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

[0xBADCODE]

Good luck to see 150% improvement...

There is one small catch in this "marketing crap": these days it's rare to see your kernel hogging CPU/RAM, so if you bother self with some profiling, etc - you will soon figure out that most of RAM and CPU hogged by ... applications, DE and so on. And since they're same - good luck to see 150% speedup, he-he. On other hand, it's "quite unlikely" that some unknown team could manage to write enough hardware drivers in time, add competitive set of features to their OS, etc. And they have to be at least on par with competitors in terms of features and then still be able to run faster, which is not to be taken as granted. This requires really decent team and good project management to work in long term and perform well. It's not like if it's impossible but it's a really hard task. I would even call it "almost impossible". So if someone want to outperform Linux, okay, they have to try. But they have to implement (almost) all features it haves if they want to be considered seriously

[gilboa]

Am I sure? Yes. DOS is setting hardware interruptions for: disk, keyboard, CRT video screen ("text console").

So even basic services like: "allocating extended 32 bit mode" has to be offered by your's application code. As DOS doesn't offer libSO loading (or .DLL from Windows world), the whole functionality you're missing you have to write (include as a static library inside your final .exe by your own). There are some logical operations that were implemented standard later in DOS versions, like: SmartDrv will offer RAM caching of your disk access, and interrupt 33 is offered for "mouse pointer movement notifications", but yeah, you don't have anything.

I will put a small correction/note about this, when I said: "there is no video acceleration", theoretically it would be possible to have it, and the first 3Dfx Voodoo cards offered 3D drivers for DOS (for their Glide API, no OpenGL), but again the application will link this code statically as a part of the application's code.

The web browser which I know from DOS, is Arachne, and in Wikipedia's page is written (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_%28web_browser%29 ) :

While its true that DOS itself (or FreeDOS) doesn't really include any for of functional networking (let alone a TCP stack), given the design of DOS (E.g. single memory space, single process, etc), its very hard to distinguish where the OS ends and where user-applications (that do include a working TCP stack) start.
FWIW, last time I checked FDOS 1.1, I had no issues connecting to my company's network via FTP.

- Gilboa

[kraftman]

What the hell are you smoking?
Anyone who has tried BeOS, Haiku or FreeDOS will instantly tell you about how fast they are compared to other OS's.
Methinks you haven't tried any of these, or at least haven't tried trolling before and giving it a shot for the first time.

Oh, man... You can boot PuppyLinux and you will feel it's a performance daemon compared to Haiku or some other shit. Haiku, BeOS feel fast, because of some tricky applications optimizations which have no place in bigger operating systems (because bigger systems have thousands of applications compared to few in crap like BeOS or Haiku). When I was talking about performance I meant real performance in real world benchmarks. Just shut up if you have no clue.

[kraftman]

Firstly, I'd like to point out a couple of fallacies in you analysis of Haiku. I know you probably didn't know, but they are incorrect points none the less.
Haiku and BeOS are not microkernels, they are hybrid kernels. Some components have been moved to userspace, but the drivers still reside inside the kernel to minimise latency.
Haiku does in fact use GCC2, but it also has the capability of being compiled with GCC4 (4.7.3 as of the latest nightly release). The reason for this is BeOS compatibility, most applications won't work on a GCC4 version of Haiku. It's still provided for development purposes and as a way of checking if current Haiku programs will be compatible with future releases of the OS that are compiled with GCC4.
Haiku has also recently gotten a x86_64 release thanks to last years GSoC project, and the default compiler for that is GCC4 as BeOS applications would be incompatible with a 64bit version of Haiku.

All of the other points you've made are more or less correct, and interesting especially in regards to FreeDOS.

You forgot to mention it's useless crap. Nobody cares about it and this thread is not about haiku, so stop trolling. This thread is about another LINUX which claims to be faster than GNU/Linux distribution. It's funny, because according to some people SphinUX is using GNU tools as well.

[intellivision]

Oh, man... You can boot PuppyLinux and you will feel it's a performance daemon compared to Haiku or some other shit. Haiku, BeOS feel fast, because of some tricky applications optimizations which have no place in bigger operating systems (because bigger systems have thousands of applications compared to few in crap like BeOS or Haiku). When I was talking about performance I meant real performance in real world benchmarks. Just shut up if you have no clue.

Profanity never helps your case, and do you have any citations for what you are claiming?
What are these tricky optimisations? You claimed them, burden of proof is on you.

You forgot to mention it's useless crap. Nobody cares about it and this thread is not about haiku, so stop trolling. This thread is about another LINUX which claims to be faster than GNU/Linux distribution. It's funny, because according to some people SphinUX is using GNU tools as well.

I wasn't trolling, I was replying to a post that YOU made about 'BeOS, Haiku and DOS', so it was you who refused to 'stay on topic' in the first place.
I was just following up your off topic point

[chenxiaolong]

Hello,

This is Saad, the person refered to as kiddie in debate-with-idiot. The stuff is completely imaginary and most of our the Egyptian IT community knows it. I just felt like confirming.

Regards.

Thanks for the confirmation. Good to hear that most people know it's a scam. Hopefully SourceForge will take down the project soon.

[ciplogic]

You forgot to mention it's useless crap. Nobody cares about it and this thread is not about haiku, so stop trolling. This thread is about another LINUX which claims to be faster than GNU/Linux distribution. It's funny, because according to some people SphinUX is using GNU tools as well.

