You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Topic closed
Basically, some benchmarks say Arch sucks by a wide margin. Any ideas why?
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)
Offline
Gosh, here we go again. No idea, and I couldn't care less.
Offline
I don't really care either, but I'm just looking for a technical explanation like "they are using version 2 of foo and we use 1". Why? I'm curious about such technical details.
So instead of littering the thread with useless "insight" (if you can call it that) I'm sure there are other threads where you can be useful.
Last edited by dcc24 (2010-06-24 14:59:04)
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)
Offline
Each distribution was left in its stock configuration.
There's a problem right there...
Also, why not investigate yourself? You're curious, you want the technical details - others may not.
Offline
Also, why not investigate yourself? You're curious, you want the technical details - others may not.
I will, when I have time. I've just asked here since someone might have an easy answer. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)
Offline
The want for one more time to prove that Ubuntu it the best. Well, a writer who's giving Arch Linux a version can't be taken as serious.
Offline
Well, a writer who's giving Arch Linux a version can't be taken as serious.
True But still, 2010.5 does actually exist, even though it's just a snapshot of the repo.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)
Offline
Our first test was with World of Padman, but Arch Linux results are not available for the OpenGL tests due to problems with the system.
All of the distributions were installed on the same computer, and they were all "Linux", which means they could all be setup to work the same. So that means... nobody there wanted to spend the time to learn how to setup Arch? I don't know.
They don't say what video card driver they are using for Arch. I don't know why.
Recently, my opinion of Phoronix has been getting lower and lower.
Offline
Offline
Isn't that part of the "stock configuration per distro" thing?
But still, 2010.5 does actually exist.
Of course it exists - thing is, it's an installer, not an entire distro.
Offline
Helpful information is helpful, like what driver? What xorg version? Kernel? Modules? clfags? Running stuff?
Useless parp from phoronix again.
Offline
I wrote this off from the start because of this statement
but Arch Linux results are not available for the OpenGL tests due to problems with the system.
Translation for me is they couldn't take the time to set it up properly so obviously its not going to get a fair shake. Arch is not an install and go system. That is what Ubuntu, Suse, and Fedora are for.
Just my opinion.
Desktop: Compiz Stand Alone w/ Cairo Dock.
Laptop: Pekwm w/ Tint2
Jukebox: MPD w/ cli
Gateway: Vuurmuur w/dialog
Offline
I wonder why this site is so popular anyway. This guy has obviously no idea what he is talking about. There are a lot of differences between distros, but for sure it's not speed.
Offline
> I wonder why this site is so popular anyway.
I think it's "if you just bear with me" type of thing: they show you a bunch of numbers / graphs (sometimes a dozen or so pages) and in the end they write "we have no idea why it came up the way it did". Thanks a bunch.
Offline
and in the end they write "we have no idea why it came up the way it did". Thanks a bunch.
This is exactly what Phoronix has become. A lot of data, no interpretation, no conclusion.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)
Offline
> no interpretation
Sometimes there's some, but they phrase it like this:
I have 1180 posts, sHyLoCk has 1192 that means he's just marginally better Archer than me. Pierre has 1325 so he's a bit better Archer than me. <sigh>
Offline
I wonder why they used Gnome for Ubuntu and fedora and KDE for the rest. KDE is so slow irrespective of the distro. Still I have to try out PCLOS. Looks promising.
Stop trolling idiot. KDE is the fastest and the snappiest actually (but this is completely irrelevant to Phoronix tests!!! How is it possible to make such stupid conclusions?). You can only dream gtk, Gnome to rich quality and performance of Qt, KDE apps.
On topic:
There are hundreds of tunables and options to setup Arch Linux, you can tune everything from the file systems, their mount options to kernel. The article doesn't proof in any way Arch is slower etc. There can be some regressions in the newest GCC too (but in Arch you can use older one if you want).
Last edited by kraftman13 (2010-06-24 17:00:40)
Offline
Stop trolling idiot. KDE is the fastest and the snappiest actually (but this is completely irrelevant to Phoronix tests!!! How is it possible to make such stupid conclusions?). You can only dream gtk, Gnome to rich quality and performance of Qt, KDE apps.
And you are not trolling yourself? Bashing GTK? Stop trying to start a flame war.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)
Offline
I think we'll just start closing or deleting these phoronix threads as they come in; they really are quite ponderous flamebait and do not have any discernible value.
thread closed
Offline
Boy that was quick
Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy
Offline
Pages: 1
Topic closed