Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 37 Beta Now Available For Testing

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

  • Fedora 37 Beta Now Available For Testing

    Phoronix: Fedora 37 Beta Now Available For Testing

    Fedora 37 beta has been successfully released on-time as a development test release ahead of next month's planned stable release...

    https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-37-Beta

  • #2
    I've been comparing FreeBSD's JetStream 2.0 performance against windows11 and Fedora over the last few days, these were the results on the R5 PRO 3400G quad core @3.7GHz:
    windows11 + Chrome: 117.022
    windows11 + Edge: 126.426
    Lubuntu or Fedora + Chrome on the first try: +- 103
    Lubuntu or Fedora + Chrome on the second try: +- 132.89
    Solus + Brave on the first try: 127.746
    Solus + Brave on the second try: 140.095
    GhostBSD + Brave on the first try: 132.638
    GhostBSD + Brave on the second try: 149.107

    Especially on the first try, Fedora and Lubuntu are much slower than Solus, windows11 and FreeBSD/GhostBSD.

    Why don't both Red Hat and Canonical spend time implementing the Clear Linux performance optimizations?

    They are no less than 29% behind GhostBSD on the first try in JetStream 2, if they keep making the system slower instead of faster then in a few months/years there could be a 50% gap with FreeBSD and Clear Linux in JavaScript performance. Who is going to Installing Fedora when it is so extremely slow compared to other systems?

    I think GhostBSD/FreeBSD is also significantly faster than Fedora/Ubuntu in other benchmarks:

    Kraken 1.1 on GhostBSD + Brave with R5 PRO 3400G quad core @3.7GHz: 717.7

    To put this Kraken 1.1 result in context:
    https://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...review,13.html
    https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/kr...rk-1-1.435871/
    https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph12725/97962.png


    ARES-6 on GhostBSD + Brave with R5 PRO 3400G quad core @3.7GHz: 20.94ms

    To put this ARES-6 result in context:
    Intel Core i9 9900K with ASUS PRIME Z390-A motherboard, 16GB RAM, Samsung 970 EVO 256GB NVMe SSD, and AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 graphics in the year 2019.
    https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-firefox-chrome/2

    It seems to me that Fedora and Ubuntu are no longer competitive in performance with Solus/FreeBSD/Clear Linux/macOS in browser performance and other basic functionality.
    Last edited by Classical; 13 September 2022, 12:16 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Can't confirm.

      Here with Ryzen 5800X Fedora XFCE is faster than Windows 10. I'm using the official Firefox and Chrome releases.

      Fedora enables way too many GCC safety features, and is also slow to update (I don't want to run a web browser with known 0-day vulnerabilities even for an hour longer than necessary), so I use whatever Mozilla and Google distribute themselves.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Classical View Post
        I've been comparing FreeBSD's JetStream 2.0 performance against windows11 and Fedora over the last few days, these were the results on the R5 PRO 3400G quad core @3.7GHz:
        windows11 + Chrome: 117.022
        windows11 + Edge: 126.426
        Lubuntu or Fedora + Chrome on the first try: +- 103
        Lubuntu or Fedora + Chrome on the second try: +- 132.89
        Solus + Brave on the first try: 127.746
        Solus + Brave on the second try: 140.095
        GhostBSD + Brave on the first try: 132.638
        GhostBSD + Brave on the second try: 149.107

        Especially on the first try, Fedora and Lubuntu are much slower than Solus, windows11 and FreeBSD/GhostBSD.

        Why don't both Red Hat and Canonical spend time implementing the Clear Linux performance optimizations?

        They are no less than 29% behind GhostBSD on the first try in JetStream 2, if they keep making the system slower instead of faster then in a few months/years there could be a 50% gap with FreeBSD and Clear Linux in JavaScript performance. Who is going to Installing Fedora when it is so extremely slow compared to other systems?

        I think GhostBSD/FreeBSD is also significantly faster than Fedora/Ubuntu in other benchmarks:

        Kraken 1.1 on GhostBSD + Brave with R5 PRO 3400G quad core @3.7GHz: 717.7

        To put this Kraken 1.1 result in context:
        https://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...review,13.html
        https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/kr...rk-1-1.435871/
        https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph12725/97962.png


        ARES-6 on GhostBSD + Brave with R5 PRO 3400G quad core @3.7GHz: 20.94ms

        To put this ARES-6 result in context:
        Intel Core i9 9900K with ASUS PRIME Z390-A motherboard, 16GB RAM, Samsung 970 EVO 256GB NVMe SSD, and AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 graphics in the year 2019.
        https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-firefox-chrome/2

        It seems to me that Fedora and Ubuntu are no longer competitive in performance with Solus/FreeBSD/Clear Linux/macOS in browser performance and other basic functionality.
        3 benchmarks are enough for you to claim Ubuntu and Fedora are slower than GhostBSD, macOS and Windows...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Classical View Post
          Why don't both Red Hat and Canonical spend time implementing the Clear Linux performance optimizations?
          It should be noted that some of the performance optimizations in Clear Linux result in dropping support for older processors, which whenever it is proposed results in a groundswell of concerns and objections by those that would be impacted in the Fedora or Ubuntu communities.

          Comment


          • #6
            For now the only major reason I don't switch to Fedora (yet) is because almost all (pirate) games [1] are built or tested on Ubuntu (sometimes on Arch).
            I'll install Fedora 37 this October and see if/how big of an issue it really is.


            [1] https://rutracker.org/forum/tracker.php?f=2059

            Comment


            • #7
              Does anyone know what's the current situation regarding DT_HASH in Fedora 37?
              A while ago I heard somewhere that it comes disabled in Fedora 37, which will be really disappointing if true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                For now the only major reason I don't switch to Fedora (yet) is because almost all (pirate) games [1] are built or tested on Ubuntu (sometimes on Arch).
                I'll install Fedora 37 this October and see if/how big of an issue it really is.


                [1] https://rutracker.org/forum/tracker.php?f=2059
                Instead of playing pirated games on Linux like a true parasite, maybe the Russians should rather train how-to hold onto occupied ground?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Classical View Post
                  I've been comparing... [snip]
                  I have a feeling that you might have been comparing potatoes to a tomato.
                  Fedora uses the safer new technology called Wayland (not the ancient and untrustworthy Xorg server) and also uses a beautiful and modern copy-on-write file system.
                  Unless the OS's you comparing Fedora to offers something comparable I wouldn't even consider them worth of it, being inherently inferior and unsecure by design.
                  Also, if you choose your hardware carefully Fedora even automatically warns you of an out of date BIOS firmware and updates it for you from the comfort of the GUI: cheers to that!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by birdie View Post
                    Fedora enables way too many GCC safety features, and is also slow to update (I don't want to run a web browser with known 0-day vulnerabilities even for an hour longer than necessary), so I use whatever Mozilla and Google distribute themselves.
                    From your sentence it seems you're alluding to the Fedora update process using a web browser (with known 0-day vulnerability), is that what you meant?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X