Arch Linux 2009.08 Benchmarks

[Apopas]

A quick question to Gentoo users: do you consider your Gentoo installation a hobby? I could certainly understand that: while I don't use Gentoo myself, I do use Arch and like to install & test various distros on bootable USB sticks as a hobby (time-wasting but fun!)

I always read that gentoo needs a lot of time, it's pointless, waste of time etc. Ofcourse, these comments come always from people that didn't try gentoo seriously. So, here is my experience with gentoo:
I have a desktop pc more than 5 years old. It's 64 bit, from the first 64 bit proccessors that came to light. It's nice, I don't need something better. This pc is used by me and 3 other users of the family. So, it must always be workable and not a matter of experiments.
I installed gentoo in this system almost immediately after I bought it and guess what, I still have the same istallation with the difference it's more modern than the latest Ubuntu and Fedora. I remember back during installation I had a hard time to setup gentoo. I needed 1 whole day to make my system workable and over 3 days to bring it to the point I really liked. But that was all. I worked for three days five years ago and since then I have the most modern OS, the less bloated and the fastest one.
Now, how I keep it up to date? Each weekend I run an update. Usually, there are a dozen of packages that have updates. The proccess even if needs compilation is automated and in less than 30 minutes, while I surfing, are ready. Ofcourse there are some packages that need a lot of time to be compiled, especially in older pcs like mine. For these, there are always and binaries if you want to use, like Firefox and Openoffice. But still even Firefox needs 40 minutes to be compiled in my system. It's not so hard and it worths the time because the final binary is faster and you can choose if you like your build to support dbus or gnome or iceweasel etc. The same for Openoffice. I build it myself because I don't want it to support java. I admit it needs over 6 hours but the proccess it's again automated and I let it go during the night while I'm sleeping. I remind you though that there are always and binaries if you want to have it in a few minutes. Ok, you can still say that you spend some time each weekend for these things. Well, is not really more than the time someone needs to update his Ubuntu from 8.10 to 9.04 and then the occasianl updates he does.
Also, the people usually have the missconception that the benefit of gentoo is to be fast because you can optimize it during compilation. While this can be true, is not the great advantage of the distro. The real benefit is the so called flags, with which you can choose what options the packages you build you want to support. For example, you choose if you want, beagle or tracker or xmp or doc or even gnome support in your nautilus. And you don't have to do this all the time, you can choose these options in a config file were they are stored permanently. This reduce the bloat to minimum and finally you have the applications you really need in your system.
So the conclusion is:
gentoo is for the mature Linux user ofcourse and while you can not jump to your friend's home and install it in a matter of minutes it has other really important benefits. It's installation is a real trouble but you do it once and for all and after that you really relax and you have one of the best things the Linux OS has to offer. Fast, simple, always modern and greatly customizable.

[yoshi314]

And obviously you can't take a joke. You don't need 2 weeks to install Gentoo. It's a *joke*. It's a joke because Gentoo needs over a day to install on recent PCs. It's a long time. That's why it's funny to make jokes about it. Like "Chuck Norris needs only 2 weeks" and such. It's a JOKE.

jokes are ok for people who "get" them.

but if you tell such a thing to a person who would like to experiment with gentoo - how do you think he'll take it?

A quick question to Gentoo users: do you consider your Gentoo installation a hobby? I could certainly understand that: while I don't use Gentoo myself, I do use Arch and like to install & test various distros on bootable USB sticks as a hobby (time-wasting but fun!)

gentoo is great if you want to use lots of packages built straight off svn/git/hg/etc and have package manager keep them under control.

arch linux comes close here, but gentoo's solution is more flexible. e.g. as you can enable/disable certain features in those packages without having to rewrite your packaging script. or you can reinstall those packages on a regular basis, in an automated way.

[BlackStar]

Not necessarily true. They might actually hate the above, but have no real knowledge on how to prevent it. Arch is not usable by people who don't know anything about the CLI. Arch and Gentoo are for people who want full customization of their OS. If people don't know how to do that, they HAVE to live with the bloat.

But all things considered, "bloat" isn't really the worst of the Desktop Linux user's problems right now.

Bah, I've successfully converted about 50% of my close circle of friends to Linux. All but a single one will not touch the terminal with a 10 foot pole - much less compile things from scratch!

Truth is, I don't like compiling things either. I'd rather use a well-tested, patched and precompiled Firefox package from a trusted maintainer than spend half a day compiling my own. Distros like Gentoo and Arch make the process more bearable, but it's still sub-optimal.

It's simple, really. What is a better way to spend your time: getting work done or compiling a package thousands have compiled before?

Obviously, there are many legitimate reasons to compile from source, especially if you are a developer. However, this is nothing but a tremendous waste of time for the average user - unless he's doing that as a hobby!

A quick question to Gentoo users: do you consider your Gentoo installation a hobby? I could certainly understand that: while I don't use Gentoo myself, I do use Arch and like to install & test various distros on bootable USB sticks as a hobby (time-wasting but fun!)

[bnolsen]

Not necessarily true. They might actually hate the above, but have no real knowledge on how to prevent it. Arch is not usable by people who don't know anything about the CLI. Arch and Gentoo are for people who want full customization of their OS.

Yup, gentoo and arch complement each other to some degree. I run gentoo on my 4 and 8 core dev systems and arch on everything else. gentoo is easier for grabbing and checking out little dev libraries and. arch's typical packages are a bit generic.

[RealNC]

then the majority of linux users like the above.

Not necessarily true. They might actually hate the above, but have no real knowledge on how to prevent it. Arch is not usable by people who don't know anything about the CLI. Arch and Gentoo are for people who want full customization of their OS. If people don't know how to do that, they HAVE to live with the bloat.

But all things considered, "bloat" isn't really the worst of the Desktop Linux user's problems right now.

[L33F3R]

If you like bloated os, default vendor configuration, a bitch to compile source code then you are right.

then the majority of linux users like the above. I am one of them. A line in the sand must be draw between what brings us our computing desires and what gets us outside.

[AdrenalineJunky]

No, Arch is a lot older than Ubuntu. Arch was created back in 2001.

right, arch being basic is a deliberate design decision, not because they haven't implemented more yet.

thats the way its supposed to be.

[bulletxt]

Nvidia vs AMD .... when can we see this?

[RealNC]

How is the benchmark not valid? It uses default distro settings (what most people end up using.)

[FallenWizard]

I used gentoo for years because i did like the rolling releases and that i can install most stuff with one command even if it?s commercial stuff, but it takes to much time for me. Its not just the compiling, there are conflicts file collitions, managing masking and useflag lists

I rarely had conflicts in Gentoo and I was running ~ARCH.

Most stuff is very basic i think its because its a very young distribution?

No, Arch is a lot older than Ubuntu. Arch was created back in 2001.


@Phoronix
How can you make a benchmark with different kernel versions and different filesystems?

If you want to make a VALID benchmark, go test the boot speed, package management and so on although it's not possible anyway, because Arch is a rolling release distro, Ubuntu not.