Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenBenchmarking.org: Ubuntu Prepares To Be Overtaken By Arch Linux

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Gusar View Post
    LOL . Arch folks don't usually compile stuff though, unless it's from AUR.
    All from AUR or get out of Arch!

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by grndzro View Post
      The reason Arch popularity has skyrocketed is the Evolution arch installer.
      Makes it really simple to get arch up and running for us non "gifted" people.
      Do you have a link for that "evolution" stuff? Installing Arch was fun... once.
      Of course I didn't write all the packages I installed to have a nice GNOME installation with all the services working properly.

      Thanks!

      Edit> Think I found it: http://www.evolutionlinux.com/

      Comment


      • #23
        This "only for bearded hackers" thing from Arch reminds me of the old Debian installer without GUI.
        In the end, GUI installer will officially happen on Arch, just wait... a long time, but wait

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Creak View Post
          Do you have a link for that "evolution" stuff? Installing Arch was fun... once.
          Of course I didn't write all the packages I installed to have a nice GNOME installation with all the services working properly.

          Thanks!

          Edit> Think I found it: http://www.evolutionlinux.com/
          Beware that using it means that you can't get help on Arch BBS or mostly others Arch Community, they won't support any Arch-based distributions even if that distro get files from Arch Linux official mirrors

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Flolo View Post
            If the testsuite behaves on other fedora installations as on my, I understand that its % is so low: Out of curiosity I tried to run some of the test - already at downloading/installing the missing pakets, it crashed/went into some kind of endless loop that created as many processes as possible. Also the system detection is buggy: System info yields with my system: PROCESSOR = Intel Core i7-3930K @ 5.70GHz (12 Cores) - and no, my system is actually not running at 5.7 GHz.

            I found the idea of such a test suite very good, even when it is not running on all systems/distributions (I am not curious enough/have that much spare time to track that bugs back). Michael does a good job with this, but one should be careful when drawing general conclusion as "this/that distri is the most popular for conduction test", when maybe the reason is just that it is not working out of the box with certain distributions.
            Strange, I routinely use PTS on Fedora and never run into problems... The only problems most people run into are when the HTTP mirrors of files disappear and then eventually I update them when notified of downed mirrors. What test(s) were you trying?

            Can you try the latest PTS code to see if it still reports 5.7GHz? I have not encountered such bogus frequency detection before, so likely either your CPUfreq/P-State driver or /proc/cpuinfo is somehow supplying the incorrect data.
            Michael Larabel
            https://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #26
              This is my first time hearing of /etc/os-release. Was there some valid reason to move away from /etc/lsb-release (massive security hole in a text file, original author was a murderer, etc.) or is this just another one of the all-too-common examples of some Linux dweeb just wanting to do things differently?

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                This is my first time hearing of /etc/os-release. Was there some valid reason to move away from /etc/lsb-release (massive security hole in a text file, original author was a murderer, etc.) or is this just another one of the all-too-common examples of some Linux dweeb just wanting to do things differently?
                Just guessing but the following scenario sounds plausible: The original murderer-killer-IS-gangbang-criminal-drug-abuser-author of lsb-release specified lsb-release textfile in an insufficient manner. My arch provides lsb-release and os-release (old installation whatever dont know, dont care) and there are significant differences with latter provding more information.

                Comment


                • #28
                  wrlinux

                  what is wrlinux???

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Kemosabe View Post
                    Just guessing but the following scenario sounds plausible: The original murderer-killer-IS-gangbang-criminal-drug-abuser-author of lsb-release specified lsb-release textfile in an insufficient manner. My arch provides lsb-release and os-release (old installation whatever dont know, dont care) and there are significant differences with latter provding more information.
                    That's true. I could see how it would be an overwhelming difficulty to add an additional line or two to the existing lsb-release text file. It would clearly be easier to just create a whole new file and move everyone over to that.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      This is my first time hearing of /etc/os-release. Was there some valid reason to move away from /etc/lsb-release (massive security hole in a text file, original author was a murderer, etc.) or is this just another one of the all-too-common examples of some Linux dweeb just wanting to do things differently?
                      http://www.freedesktop.org/software/...s-release.html

                      The /etc/os-release symlinnk is also only for legacy compatability. Vendor defaults should go into /usr/lib, user overwrites should go into /etc this way you do factory resets by nuking /etc and boot with only /usr populated which is esentially the entire distro.

                      Blacklisting for the nouveau module when you install the nvidia driver also happens in /usr/lib/modprobe.d/nvidia.conf not /etc/modprobe.d

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X