No announcement yet.

What Linux Distribution Should Be Benchmarked The Most?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caucel View Post

    Mint is Ubuntu with a beautiful art and other desktop.
    Not really. Mint's main edition is Ubuntu based, but you also have a Debian testing based Mint.

    And it would be nice to have Debian benchmarks You could use Sid, almost all packages are very recent.


    • I vote for gentoo or slackware.


      • Any other distro that uses ubiquity in their installer? No? Then go for Ubuntu, you won't trouble your users and everyone will be happy.

        Of course if you want to do bad marketing go with another distro...I want my bloat!
        Don't use Mint. It comes with bloated MATE 1.6.


        • Originally posted by powdigsig View Post
          Any other distro that uses ubiquity in their installer?
          Mint. Probably many other Ubuntu-derived distros use it as well.

          No? Then go for Ubuntu, you won't trouble your users and everyone will be happy.

          Of course if you want to do bad marketing go with another distro...I want my bloat!
          Don't use Mint. It comes with bloated MATE 1.6.
          Mint comes with lots of desktops. Cinnamon and MATE are the main versions, but there are also KDE, Xfce and LXDE versions.


          • OK, so totally didn't read through all of the past 180+ comments, but here is what I think (in no particular order):

            1) Redhat/Fedora - Used to be pretty much the defacto distro (especially for enterprise), and still is fairly important today in the corporate world (server at least, Ubuntu has cut into the desktop)
            2) OpenSuse - Again, used to be the defacto KDE distro - great support currently
            3) Kubuntu or Xubuntu - pretty much Ubuntu (with all the PPA support for cutting edge that you need), but without the insanity
            4) Debian - Pretty much the defacto (next to Slack) rock solid distro. Only issue I see is the cutting edge - note sure how compatible Debian is now with Ubuntu's repos (like XSwat/Edgers/etc)
            5) Arch - More involved initial setup, but you can pretty much clone after the initial. Bleeding edge and generally support the latest and greatest via the AUR repo and this can be automated

            So, I will say its been years since I messed with Redhat or Opensuse, so I don't know how easy it is to automate everything like updates and Git source building. Arch would be a great idea as I think you can automate most of this. However, for the easy way out, Kubuntu or Xubuntu pretty much would be a drop in and they both have pretty much decided to stay with the normal Linux stack. I am semi-prone to Kubuntu being that I use KDE, and while Kubuntu has not had the best KDE install around, it has gotten pretty good lately in my limited exposure.


            • Originally posted by finalzone View Post
              No debug version of kernel is available as well:
              The kernel isn't the only important piece.


              • Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
                You haven't read a thing I wrote, did you? Or you still think I consider Ubuntu a variant of GNU/Linux. Or you are too green to know the difference...
                Actually I think he did read what you wrote. I suspect you just are not prepared to listen to a dissenting opinion. Is is GNU/Linux? Unquestionably:

                1. Linux kernel... yes
                2. debian package software management... yes though rpm and others are suitable substitutes.
                3. GPL software all over the place (yes even Unity and Mir)... yes again.
                4. A vast repository of FLOSS applications... one of the very biggest
                5. Tin foil hat wearing users who think that the fewer people who use it the cooler it is... no.

                Well four out of five ain't bad. I was never really fond of number 5 anyway.


                • Fedora

                  I would prefer you do benchmarks on Fedora, for several reasons: it is very standardized in that it keeps its software as close to upstream as possible, with little or no modification; it has very up to date packages while remaining mostly stable; it is (as far as I know) the most used distribution that is LSB compliant.


                  • A little of everything

                    1. PCLinuxOS (for something fedora like, that is not fedora)2. Manjaro or Chakra (the pleasure of using Arch without having to install Arch)3. Bodhi (enlightenment 17, nuff said)4. Sabayon (an unstable taste of Gentoo without having to "spend time" really installing gentoo)5. LMDE (lxde) ( pure debian, without having to install debian)6. Mint ( Ubuntu without Unity, Mir, and stuff)


                    • If multiple bases were to be chosen, I, like many before me would have to agree with;

                      1: Debian; rolling or not, its entire existance is based around sanity and being stable.
                      2: openSuse; It's quite simply one of the most polished user experiences out there. Rich ecosystem of support
                      3: CentOS; Baseline for hte other camp for solid server/workstation OS and as posted previously, Fedora might be a little bit to picky to build for
                      4: Ubuntu LTS; Has to be done!

                      These are baselines and theoretically should not prove to many problems for a solid base to work from and supply real-world results.

                      Then go nuts with the likes of Arch, Fedora, Crunchbang, Mint, Chakra, PCLinuxOS, *BSD, et al.

                      Having a server host the installers across the network for any of these system's should make rapid deployment a breeze if preconfigured correctly. I believe I saw a post mby Michael once saying he does something like this anyway.