Ubuntu 18.04 LTS vs. Fedora 28 vs. Clear Linux Benchmarks

[gregzeng]

I'm curious also, but it's up to each distro to decide how to bundle the linux kernel, Gnome shell, Mesa drivers, GCC, and filesystem/scheduler for their release so I think it's fair to judge them as is.

I suggested to Michael months ago, that the Linux Kernel could make a difference. He obviously did not consider this to be a serious point, when he first tested the beta version (or alpha version) of Ubuntu 18.04.
Unknown to most persons, the installed version of the Linux kernel is often different to the version included in the final release candidate. If installation has access to the coder's repositories, it usually upgrades the Linux Kernel, and other applications, to the very latest "approved" by the official coder of the operating system. This authorized upgrade is usually NOT the very latest version, either of the Linux kernel, nor of the other Linux parts.

Unknown to most people, the official source code released by "The Linux Foundation" is updated every several days. As usual, each upgrade has known bugs fixed, but poor optimizations, and the unknown bugs are still to be discovered. These unknowns will take many years to be finally "removed".

The Ubuntu-based operating systems include many more than the official Ubuntu-approved family. However all these Ubuntu-based, and some Debian-based systems can benefit with the latest Linux kernel, seconds after the release by "The Linux Foundation". A few disadvantages of this Ubuntu-compilation: it is not speed-optimized when compiled, compared to that in Clear Linux. Secondly, it includes binary-bits that Ubuntu includes, with Ubuntu compilation-settings. This may not suit some end-users.

There do exist Ubuntu-based & Debian-based operating systems which deliberately use their own compilation methods. These private optimizations may have no binary-bits at all. Whether any have the "Clear Linux" optimizations is unknown to me. The "gain" of these benchmark-speed optimizations could possibly be due to some other engineering loss in other regards. Is the gain ok with backwards or forwards compatibility? Do the many wide range of applications work well with such a narrow-based operating system?

[gregzeng]

As others have alluded to and I have mentioned dozens (or hundreds now?) of times in other threads, when doing a distro comparison it really only makes sense doing the defaults. Soon as you start tweaking things -- especially the notion of changing the kernel as well as the bundled firmware -- you really are running down a slippery slope of where to stop and where does it start/end for what is considered comparable to a given distribution/OS. It's just not a matter of say checking something different at the installer like a 'performance mode', but there are endless tunables.

Granted, I do run specialized articles where say comparing kernel versions or seeing what it's like building an Ubuntu kernel with Clear's Kconfig file, but for the purposes of doing a distribution/OS comparison, it doesn't make sense tweaking a bunch of things -- especially when most users probably do not go through all of those steps and all of those choices are choices knowingly made by each of the OS vendors.

Agree, partially. I assume that when installing the official release code, that you do not allow the operating system to update itself to the latest updates? If you do allow this, you need to mention the installation time, and whether the Linux Kernel, etc are different from those in the initial code release. When installing an operating system, often we cannot allow access to the internet. Updates etc are often impossible, slow or time-wasting.

One reason for allowing access to the internet at the time of installation, is that the "FC" (Final Candidate) still has many bugs. It could be a mater of seconds whether your allowed last-update was at the same level as another user, unless all are compared, without any updates at all.

The other "danger" of the publishers of all operating systems, is to standardize the "defaults" to proven standards. The very newest, unusual "innovations" should be an OPT-IN-CHOICE. Fedora shot itself in the foot (hat?) here by choosing the poorly performing defaults: Wayland, etc.

[BaronHK]

lol, sounds like you're saying Fedora made a mistake shipping with Wayland as the default instead of Xorg. Your words not mine. Let's just accept they're both great desktops, and you could argue Ubuntu 18.04 LTS won this round, no shame in that. It's a solid release.

And if it makes you feel better, we're fighting for second place. Clear Linux is ahead (if you wanna talk benchmarks)

FYI: If you're gonna attempt to diss Michael, keep in mind you're on _his_ website, not vice versa.

Fedora enabled Wayland so that people would test it. If you don't make something the default, then people usually won't use it.

The only thing I pointed out was that he could have bothered to test the same configuration.

