Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Linux Distribution Should Be Benchmarked The Most?

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

  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    I don't think Lubuntu would stick to X. Once LXDE ports everything to Qt 5, it will be able to use Wayland without issues.
    LXDE might not stick strictly with X, but Lubuntu maintainers want to avoid the extra memory use compositing implies (from the buffers you need for every window and such, not implying that either Mir or Wayland would use more memory by themselves because that's not even likely). Remember one of the focus of Lubuntu is to minimize memory use, and they already stated they might want to avoid compositing all in all. Wayland and Mir mandate compositing for traditional desktop use.
    Also, Openbox might not be ported (it's not very active, so I don't think anyone will port it in the short term), so they'll have to use a different window manager than the de facto standard for LXDE if they want to use Wayland.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    I fully agree. There is no point in benchmarking distributions which are not used by many people. So for now, just stick with Ubuntu until the majority of Linux users moves on.

    Also, if you decide to use a different distribution, please choose one which is actually usable for daily work. Many people here in the forums use their operating system as a playground and don't mind if it breaks. The majority of the people however, need an operating system which can be used to get some work done. Therefore, please use a distribution for your benchmarks which can also be used in an enterprise environment, not a toy-distribution for OS devs.
    And how will you know when the majority of users have moved on? How do you know they haven't moved on already?

    I don't think any of the distributions discussed here are not usable for daily work. I'm pretty sure nobody is suggesting to benchmark only Rebecca Black from now on...

    Originally posted by felipe View Post
    i don't know which other distro recommend to the noobs
    Mageia, hands down.

    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
    I guess Lubuntu will be the only relatively massive one relying on X, and then Xubuntu or Kubuntu (I'm not saying Fedora because of the debug build, which might lead to misinformation about the performance of this kind of stack) are likely to use Wayland eventually.
    I don't think Lubuntu would stick to X. Once LXDE ports everything to Qt 5, it will be able to use Wayland without issues.

    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    I am not a fan of Ubuntu/Canonical, but this is just ridiculous. How do you people think that using Ubuntu instead of Fedora/openSuse/Arch/Slackware/... will affect the results of those benchmarks? The only thing that comes to my mind (and where Ubuntu had problems in the past) is the compositor/WM that can influence the gaming benchmarks, a thing that can easily be fixed by using a version with a non-compositing WM, for example Lubuntu. But if Michael makes a comparison of kernel versions, graphic drivers or anything else the OS that is used shouldn't matter at all, otherwise the benchmarks setup is flawed in itself.
    The problem is Mir. If you do graphics benchmarks, and it's running on Mir, while the readers are using Wayland, the results are useless to the readers. This topic is about discussing future plans, not just looking at this exact moment in time. And Lubuntu is a distinct distribution from Ubuntu, so nobody is saying that it's not up for consideration among the other distributions.

    Originally posted by plonoma View Post
    (following not a name) ... some slackware based distro
    You mean openSUSE?

    Leave a comment:


  • droste
    replied
    +1 for openSUSE latest release or tumbleweed (why was already mentioned ;-))

    Leave a comment:


  • rudregues
    replied
    +1 OpenSUSE

    Phoronix members:
    - Select your Gentoo and configure it with -march=x86_64 instead of -march=native or -march=btver1 or whatever
    Think about this.


    Now, about the question: OpenSUSE. From what I see in this thread it fits very well the needs of phoronix . Easy to use latest kernel, easy to install new packages and easy to someone reproduce.


    Obs.: sometimes it would be interesting to see cross-distro comparisons too :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • TheOne
    replied
    This is just insane, this forums are full of fanboysm! I thought developers/coders with some knowledge of the inner working of things and neutral view visited this forums, but it seems that the majority is religious, people who uses linux based operating systems and feel superior even when they haven't written one single application or line of code. Thats what I perceive of the people posting on this thread, people with the attitude of a child.

    Is fun and at the same time disgusting to see people threatening Michael to stop visiting Phoronix because he uses Ubuntu for benchmarking software, are they kidding? So now the guy providing us nice benchmarks has to support all the distros people use here so he can please everyone, thats insane. Why doesn't that people running other distros (since they are so superior) provide the benchmarks them self? I'm sure they don't have the minimum idea of how to do it, thats laughable.

    One of the must laughable thing is those guys suggesting gentoo for benchmarking software compiled with optimizations to the target CPU, come on, even most advanced developers don't go to the trouble of compiling the whole system from scratch, ask kernel developers which distro they use.

