Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SphinUX OS Claims To Be ~150% Faster Than GNU/Linux

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

  • #71
    Calling Phoronix user nerds...

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by DemonLady View Post
      Calling Phoronix user nerds...
      Is it just me or am I the only one who cannot understand a word of what "Sphinux" is saying?

      Comment


      • #73
        Well, the point is still this.
        From their wiki: http://sourceforge.net/p/sphinux/wiki/Home/
        The project was initially created to develop the perfect OS in January 2011, by developing a robust, smart, lightweight, powerful and secure kernel along with needed tool chain and porting software from GNU/Linux after customizing and adding features to those applications.
        The community released the RC1 as the initial step, few weeks later, RC2 was released and managed to achieve a good success with more than 300,000 users in more than 100 countries across the world, the project then was headed into the first major stable release "codename: CheopX", the kernel was redesigned several times, the base system was rebuilt and the integrated applications have been updated and revised by a quality assurance team.
        ...
        The SphinUX OS uses the LSX Kernel, a new integration design that is created and implemented by Eng. Ahmed G. Elnil "Community Founder / Project administrator" based on the community's research in modern operating system design.
        The integration design combines a hypervisor's ability to run multiple kernels although it has the caching kernel features, enabling the loaded pre-compiled custom kernels to multiplex over resources and have shared MMU with the fastest IO/AIO compared to other operating systems with the same machine configuration.
        Ok, so they started 2011 programming a kernel, redesigned it multiple times in two years and come up with a stable product that is even more performant than linux? What exactly do they do when they "port" software from linux?

        I mean, nobody here has found any difference in a running SphinUX system to a standard linux except for some "Linux" strings being replaced and some directory with some unused files, right?

        I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but if it turns out to run this "revolutionary" design, why would there be no documentation except one diagram at all?

        edit: Great blog: http://sphinuxsys.blogspot.de/
        In SphinUX we don't know the meaning of the word "Virus" or "Hacked", Because we are virus/exploits free.
        n a world Unix-like operating systems there is no so-called software such as protection of our double and advanced degree it is impossible to be exposed to infection hacked or virus
        Last edited by ChrisXY; 06-07-2013, 08:02 PM.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by MartinN View Post
          Is it just me or am I the only one who cannot understand a word of what "Sphinux" is saying?
          I did understand mostly what they say as I've said it here (and many "predictions" I've made I think they hold with these clarifications).

          Here is what I've said about the project public description:
          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          According to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqupsTFyuGE ... it boots and is recognized as a 2.6.32 Linux kernel (look on the boot sequence, at 17:06 ), so it looks to me that this SphinuX is more or less a modularizing effort inside the Linux kernel that may reduce in some use-cases the IO and/or maybe some kernel modules. (...)
          But the most important part (as for Phoronix/public project description):
          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          (...)
          But Michael is right, the specifics should be told, writing "100% speedup" or "300% less memory" without putting some strings attached is a bit misleading (to say it kindly) and it would be great if the value numbers come with a methodology about how it can be this way.

          Comment


          • #75
            obvious scam is obvious

            Originally posted by DemonLady View Post
            Calling Phoronix user nerds...
            AFAIK people have shown proofs, a echo "Authenticating..."; sleep 1; echo "Gathering information..."; sleep 1; is simply lying in one's face. And taking screenshots without even asking for permission is clearly violation to ones privacy
            Also as some said before, if you go to the SF project page, in the reviews section you can see that in all the positive comments theres not a single actual review, just "works great", "nice work", etc, and the guy with the 5 months old username that is almost asking sphingux to marry him.
            further more: clearly plagiarised original, copy without proper credits
            And lastly, they guy says he did not manipulate the user ratings......just go to the reviews section, give it a thumbs down, delete cookies, thumbs down, delete cookies......how come SF doesnt have a protection for this kind of stuff? I thought they were serious....
            as of now it is on 73 likes / 35 dislikes (30 originally but 5 extra while testing to see if there was any anti spam protection...) And lets not mention that i have dynamic ip....i could easily write a script to up vote every X+random minutes and then reset the modem..... same for downloading the images, if you do that every a couple of hours no one would suspect anything. The user rating part is pretty much broken imo.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
              Fast is in many ways relative and even can be measured, all of these OSes are not as fast and let me say why:
              - Haiku and BeOS are micro-kernels that work with Servers that offer Services in the OS. The intercommunication between these systems is slower than a hybrid OS like Windows NT, OS X or Linux. All these OSes merged the subsystems where it makes sense, and loads as modules parts that are not that important. So a kernel heavy benchmark (with multiple context switches) will not work (that) well on BeOS/Haiku
              - Haiku had in the past problems compiling with newer GCCs (and it still doesn't compile as far as I know with the 4.7 release) so the generated code on these platforms matches the compiler capabilities. So people using newer compilers will get all the optimizations of these newer compilers
              - bigger OSes offer optimized DLLs/libSOs for the target instructions set, and a compatibility one that is fast enough. Look if you use Windows XP for example that you have p3.sys, or athlon.sys as parts of the kernel that are loaded (based on the machine's instruction set). Similarly LLVM (which is in fact is used real time compiler) can optimize shaders for machines that do not support specific operations in OS X/Linux (as part of Gallium).
              - BeOS, and Haiku support 32 bit code, and big OSes that support 64 bit offer the capability of 64 bit processing, which again in (mathematical) benchmarks at least, are faster code

