Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nexenta 3.0 Benchmarked Against PC-BSD, OpenSolaris, Ubuntu

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by yotambien View Post
    I use the same book that Debian, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, Fedora and Gentoo use. Apparently you are not. And apparently you are using a different logic too. I was under the distinct impression that all those distributions included what for you constitutes an OS. At which point and by which mechanism the 'OS part' disappears from their essence remains a mistery to me.
    They package an OS, yes. They have not made that OS. They package something which already exists, so what makes Debian a different OS from Fedora? Nothing, in my book ( sure, versions may differ slightly ) . It's the same OS packaged a bit differently. What in that packaging makes worthy to be considered a new OS?

    Mr Shuttleworth should be proud of what he and his Canonical has achieved with their packaging of the GNU/Linux OS.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by andrnils View Post
      They package an OS, yes. They have not made that OS. They package something which already exists, so what makes Debian a different OS from Fedora? Nothing, in my book ( sure, versions may differ slightly ) . It's the same OS packaged a bit differently. What in that packaging makes worthy to be considered a new OS?
      What Ubuntu is or is not has nothing to do with a question of worthiness. The nature of something doesn't depend on whatever process brought it to existence or by whom. If I give you a copy of Hamlet, it doesn't magically cease to be a play just because I don't happen to be Shakespeare. Whatever the input of Canonical is in the production of Ubuntu, it still is a "software, consisting of programs and data, that runs on computers and manages the computer hardware and provides common services for efficient execution of various application software". Actually, it can be argued that what you understand as the OS serves little purpose until somebody puts the pieces together such as Ubuntu and all the others do. What is more of an OS, the individual pieces or the packaged set I can actually use to do what it's meant to do?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by yotambien View Post
        If I give you a copy of Hamlet, it doesn't magically cease to be a play just because I don't happen to be Shakespeare.
        Now you're just saying what I tried to say: A play by either Shakespear or Wilde is still a play, as a GNU/Linux OS packaged by Fedora or Canonical is still a GNU/Linux OS... Good, that wasn't so hard, was it?

        I don't consider the difference in packing enough for them to constitue different OS, is that so hard for you to understand?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
          Hey guys, I'm running "Guhnuh slash Linux slash ex dot org slash kay dee e slash Wine slash cute slash gee tee kay slash FireFox", an you?
          You forgot Mesa/DRI

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by andrnils View Post
            Now you're just saying what I tried to say: A play by either Shakespear or Wilde is still a play, as a GNU/Linux OS packaged by Fedora or Canonical is still a GNU/Linux OS... Good, that wasn't so hard, was it?

            I don't consider the difference in packing enough for them to constitue different OS, is that so hard for you to understand?
            I think we finally have it. Yes, Fedora or Canonical are still Linux OSs, which by definition means that Fedora or Canonical are OSs. You can stress that they are just different flavours of a particular OS, but that's tangent to the question of what they ultimately are. I remind you of your words:

            calling Ubuntu an OS is also a bit of a stretch I guess, it's distro. Shuttleworth hasn't so far as I know created anything on the OS level, just modified packaging and UI
            See, no matter how much Shuttleworth has contributed "at the OS level" (a matter of discussion I guess), Ubuntu still is and OS, as opposed to, say, a table, an island or a refugee camp. I suppose your distintion would make sense if the article were a comparison between different linux distributions, where referring to them as different OSs could be considered as "stretching" it a bit. But in this case I think it's perfectly legit.

            Comment


            • #21
              AFAIK the term "distribution" was coined because the released package included *more* than just an OS -- there were also applications etc... I don't think there is any doubt that the distributions include "a real OS".

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                Benchmark it against Gentoo Linux and it will not do quite as well.
                A few months ago someone linked to a Gentoo vs Ubuntu test. There was a big discussion back then, because Ubuntu was faster than Gentoo more often than not.

                Also Linux. Sorry, I refuse to become a marketing drone for RMS.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  You forgot Mesa/DRI
                  Burnink in hell I shallt, da?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                    A few months ago someone linked to a Gentoo vs Ubuntu test. There was a big discussion back then, because Ubuntu was faster than Gentoo more often than not.

                    Also Linux. Sorry, I refuse to become a marketing drone for RMS.
                    It was a binary flavor of Gentoo, and the big discussion was about whether or not that was truly representative of Gentoo or not.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                      It was a binary flavor of Gentoo, and the big discussion was about whether or not that was truly representative of Gentoo or not.
                      And the conclusion, if I remember correctly, was that performance considerations were secondary to the great learning experience Gentoo offers, and that if you actually care about stability, security and your own time you are much better off with any of the binary distributions out there. It's like houses really; you could build your own if you were so inclined, but you wouldn't expect the end result to be comparable to that of professionals.

                      That's what I remember, I could be wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                        Benchmark it against Gentoo Linux and it will not do quite as well. It is fast in terms of non-Linux-based operating systems, but as far as Linux-based operating systems are concerned, it is not quite as fast. The main reason for that is its generic kernel. Alternative, but lesser performance penalties include its high memory usage from having bloated binaries, the version of GCC that is used for compilation and the flags used to compile various packages, although on a system with sufficient memory, bloated binaries probably are not much of an issue in the sorts of tests Phoronix is doing (i.e. things that are not load time tests will not show any difference) provided sufficient memory and GCC performance is fairly uniform across both recent versions and common compilation flags.
                        Hasn't phononix not already shown that Gentoo is not really faster than Ubuntu or any other distro out there? If you want I can find you the link to the article.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by tball View Post
                          Hasn't phononix not already shown that Gentoo is not really faster than Ubuntu or any other distro out there? If you want I can find you the link to the article.
                          Errr... Gentoo is Linux too, so duh...

                          The trick with Gentoo is that if you make your own system you only get what you want and nothing else, so that makes Gentoo faster for a lot of people.

                          Is that realy so hard to grasp?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tball View Post
                            Hasn't phononix not already shown that Gentoo is not really faster than Ubuntu or any other distro out there? If you want I can find you the link to the article.
                            Yea, but that benchmark was flawed

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                              Errr... Gentoo is Linux too, so duh...

                              The trick with Gentoo is that if you make your own system you only get what you want and nothing else, so that makes Gentoo faster for a lot of people.

                              Is that realy so hard to grasp?
                              Did you read what I commented on? Apparently not.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by monraaf View Post
                                Yea, but that benchmark was flawed
                                I see :-) What was wrong?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X