    In any case besides all the crazyness going on this forums I would suggest to Michael to keep doing what he is already doing, a great job! Also it may be nice idea a community initiative where third party people can provide benchmarks of other linux distros so Michael can include them on the comparisons. So Michael could post which kind of benchmark he is going to make, so the community can duplicate it on the distro of choice and publish results.

    Edit: Same hardware duplication can be a problem, but with a community so big there may be other people with hardware that matches those of Michael.
    Last edited by TheOne; 26 July 2013, 12:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dh04000
    replied
    Originally posted by verde View Post
    Steam usage as far as Debian regards is MASSIVELY in favor of Ubuntu. Doubting and disgusing the Ubuntu general "market-share" supremacy by some people here, its clear indicator that they are haters in denial!
    That's for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • dimko
    replied
    Doesnt matter what

    As long it's KDE or Gnome based and is Binary in nature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Temar
    replied
    Originally posted by felipe View Post
    Canonical doesn't have ethics. They Include adware in Ubuntu.
    A valid point, though the adware can be disabled with one simple command. I'm not sure if we can talk about ethics when a company tries to make money and at the same time offers an easy way to get rid of the adware (I guess you are talking about the Amazon search provider).

    Originally posted by felipe View Post
    And they stole the work from another projects and sold as they own
    You can't steal from OSS projects as long as you honor their license. The developers of these projects made a conscious descision when choosing an open source license.

    Also I can't remember every paying for Ubuntu or any of it's derivates. Canonical offers support contracts but they are optional.

    The simple fact is: If you are hating Canonical for what they do, you have to hate a lot of other companies as well. There are literally thousands of companies which use OSS software and never give anything in return. If you hate all these companies then you don't understand the intention of open source. OSS developers choose their licenses, so they are free to choose a different one if they want to prevent companies from using their software. It's as simple as that.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by felipe View Post
    The principle rule of the free software. The rule more important,the rule who gave a birth this kind of operative systems. Of Course i'm talking about the ethics. Canonical doesn't have ethics. They Include adware in Ubuntu. And they stole the work from another projects and sold as they own
    I don't think being a "genuine Linux distro" has anything to do with ethics. In any case, that would be a "genuine GNU distro". Linus Torvalds, who wrote the bases for the kernel everyone seems to use as a reference, has no interest in free software as an ethic. It certainly has nothing to do with having a desktop, since distros exists that are considered genuine and don't ship with a default desktop, and can even be left as a console distro.
    I think there is no sense on that term at all.

    However, Ubuntu is indeed going further from the most common pieces of the stack. As long as this doesn't introduce serious fragmentation, I don't think it's inherently wrong to do so. I do think some of their moves are plainly wrong, mostly the FUD and pulling XMir to the desktop on their next releases, but well, the latter could be circumvented by just skipping those releases (the sad part is that you would end up with an unsupported version if you use 13.04, until 14.10 is out there).

    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    I am not a fan of Ubuntu/Canonical, but this is just ridiculous. How do you people think that using Ubuntu instead of Fedora/openSuse/Arch/Slackware/... will affect the results of those benchmarks? The only thing that comes to my mind (and where Ubuntu had problems in the past) is the compositor/WM that can influence the gaming benchmarks, a thing that can easily be fixed by using a version with a non-compositing WM, for example Lubuntu. But if Michael makes a comparison of kernel versions, graphic drivers or anything else the OS that is used shouldn't matter at all, otherwise the benchmarks setup is flawed in itself.
    Also, since when is systemd the standard that must be used for benchmarks and why do you people expect that it would give you other benchmark results than an Upstart/OpenRC/SystemV distro?

    Again, I am not a fan of Ubuntu/Canonical, but this is just pure hatred for no good reason.
    It depends on what's being tested, as always. If startup time is not being analyzed, it doesn't matter which init system you use. If it's not graphic, it will probably not matter which display system is being used. On those cases, I agree, just pick one and go with it, it won't change anything. But note you are contradicting. On one hand, you wonder how it would affect Ubuntu users, but later you state there is no difference. I don't know why some expect Ubuntu to go with systemd (they developed upstart before systemd was around, so expecting them to change is kind of like expecting everyone else to switch to Mir), I considered systemd and upstart mostly because I think it would be a worthy comparison for startup time, and just forgot about the other, that should be included on that case, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmcharron
    replied
    Another vote for OpenSuSE!!!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X