Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mid-2012: Arch Linux vs. Slackware vs. Ubuntu vs. Fedora

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I guess distros like Arch and Gentoo (apparently not slackware anymore) might not be as useful as someone has stated earlier. However, people still argue they're the fastest, and I think at this point its the same psychological thing as being told "this is $200 wine" and it tastes better compared to $20 wine when they both came from the same batch. Arch did prove to be pretty competitive in many of these tests, I haven oticed it seems to lag behind a little with the more server-like tasks, but I get the impression a lot of people don't use Arch for servers anyway.
    I've used both Gentoo and am still using Arch. While "speed" was really the reason to go to Gentoo (and then move to Arch as I couldn't be arsed recompiling), it has a lot of other benefits compared to other distros. Arch's "KISS" principle and the fact that you have (mostly) vanilla packages mean, that bug reporting is very easy (you can go straight to upstream), configuration is really simple (now that's somewhat changing due to systemd, but the old "initscripts" still work), the packages are very new (rolling release), upgrades are not painful (rolling release again), the AUR has really everything you could ever want (and if it doesn't, writing a PKGBUILD and putting it on AUR is a doddle), and the Arch Wiki is simply amazing...

    The thing about Arch is - it's for "power users" which don't want things to "just work out of the box", but "work the way they want it". You want to use pure ALSA? No problem. Or OSSv4? No problem. You want GTK and Qt apps ran in your Openbox with xfce-panel and PcManfm, but would like the Qt-Curve look? No problem. Just set it yourself - there will be no automated magic to do it for you, but also no automated magic to screw it up on the next reboot...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ganloo View Post
      Everytime I see Arch can easily switch from one technology to another (for example, adopt systemd for inintialization) , I am still amazed.
      This should not be very distro specific. In the end having systemd just means having some exta files on your harddrive and adding init=/bin/systemd to your KERNEL line.

      Comment


      • #18
        Desktop Environments Would Be Cool!

        I know this seems useless but it proved that their really isn't much different in speed.

        BUT I know my Son's Netbook can't play YouTube videos at above 320P UNLESS I use a Window Manager like Awesome!

        Also the call of KDE bloat from Gnome people has always made me CRAZY since Gnome 2.X and 3.X always used more memory and cpu on my machines.

        So can we have a test of:

        Gnome 2
        Gnome 3
        Unity
        KDE 4
        Xfce
        LXDE
        OpenBox
        Awesome

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by PeterKraus View Post
          I've used both Gentoo and am still using Arch. While "speed" was really the reason to go to Gentoo (and then move to Arch as I couldn't be arsed recompiling), it has a lot of other benefits compared to other distros. Arch's "KISS" principle and the fact that you have (mostly) vanilla packages mean, that bug reporting is very easy (you can go straight to upstream), configuration is really simple (now that's somewhat changing due to systemd, but the old "initscripts" still work), the packages are very new (rolling release), upgrades are not painful (rolling release again), the AUR has really everything you could ever want (and if it doesn't, writing a PKGBUILD and putting it on AUR is a doddle), and the Arch Wiki is simply amazing...

          The thing about Arch is - it's for "power users" which don't want things to "just work out of the box", but "work the way they want it". You want to use pure ALSA? No problem. Or OSSv4? No problem. You want GTK and Qt apps ran in your Openbox with xfce-panel and PcManfm, but would like the Qt-Curve look? No problem. Just set it yourself - there will be no automated magic to do it for you, but also no automated magic to screw it up on the next reboot...
          Oh yea I totally agree with all of that - that's really why I used Arch (I didn't care to get into the nitty gritty stuff to optimize performance) but I'm just saying that people using Arch and Gentoo for performance purposes (on new systems anyway) are just wishful thinkers at this point. However, Gentoo seems like it will always have an advantage over almost any distro considering how many architectures it works on.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
            I guess distros like Arch and Gentoo (apparently not slackware anymore) might not be as useful as someone has stated earlier. However, people still argue they're the fastest, and I think at this point its the same psychological thing as being told "this is $200 wine" and it tastes better compared to $20 wine when they both came from the same batch. Arch did prove to be pretty competitive in many of these tests, I haven oticed it seems to lag behind a little with the more server-like tasks, but I get the impression a lot of people don't use Arch for servers anyway.
            Well, I'd say that it's relative. On fast machines, the difference should be pretty small. On slow machines, like netbooks and tablets, the difference can be huge, from both specific optimisations and choosing only essential software. I installed Gentoo on my tablet PC, and it works incredibly fast compared to anything I had before (it has other problems, but it's not related to distro choices). That said, compiling everything on slow machines is a rather long procedure. Makes me wonder if it wouldn't be possible to precompile things on a fast machine and then transfer it to the slower one...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
              Makes me wonder if it wouldn't be possible to precompile things on a fast machine and then transfer it to the slower one...
              distcc

              (10 chars)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                distcc
                Oh, well, that's handy, thanks. Though it only works after the kernel is in place, I assume, and compiling that still takes a while.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                  Oh, well, that's handy, thanks. Though it only works after the kernel is in place, I assume, and compiling that still takes a while.
                  As far as I know, you just need networking, and the same version of gcc. Of course, you might need the the kernel recompiled to enable networking, depending on the setup. At any rate, the gentoo handbook has some good documentation on using distcc.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    slackware

                    That's what you get when one guy does all the work.

                    Now maybe everybody can hush and support one distribution. Thanks for the tests!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by squirrl View Post
                      That's what you get when one guy does all the work.


                      One BDFL and a team of many.


                      Now maybe everybody can hush and support one distribution. Thanks for the tests!
                      Only in North Korea...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Looking at the image of system specifications it is at least two different systems (e.g. different sound cards?), making the comparison bogus and the tester suspect.

                        Why not run the benchmarks and distros on the same system?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          Oh, well, that's handy, thanks. Though it only works after the kernel is in place, I assume, and compiling that still takes a while.

                          The genkenrel takes a while to compile, but custom kernels go pretty fast. (hundreds of modules vs a dozen)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
                            One BDFL and a team of many.
                            BDFL Bi-Directional Flowing Linux?

                            Not too sure about the team of many, it's one guy. The other guy sends him patches and he meshes them in.

                            Two dudes at most.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PeterKraus View Post
                              I've used both Gentoo and am still using Arch. While "speed" was really the reason to go to Gentoo (and then move to Arch as I couldn't be arsed recompiling), it has a lot of other benefits compared to other distros.
                              Sabayon is Gentoo precompiled, but you can emerge what you want and of course recompile some parts if you wish, and at my desktop computer is faster, but as I do like tests, I want to see Sabayon benchmarks, to see where it is faster or not than others.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                                distcc

                                (10 chars)
                                distcc's a good way to speed up compilation. Another way is to do it purly on the desktop and rsync with the tablet.

                                Run:
                                Code:
                                gcc -march=native -E -v - </dev/null 2>&1 | grep cc1
                                on the tablet to see what flags 'march=native' will give you and:
                                Code:
                                echo | gcc -dM -E - -march=native
                                to get the CPU instruction sets.

                                Download a stage 3 tarball and extract it to a new chroot location, put the results of those commands into your C(XX)FLAGS in your make.conf, chroot, and start building your tablet system on the desktop as you normally would. When your done building everything, boot the tablet off a USB stick or something and rsync with the chroot on the desktop.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X