Ubuntu is making their users less safe by not updating the CPU firmware and they fell back on using Xorg for certain stated reasons. The real one being that companies like Valve are dragging ass on supporting Wayland (or high resolution screens, for that matter) and actually probably have a greater chance of discontinuing the Linux client instead of bothering to fix it. Their Steam Runtime for Linux is basically a bunch of Ubuntu libs from 12.04. If that's not a clear cut case of "Don't know what the **** they're doing.", I don't know what is. That's definitely something that programmers with a background in Windows or Java would do.

[BaronHK]

Agree, partially. I assume that when installing the official release code, that you do not allow the operating system to update itself to the latest updates? If you do allow this, you need to mention the installation time, and whether the Linux Kernel, etc are different from those in the initial code release. When installing an operating system, often we cannot allow access to the internet. Updates etc are often impossible, slow or time-wasting.

One reason for allowing access to the internet at the time of installation, is that the "FC" (Final Candidate) still has many bugs. It could be a mater of seconds whether your allowed last-update was at the same level as another user, unless all are compared, without any updates at all.

The other "danger" of the publishers of all operating systems, is to standardize the "defaults" to proven standards. The very newest, unusual "innovations" should be an OPT-IN-CHOICE. Fedora shot itself in the foot (hat?) here by choosing the poorly performing defaults: Wayland, etc.

Log out. Choose GNOME on Xorg. Log in.

That's a brainer. I'd imagine that anyone who is smart enough to use Fedora instead of Ubuntu could figure this one out if they don't want to move to Wayland at the moment.

There are real reasons for moving to Wayland that have been stated numerous times, and if your reply to that is "Xorg works", well, maybe. It depends on your setup. Xinerama and super high resolutions is a complete disaster. There are security issues. There are other problems. Problems that will never be fixed. Most of the stragglers that are tempting people back to Xorg are companies with crap software like Valve and Nvidia.

Who knows? Xorg might be around for a long time because of that. If we can't get distributions like Ubuntu to say "Look, we're dropping this and you really need to migrate by this date.", then we'll never get anywhere. Perhaps the desktop environments can drop support for it and force the issue. I hope, I hope, I hope.

There's also the possibility that XWayland performance will continue to improve. When Fedora 25 flipped Wayland on by default, even Borderlands 2 was a slideshow, and now it's playable. It just runs faster under Xorg. XWayland is still pretty green. The XWayland server is shipped as part of Xorg, not Wayland, so the next opportunity to see much progress is when Fedora 29 ships with the Xorg Server 1.20 later this year.

[andre30correia]

Fedora enabled Wayland so that people would test it. If you don't make something the default, then people usually won't use it.

The only thing I pointed out was that he could have bothered to test the same configuration.

Ubuntu is making their users less safe by not updating the CPU firmware and they fell back on using Xorg for certain stated reasons. The real one being that companies like Valve are dragging ass on supporting Wayland (or high resolution screens, for that matter) and actually probably have a greater chance of discontinuing the Linux client instead of bothering to fix it. Their Steam Runtime for Linux is basically a bunch of Ubuntu libs from 12.04. If that's not a clear cut case of "Don't know what the **** they're doing.", I don't know what is. That's definitely something that programmers with a background in Windows or Java would do.

last time I check cpu firmware is non free and Ubuntu don't ship with non-free software without user wants since ever, Fedora do the same for years but looks like they chance in 2018. Steam client works even using native runtime for almost two years. I can't see the problem here since steam client is old in all plataforms and the a good thing for inux desktop

[BaronHK]

last time I check cpu firmware is non free and Ubuntu don't ship with non-free software without user wants since ever, Fedora do the same for years but looks like they chance in 2018. Steam client works even using native runtime for almost two years. I can't see the problem here since steam client is old in all plataforms and the a good thing for inux desktop

Fedora has always shipped up-to-date firmware. I don't know what you're talking about with Ubuntu. The whole point of Snappy is to shovel non-Free software onto your hard drive as fast as they can. Also, they have a ton of non-free firmware, they just don't update the CPU.

[Venemo]

when doing a distro comparison it really only makes sense doing the defaults. Soon as you start tweaking things -- especially the notion of changing the kernel as well as the bundled firmware -- you really are running down a slippery slope of where to stop and where does it start/end for what is considered comparable to a given distribution/OS.

That's understandable. Sorry for the harsh tone of my previous post.