Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arch Linux Install Media Updated For July 2012

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arch Linux Install Media Updated For July 2012

    Phoronix: Arch Linux Install Media Updated For July 2012

    For those that haven't heard yet, the Arch Linux 2012.07.15 install media is available as a major installer update for this popular rolling-release Linux distribution...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE0NTE

  • #2
    By the way, you should include Archlinux in your benchmark vs Fedora vs Ubuntu

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by babali View Post
      By the way, you should include Archlinux in your benchmark vs Fedora vs Ubuntu
      Michael benchmarks standard, OOTB configurations except where stated. There is no standard configuration for Arch... well, unless you are only interested in benchmarking the terminal emulator.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by randomizer View Post
        Michael benchmarks standard, OOTB configurations except where stated. There is no standard configuration for Arch... well, unless you are only interested in benchmarking the terminal emulator.
        I disagree. Are you an Arch user?

        I think that the benchmark is really interesting, as it reflects the choices and performances of distro's packets, flags, ./configure options etc...
        In the other hand, I'm absolutely not interested into benchmarking KDE, Gnome, or various aspect of the desktop when compositing is enabled/disabled, as I don't use them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by babali View Post
          I disagree. Are you an Arch user?
          On and off. It's one of my favourites.

          Originally posted by babali View Post
          I think that the benchmark is really interesting, as it reflects the choices and performances of distro's packets, flags, ./configure options etc...
          But my point is that you don't have a benchmark unless you state every single configuration option you've set, every service you've started and precisely what version of every package you've installed. With Ubuntu, Fedora, etc, you can find these easily by just checking the packages and config files on the Live CD. With Arch these are all in constant flux, so your charts are out of date before it is published.

          Yes, you could benchmark what is on the snapshot ISO and that would provide you with a standard that can be compared to. However, the ISO has absolutely nothing on it, so you'd have to install all of those in-flux dependencies before you can even run the tests.

          Comment


          • #6
            I would also love to see Arch makes it's way into the Phoronix distro benchmarks, as I'm interested in knowing the difference between Arch and other Distros. Everyone claims Arch "just feels faster", and indeed this has been my experience, but it would be nice to have some actual statistics (and please refrain from telling me to "do it myself").

            If Arch is ever considered, just choose a "common ground" DE (such as Gnome Shell) and set up a reasonably comparable systems. There are official repos for Catalyst drivers, etc.

            Comment


            • #7
              I use Archlinux, but i actually see little point in benchmarking it against Fedora / Ubuntu - i personally don't think the numbers would be that interesting, as they weren't very interesting in the past;

              http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...h_faster&num=1

              essentially, every Archlinux install is different anyway, since the user starts with a bare / core system and builds what they like from there. So unless the user has gone through with ABS and rebuilt the entire system with all sorts of (proper) optimizations, as well as other customizations - i highly doubt we'd see any big differences, if at all.

              there may be newer versions of software (that are improved) that may give Archlinux a lead in the odd spot, but then again, it's also possible there may be regressions.

              Either way, it would be difficult to put any stock in Archlinux benchmarks because of the nature of the distribution; bleeding-edge, do-it-yourself, no 'standard' Archlinux setup, etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Dropping AIF makes it even harder for "beginners" to get Arch up and running...

                Comment


                • #9
                  I use Arch but I doubt his tests would differ because he would set up his Arch install like a Ubuntu box for fairness. Not to mention that setup isn't likely to be the same as your Arch. Example here's mine....

                  uname -a
                  Linux (censored) 3.3.6-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun May 13 10:52:32 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

                  Notables...

                  LXDE (openbox), flgrx 12.6, alsa, xorg-server 1.11.4-2

                  Doubt he would test it like this ^ lol.

                  Yeah I don't update everything every notch so what? =p runs good this way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Finally!

                    Just a few days ago i had to reinstall a machine where i've used the - then latest - arch net install. Bunch of updates, small other changes. Yeah, a new installation iso was really needed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not every benchs depends on your desktop...

                      If you run disk IO benchs, or httpd benchs, then it depends on your kernel, filesystem, hdparms, ...

                      I don't think that John the ripper depends on KDE for its performances.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Yoshi View Post
                        Dropping AIF makes it even harder for "beginners" to get Arch up and running...
                        I've gotten the impression that they don't want any more users who can't read a wiki and transcribe commands to bash.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          @TheCycoONE
                          I understand that but the new method is even more complicated, I would say. So maybe the get the complete opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Personally, i'll try out the new method and will see how far i can get with the wiki etc. With AIF i didn't need to look in the wiki at all. So yeah, for me it's a step backwards. But I'm sure i'll learn a lot while trying it out to get it up and running.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sounds like it's turning into Gentoo - without the advantages

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well, the install docs are really small.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X