Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Five-Way Linux Distribution Comparison In 2010

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

  • linuxforall
    replied
    Originally posted by fanATic View Post
    Yes, Sidux is fast. But I don't like KDE very much and Xfce4 is somewhat limited (Thunar vs Nautilus for example, and I have reasons why I need and like Nautilus and overall, Gnome desktop) compared to Gnome. So I stick to Arch and it's simplicity.


    Imagine a Windows user coming into Debian, Slackware and Red Hat in 1997, bye bye Linux forever...wait, GNU/Linux is still alive?
    GNU/Linux is alive and in news because of distros like Ubuntu, like it or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • fanATic
    replied
    Originally posted by linuxforall View Post
    Ubuntu light desktop can be made from scratch and will run as light as Arch, so will Lubuntu.

    And if we are speaking of speed, try out sidux or Kanotix or Salix, sad part is you would have to work your way around these distros, many things don't work out of the box like it does in Ubuntu, so yes, I will take a bit of system load for convenience and general acceptance anyday over so called cutting edge.
    Yes, Sidux is fast. But I don't like KDE very much and Xfce4 is somewhat limited (Thunar vs Nautilus for example, and I have reasons why I need and like Nautilus and overall, Gnome desktop) compared to Gnome. So I stick to Arch and it's simplicity.

    Imagine a Windows user coming into Arch or Gentoo, bye bye Linux forever.
    Imagine a Windows user coming into Debian, Slackware and Red Hat in 1997, bye bye Linux forever...wait, GNU/Linux is still alive?

    Leave a comment:


  • linuxforall
    replied
    Originally posted by fanATic View Post
    Whatever, in Arch everything opens faster and runs smoother, no lagging etc.
    And yes, I liked Ubuntu very much before, but I don't like what it become.

    So it does in Ubuntu, no lags here. What it has become today is a viable alternative for those who would like to try out something apart from Windows, other Linux distros with few exceptions can't even hold a candle to that.

    Imagine a Windows user coming into Arch or Gentoo, bye bye Linux forever.




    Yeah right, Xubuntu is also bloated compared to Arch+Xfce4. Everything in *buntu world is bloated, no matter if they put some light DE or something.

    Ubuntu light desktop can be made from scratch and will run as light as Arch, so will Lubuntu.

    And if we are speaking of speed, try out sidux or Kanotix or Salix, sad part is you would have to work your way around these distros, many things don't work out of the box like it does in Ubuntu, so yes, I will take a bit of system load for convenience and general acceptance anyday over so called cutting edge.

    Leave a comment:


  • fanATic
    replied
    Originally posted by linuxforall View Post
    And yet in benchmakrs, Arch never ever manages to surpass this bloated crappy distro called Ubuntu.
    Whatever, in Arch everything opens faster and runs smoother, no lagging etc.
    And yes, I liked Ubuntu very much before, but I don't like what it become.


    Originally posted by linuxforall View Post
    Btw, all those who call Ubuntu bloated take heed, its meant to work outta box, no configure this, compile that but then if you are anal, be my guest as it allows all that as well. Also there are countless ways to install lighter version of Ubuntu as well as lxde versions that can go toe to toe with these so called anal favorite distros.
    Yeah right, Xubuntu is also bloated compared to Arch+Xfce4. Everything in *buntu world is bloated, no matter if they put some light DE or something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Basically no benchmark accross distros is fair. You never know how many extra depends have been installed when you do compile benchmarks. Those change the compile speed when they are optional. Also runtime benchmarks mainly show gcc differences. When you compare precompiled binaries for games then you test the gfx drivers if they are not 100% the same. I definitely would not chose the distro depending on a 3rd party benchmark. I know when i change for example the kernel it can be faster in some cases (bfs seems to improve speed only on cpus without ht) or when hardware is replaced then you can compare the difference on the SAME system. Even when it would be possible to gain 10% speed with one distro that would not change much - there are differnet issues to consider like the quality of support.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panix
    replied
    It doesn't seem like a fair comparison. Seems like they're designed differently. Why not do a benchmark of Lubuntu v.s. Arch v.s. Debian Squeeze (or sidux) instead? I'd add Fedora 13 and Windows 7 for kicks for a real interesting comparison! I'd like to see such a benchmark test!

    Anyone else?

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxID10T
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Thank you very much for this. It seems it proofs Phoronix article about Linux being slower in 3D is wrong (they were using defaults, but then I wouldn't draw such conclusions like Phoronix did). Thanks for showing Arch performs great, too.
    They did do a follow up to it. It is a shame though that they didn't run every test again without compositing. Windows 7 wins out there because it automatically disables compositing.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by gedgon View Post
    Hardware C2D [email protected], 2GiB RAM, Nvidia GF 275
    Ubuntu: Compiz turned off, Nvidia drivers v 256.35
    Arch: DE:KDE 4.4.5, WM:Openbox, stock kernel with minor patches for low latency desktop. Everything else 100% stock.

    Tests where Arch supposed to sucks.








    And sneak peek @ Windows vs Linux games performance
    Thank you very much for this. It seems it proofs Phoronix article about Linux being slower in 3D is wrong (they were using defaults, but then I wouldn't draw such conclusions like Phoronix did). Thanks for showing Arch performs great, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • linuxforall
    replied
    Arch or Gentoo can never ever be slower, in fact the right comparison would be a Ubuntu light distro versus Arch but the tests done here and elsewhere have come to the conclusion that optimized distros with today's multi core high ram PCs don't really benefit much, one of the reasons I don't bother compiling my own kernel. Also another worthy contender in these tests would be sidux which is blazingly fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • zeb_
    replied
    Originally posted by linuxforall View Post
    @zeb,

    My reply was for this post, not for yours and yes, I have read all. When you call one of the most successful distros out there bloated piece of crap, it speaks of nothing but blatant fanboyism and yes, Arch is NOT FASTER THAN UBUNTU, but if you like to have the satisfaction of thinking it is, there is absolutely no cure for PLACEBO.
    There is no cure for placebo, but there are some for bad faith.

    To start off, I do find inappropriate to call Ubuntu a "bloated piece of crap" because that's unsubstanciated. OK, that is said.

    However, you're just tilting at windmills when you point out that Arch is not faster than Ubuntu or any other distro. You'll notice that the tests I did (and those of Gegdon) show that Archlinux is NOT faster than Ubuntu, but NOT slower either, significantly. The impression of lightness some people have experienced is simply caused by the lower number of default daemons running in background, but you can do that with many distros.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X