Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017: Should Linux Benchmarking Still Be Mostly Done With Ubuntu?

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

  • 2017: Should Linux Benchmarking Still Be Mostly Done With Ubuntu?

    Phoronix: 2017: Should Linux Benchmarking Still Be Mostly Done With Ubuntu?

    Every year or so it comes up how some users believe that at Phoronix we should be benchmarking with Antergos/Arch, Debian, or [insert here any other distribution] instead of mostly using Ubuntu for our Linux benchmarking. That discussion has come back up in recent days...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Distro-Discuss

  • #2
    Well, imo, Ubuntu-based distros are used by those involved with gaiming and workstations. However, other distros have their use cases, RHL is to my knowledge good for productivity, Lightworks releases their video editor in .rpm for example. And so forth. I would suggest that you use the distro best for that use case/type of review that is applied. Maybe say Fedora or Arch would be best to test productivity, like Linux kernels, coding related stuff and other productivity, while Ubuntu for Gaming and such.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thing is Ubuntu-base is full of Ubuntu-patches, while Arch is patch-free as long as possible. So "Linux" benchmarks should be made with Arch while "Ubuntu" benchmarks are good with Ubuntu.

      ^
      Thats an IMHO

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lumks View Post
        Thing is Ubuntu-base is full of Ubuntu-patches, while Arch is patch-free as long as possible. So "Linux" benchmarks should be made with Arch while "Ubuntu" benchmarks are good with Ubuntu.

        ^
        Thats an IMHO
        Or LFS :P

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by phoronix View Post
          Phoronix: 2017: Should Linux Benchmarking Still Be Mostly Done With Ubuntu?

          Every year or so it comes up how some users believe that at Phoronix we should be benchmarking with Antergos/Arch, Debian, or [insert here any other distribution] instead of mostly using Ubuntu for our Linux benchmarking. That discussion has come back up in recent days...

          http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Distro-Discuss
          Which is _your_ favorite distro, Michael?

          Which would you test with if it was all your choice?

          Comment


          • #6
            I'd like to see Gentoo benchmarks but I understand it takes a lot of time to setup a Gentoo system. It'd be nice to see exactly the performance increase you get when every single package on your system is compiled with -march=native -O2, and there's quite a few different ways to configure a kernel that effect performance. I could test this myself but I guess I'm lazy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Personally haven't used Ubuntu in years for my desktop OS. But it is still the most popular distro in one form or another.

              I personally use Antergos and I can't fault it. Although I want to build my own Arch at some point.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by czz0 View Post
                I'd like to see Gentoo benchmarks but I understand it takes a lot of time to setup a Gentoo system. It'd be nice to see exactly the performance increase you get when every single package on your system is compiled with -march=native -O2, and there's quite a few different ways to configure a kernel that effect performance. I could test this myself but I guess I'm lazy.
                Larabel is only mortal!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Unless a distribution with significant better performance is used (Clear Linux), I do not see a reason to change. SteamOS and Ubuntu are the target distros for all games on Steam, it makes no sense to use something else just because some people have a personal grudge against Cannonical.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lumks View Post
                    Thing is Ubuntu-base is full of Ubuntu-patches, while Arch is patch-free as long as possible. So "Linux" benchmarks should be made with Arch while "Ubuntu" benchmarks are good with Ubuntu.
                    I don't use Arch, I use openSUSE, but I agree that using Arch would give a more realistic view of what the performance of Linux is. Not only because of patches, but also because of its rolling nature.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X