              If you mean about: how fast it boots, the older OSes many times do recognize much less hardware and they need to load less services because they don't support much more of the functionality the new OSes support. BeOS has similar features with Windows 2000, and this OS would load fairly fast by today's standard, but it would not offer anti-aliasing on fonts (I know that Haiku offers this, but Haiku is still a much less featured than modern Linux/Windows), many features that many application offer (and they have to be loaded on disk), including some that are just for the sake of open standards and easier to be debugged (like configuration files written in Xml format). All these features slow the OS starting time, but 1 minute to boot was true from Windows 95 era, and the spinning disks at least did not increase by as many orders of magnitude the access time (compared with disk space).

              FreeDOS itself boots very fast as it doesn't: detect and assign a hardwared mapping and device initialization to all devices in your system. The application have to do this (like using the sound card!). Based on this, the "fast" is all about offering nothing. If you try to add stuff in FreeDOS you will find only what it doesn't support, and if you load everything, it loads/runs much slower: you don't have video acceleration, 64 bit processing, you don't have a TCP stack, so you have to write your own, and as you add more functionality, at the end the OS, the applications will run as a Frankenstein. Amazingly, there is a very new GCC for FreeDOS, the DJGPP distribution (4.7.3), which is a great achievement if you would ask me.
              Firstly, I'd like to point out a couple of fallacies in you analysis of Haiku. I know you probably didn't know, but they are incorrect points none the less.
              Haiku and BeOS are not microkernels, they are hybrid kernels. Some components have been moved to userspace, but the drivers still reside inside the kernel to minimise latency.
              Haiku does in fact use GCC2, but it also has the capability of being compiled with GCC4 (4.7.3 as of the latest nightly release). The reason for this is BeOS compatibility, most applications won't work on a GCC4 version of Haiku. It's still provided for development purposes and as a way of checking if current Haiku programs will be compatible with future releases of the OS that are compiled with GCC4.
              Haiku has also recently gotten a x86_64 release thanks to last years GSoC project, and the default compiler for that is GCC4 as BeOS applications would be incompatible with a 64bit version of Haiku.

              All of the other points you've made are more or less correct, and interesting especially in regards to FreeDOS.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                Firstly, I'd like to point out a couple of fallacies in you analysis of Haiku. I know you probably didn't know, but they are incorrect points none the less.(...)
                All of the other points you've made are more or less correct, and interesting especially in regards to FreeDOS.
                Thank you for corrections, they are really appreciated and informative!

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                  you don't have a TCP stack, so you have to write your own
                  Sure about that? There are several network applications, including browsers, available in FreeDOS, so I would be surprised if it does not have a TCP stack.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                    Sure about that? There are several network applications, including browsers, available in FreeDOS, so I would be surprised if it does not have a TCP stack.
                    Am I sure? Yes. DOS is setting hardware interruptions for: disk, keyboard, CRT video screen ("text console").

                    So even basic services like: "allocating extended 32 bit mode" has to be offered by your's application code. As DOS doesn't offer libSO loading (or .DLL from Windows world), the whole functionality you're missing you have to write (include as a static library inside your final .exe by your own). There are some logical operations that were implemented standard later in DOS versions, like: SmartDrv will offer RAM caching of your disk access, and interrupt 33 is offered for "mouse pointer movement notifications", but yeah, you don't have anything.

                    I will put a small correction/note about this, when I said: "there is no video acceleration", theoretically it would be possible to have it, and the first 3Dfx Voodoo cards offered 3D drivers for DOS (for their Glide API, no OpenGL), but again the application will link this code statically as a part of the application's code.

                    The web browser which I know from DOS, is Arachne, and in Wikipedia's page is written (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_%28web_browser%29 ) :
                    Arachne includes a full-fledged TCP/IP connection suite, which has support for some dial-up and Ethernet connections.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Hello,

                      This is Saad, the person refered to as kiddie in debate-with-idiot. The stuff is completely imaginary and most of our the Egyptian IT community knows it. I just felt like confirming.

                      Regards.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X