Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Linux Distribution Should Be Benchmarked The Most?

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

  • sepisoad
    replied
    Ubuntu

    Ubuntu is still the best platform to carry on the benchmarking I believe

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by kcredden View Post
    Reading all the comments, about who's distro is the best. Perhapse the best idea for benchmark is to benchmark the foundation distros instead of the child ones.

    Debian 7 (no GUI) instead of Ubuntu.
    Redhat instead of say OpenSuse.
    Are you kidding? The first release of S.u.S.E Linux was over 7 months before the first release of Red Hat.

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Oh. Well, your first post was really ambiguous in that regard, but good to know what you actually meant by that. But Ubuntu is not going anywhere any time soon, in any case.



    No, that still doesn't make much sense. Both Debian and CentOS are very stable, which means that they don't reflect the current state. Also, openSUSE is a foundation distribution ? it started off as a fork of Slackware, but hasn't relied on it for many years now. Fedora is likewise a foundation distribution. It started off as a fork of Red Hat Linux, but it's been the driving force behind RHEL ever since, not the other way around. So while I would agree that the more independent distributions should be tested, they shouldn't be oldly stable. Debian testing would be fine in that regard, though.
    replace 'many years' with '20 years'.

    And if you are looking at that: EVERYTHING started off as a fork of Slackware.

    So.. no. Suse stands for itself as much as Redhat/Fedora.

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    Originally posted by kcredden View Post
    Reading all the comments, about who's distro is the best. Perhapse the best idea for benchmark is to benchmark the foundation distros instead of the child ones.

    Debian 7 (no GUI) instead of Ubuntu.
    Redhat instead of say OpenSuse.

    The child distros add and tweak their linuxes, or add or subtract things that may skew results. You need a baseline before you can compare.

    So I'd advise to benchmark Debian 7, right from debian.org. Then compare it to Ubuntu. The same with Redhat as well.

    I look forward to the results then.
    foundation? opensuse and redhat?

    Oh boy....

    maybe you should think about that for a minute.

    (hint: opensuse has nothing to do with redhat. And fedora nothing with SuseLinuxEnterpriseServer)

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by stiiixy View Post
    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.
    In the case of openSUSE, you don't even need that, you can use SUSEStudio to host all your installation images. Or use AutoYaST for automation. Both of them are based on the same technology, Kiwi.

    Leave a comment:


  • stiiixy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • killmess
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirudo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • allenmaher
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
    No debug version of kernel is available as well:
    http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt...ernel-nodebug/
    The kernel isn't the only important piece.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X