Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 139

Thread: SphinUX OS Claims To Be ~150% Faster Than GNU/Linux

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    You were saying Amarok is slower than Banshee or uses more memory, but I showed you it was a different. Tomboy - a simple note taking application - was heavier than Firefox and it was also showed to you. SharpDevelop or Visual Studio could offer less features and that's why they were more lightweight. It's unprovable if you were criticizing Qt unfairly or fairly, but it was shown to you Qt applications are usually lighter and more responsive.

    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...163#post177163

    You were trying to convince us java is worse than MS MONO.
    Do we read the same messages?

    I said: AmaroK starts slower than Banshee (and this was shown!). Is it different from the statement of Banshee being faster (faster in playing a 3 minutes song? Will it play it in 2 minutes 30 seconds!?). It use (at least at the time) less memory.

    So, it is not unfair, this part, right?

    Did I defend Tomboy for memory usage? Or did I defend it as it was an useful application (for people that were not memory conscious), right?

    I think exactly in the post, the center part is the most important (because it shows the context of the topic, plus my views) :
    This is here, 2 answers earlier of what was told by you:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...144#post177144
    Also, I've wrote things that disagree with Miguel on his page, so taking this into perspective is equal like an alter-ego of Miguel enters on his page to criticize him?!
    At the end, my messages were about reasonable thinking, not biases. I honestly don't like KDE look, but I do think that is an amazing piece of software, so I don't write crap about KDE. Also, I don't attack Nokia for its contributions to Qt or KDE (yes Nokia pay developers for KDE project), and I do think that a lot of technologies to Linux bring more choice than fewer. Why you don't attack the opensourceness of Qt that have also a comercial license? Why don't attack LLVM/CLang that "sneak" into a lot of opensource projects?
    It looks to me, that what I asked all around the topic was: "I personally found Mono useful, and the FUD that was told about Mono is as equal for Qt/Nokia, or Apple/Clang, wasn't it?" Also, some claims (like the startup time), I tested them and I found them lacking (because people think to Mono as "enterprisey", so all Mono applications are by definition slow), I rembember the Amarok + QtCreator was like 21 seconds, when Banshee and MonoDevelop was like 14-15 seconds.

    If you try to see that Java is worse than Mono, please read again, I said: C#/Mono is slower (in raw performance numbers), but is better integrated with desktop (If you know JNI, and you compare with PInvoke, you know what I'm talking about). Also as of the time of writing, can you name some Gnome applications written in Java? Azureus (even is not a Gnome application)!? Eclipse (!?) Really, I don't know any! At least on Gnome at that time was at least a bit different (thanks to Novell): Gnome Do, F-Spot, Banshee, Beagle, Tomboy, MonoDevelop were targetting Gnome/Gtk# by default, not WinForms. Do you know any Java integration to write Gnome applications? Maybe can you point to me to a tutorial how to set Java with Gtk?
    Last edited by ciplogic; 06-11-2013 at 11:39 AM.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    I'll just put it out there that you can run Linux on 4 MB RAM and a floppy disk. That kernel will be stripped to hell, and you get basics only, but it runs and will do its work.
    By now you need a 2+MB kernel. I know this because I've tried...I wonder what BFS does to kernel size/mem use.
    But 4 MB RAM is still correct. boot with mem=4096

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibidem View Post
    By now you need a 2+MB kernel. I know this because I've tried...I wonder what BFS does to kernel size/mem use.
    But 4 MB RAM is still correct. boot with mem=4096
    Why would a scheduler change affect that in any noticeable way?

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Why would a scheduler change affect that in any noticeable way?
    From http://ck-hack.blogspot.be/2010/10/o...-illumos.html:
    Quote Originally Posted by Con Kolivas
    As it is, if you remove the CGROUPS code as well as CFS that BFS replaces in the mainline linux kernel, you'd end up with almost 20,000 lines less code.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    I'm the best according to myself, too.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    100

    Default

    SphinUXOS, all of that and not a single objective number. Pure marketing fluff, why did you think we'd be interested in it?

  8. #108
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SphinUXOS View Post
    Nice try... no wait, no it wasn't. At the very least you could have fabricated some actual performance numbers or something instead of just asserting BS claims into an spread sheet.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    It costs more than Windows, uses more power and generates more heat. Interesting.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Who is the author of that? This pretends to be from someone not involved with SphinUX but in many places it seems the author has no clue and just makes stuff up vaguely related to what you would find with a very superficial google search.

    GNU/Linux has a bad
    reputation of power
    consumption and thermal
    noise, most Linux
    distributions addressed
    this point badly and
    sometimes made it worse
    by creating tools that
    doesn't always work and
    the problem rises when
    using proprietary drivers
    for modern graphics card,
    GNU/Linux has always
    been the best OS in
    performance until SphinUX
    OS was created, the
    performance varies as
    usual from distribution to
    another, it's satisfying
    enough but it seems to be
    a little bit slower when it
    comes to the number of
    applications running at the
    same time, the Linux
    kernel is becoming
    resource hungry in the
    latest releases and
    requires more powerful
    machines to run resource
    demanding applications
    with no lag
    I don't even

    edit: Nice kerning your libreoffice is doing there: http://de.sphinux.org/misc/docs/sphynx-softwareman.png

    edit2: Is this an official statement ? http://www.sphinux.org/56734
    And could you maybe add robots.txt to updates.sphinux.org so that google doesn't index all the packages?
    Last edited by ChrisXY; 06-22-2013 at 06:36 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •