linux i have my output two times faster. So kernel and core is more performant than Windows but the graphic env went not as good.

how can compare kernel with first version windows

Sorry i mean W 8.1 and 10

the main selling point for home users is that they look cool and like real computer pros when they use it, also it is free
us nerds right

It does suck that many distros have terrible choice in DEs and so on. People bitch for some reason, but this is one of the main reasons Arch is so popular.

>rajeesh, your mission is to post the opposite of the truth wherever possible
>if windows is vulnerable and linux is secure, tell them that windows is secure and linux is vulnerable
>providing actual features to tell the truth about is too expensive, which is also why we've hired you and your other affordable priced Indian friends

Install video drivers. Don't you have to do the same after you install Windows?

Inferior kernel optimized for servers, inferior window server made in the 80s without multithreading support, inferior graphics drivers, inferior window compositors, inferior DEs.

>Wasn't one of the main selling points of Linux supposed to be speed and snappiness?
That was true a long time ago. Now proprietary software has catched up while Linux remains unevolved and slow.

>I've read Song of Kali by Dan Simmon
>take place in Calcutta
>fucking pajeets adoring the goddess of murder and destruction Kali
>making human sacrifice
>pov of an american journalist
>filth everywhere
>designated shitting street
>over crazy people
>I'm never setting a single foot in this. fucking country of degenerated

nice try OP. There are plenty of women that are just fine with windows and there is no risk of it going away for just that reason. Windows is the white cabriolet volkswagen of operating systems and apple is even more so.

Because linux isn't optimized for desktop use retard.

And the people programming linux are the worst of the worst. Otherwise they would get a real job with their skills

> copy file while watching a video
> video stutters
> mouse stutters
> copy finished
> everything is smooth again
Linux everyone

inb4 gnu autists interjecting

>selling points of Linux
Nope, the only selling point of Linux was the support from RedHat or back in the 90s that you didn't have to download it from the interwebs. Other than that there was no selling point (since it wasn't sold to begin with)

>selling points
You cant sell that which has no price tag

it's why they don't even try

Richard pls go

this, even as a linux user this sucks

t. pajeet

>tfw kali linux is a thing
>imagine the smell

The answer is X11. Basically it's an inconceivably awkward way so create a windowed gui. For some reason half of the *nix community developed stockholm syndrome and started thinking it was actually good. This diffused any attempts at replacing it.

Until wayland. Wayland is primarily developed by former Xorg ppl so it got momentum pretty quickly.
Ubuntu, of course, looking at all the things wayland does right decided that they will now develop their own graphics layer called mir. Got to wonder why they didn't think of this before wayland got traction. It's like they want fragmentation for the sake of it.

Anyway, here's one of the Xorg developers on why X11 sucks.
youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44

Linux is extremely efficient with job control and IO. The performance is there for anyone who isn't a manchild.

>Run arch from a terminal
>mfw everything flies
The only drawback is that you need to download youtube videos and sites that run on javascript don't work
Not like i use arch for everyday work tho

I can confirm this while using a netbook for testing

Bug 12309

If windows is faster so how can I open selected file with spacebar?

Xorg

AMD.

280x owner here. In order to make it faster than Windows, I would have to use stuff like XFCE. Anything modern (Unity, Gnome, KDE) works like shit