First of all, as the topic arise, it is obvious that your phrase "Nobody cares about it" is false just because people were answering to it.
It is NOT "useless crap", because some assertions (written by me) required either to be confirmed with sources, or to be corrected. He did the correction part (which I really appreciate).

In fact one of the persons "cracking" and talking "crap" it appears to be you. SphinuX state that is not Linux, is LSX kernel that is using Linux kernel drivers.

At last, you say: "When I was talking about performance I meant real performance in real world benchmarks. Just shut up if you have no clue.".
- Real benchmarks include startup time, and BeOS (by design) if they would continue with their versions (or Haiku for that matter), they should be faster
- if Haiku has GCC 4.7 under it's belt, there is NO reason, why Haiku applications to not run as fast as Linux one
- Let me remind you that BeOS aimed just for "source code compatibility" between versions, not binary one. This is why Linux is so fast improving, as they keep stable only the user-space. This is why BeOS has fewer components and there is no WinSxS folder where all DLLs are kept with multiple versions. So it is at least technically possible that Haiku to run faster (in some scenarios) than Linux

As for me, I don't use Haiku, but I see shameful to use bad words on some one else's project. Don't you like Haiku, fine, use your Puppy, but there is no reason to not let anyone to answer to claims that are incorrect about their project/OS whatever.

[kraftman]

Profanity never helps your case, and do you have any citations for what you are claiming?
What are these tricky optimisations? You claimed them, burden of proof is on you.

There's no need for any citations. None of these tiny OSes is being used in serious environments where performance matters. However, it was someone that has claimed smaller systems are faster, so it's him that has to provide proofs. When comes to BeOS or Haiku optimizations it was mentioned many times on Phoronix. Some other people would explain this better to you, but as far as I remember it's related to multi threaded GUI.

I wasn't trolling, I was replying to a post that YOU made about 'BeOS, Haiku and DOS', so it was you who refused to 'stay on topic' in the first place.
I was just following up your off topic point

My point wasn't off topic, because I was talking about SpinUX not about BeOS or Haiku alone.

[kraftman]

It is NOT "useless crap", because some assertions (written by me) required either to be confirmed with sources, or to be corrected. He did the correction part (which I really appreciate).

It's useless, because nearly any other Operating System will do same job and in most cases it will probably do it better (more available apps, better performance and hardware support).

In fact one of the persons "cracking" and talking "crap" it appears to be you. SphinuX state that is not Linux, is LSX kernel that is using Linux kernel drivers.

They provided more statements, but it seems this project is nothing, but a scam. Do they even published source code to check how much is left from the LSX kernel? I bet it's just a Linux.

- Real benchmarks include startup time, and BeOS (by design) if they would continue with their versions (or Haiku for that matter), they should be faster
- if Haiku has GCC 4.7 under it's belt, there is NO reason, why Haiku applications to not run as fast as Linux one

By real world I mean benchmarks that really matters like I/O and multi threading performance.

- Let me remind you that BeOS aimed just for "source code compatibility" between versions, not binary one. This is why Linux is so fast improving, as they keep stable only the user-space. This is why BeOS has fewer components and there is no WinSxS folder where all DLLs are kept with multiple versions. So it is at least technically possible that Haiku to run faster (in some scenarios) than Linux

You've got to be kidding me. Linux is improving very fast, because of developers.

As for me, I don't use Haiku, but I see shameful to use bad words on some one else's project. Don't you like Haiku, fine, use your Puppy, but there is no reason to not let anyone to answer to claims that are incorrect about their project/OS whatever.

Said the one who was blaming java and qt in past. It seems you don't follow your own rules.

[mrugiero]

To kraftman. Before reading my answers, keep in mind this:
I don't care about Haiku. I think it's a nice hobby project, but I don't really see what would be its niche, and I don't follow or defend it. Even though, I've found some arguable statements in your posts.

There's no need for any citations. None of these tiny OSes is being used in serious environments where performance matters. However, it was someone that has claimed smaller systems are faster, so it's him that has to provide proofs. When comes to BeOS or Haiku optimizations it was mentioned many times on Phoronix. Some other people would explain this better to you, but as far as I remember it's related to multi threaded GUI.

You have no idea how fallacious your first statement is. No one, read, NOBODY will use in any production scenario (be it or not one particular one where performance matters) any kind of software tagged as alpha or beta, independently of how fast or slow it might be, because that tag implies it's unstable and might even be unsecure.

It's useless, because nearly any other Operating System will do same job and in most cases it will probably do it better (more available apps, better performance and hardware support).

The opposite of better is not useless, is worse, you know...
Maybe Linux can do better, well, great for Linux.
Windows does it better for the desktop, at least for most people's criteria (I don't know how would that criteria be, but they constantly choose it as their main or maybe only desktop OS), so Linux is, by your logics, useless in the desktop.

By real world I mean benchmarks that really matters like I/O and multi threading performance.

Startup time is REALLY important for casual users, who just turn the PC on to read some mails and then shut it down.
Of course, it doesn't matter for hardcore uses (except in the case it's really f*cked up and it takes minutes or hours, but that's not the case in any OS I know of), like gaming, servers, complex math processing and such, since it will be running at least hundreds of times the time it takes to boot (which means it's an overhead of less than 1%).