With the upcoming release of Ubuntu known, arrived now at version 8.10, will start the "usual" dance of impressions from those who swear that everything is beautiful, who actually believes things in a more cold and detached.
Phoronix went further by comparing the last 4 releases: 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, and 8.10. The results seem to confirm a negative trend in terms of performance, even if tests are genuinely leaving any difference, ie, Ubuntu has never, and never said, was a distribution that focuses on performance, but rather has always focused on such factors as ease of use, stability (is very conservative, you will never see the latest version of any program in Ubuntu!) and all aspects that have helped make this distribution, among the most prevalent.
Obvious that in doing so it had always sacrificing something, in this case the performances.
If we compare with other distributions, speaking only of performances, the Ubuntu does not come out very well. On my eeepc mandriva 2009, the boot is only 30 seconds, while the remix of ubuntu than 80 seconds.
Again in terms of performance on Phoronix , there is also a good test where we compared various distributions such as Ubuntu 8.10 Alpha 4, Fedora 10 Alpha, Mandriva 2009 Beta 2 and the version of Xandros, which by default is already installed on a eeepc ( the 901 in this case).
Here are some test charts:
I personally choose a distribution, rather than another, factors that go beyond pure performance numbers, but also look at ease of use, as recognized by the HW and sull'eeepc is not a factor just for the purpose which comes with that computer, and especially those who then will use.
And you, what guides you in choosing a distribution?
Posted under Technology
This post WAS written by admin on October 29, 2008
Unfortunately the world of Linux distributions to get groped a benchmark target is extremely difficult.
As you say rightly, the lyrics make any difference, not only because Ubuntu has never aimed to speed, but also because each version is characterized by the change of major system components, such as the kernel, Xorg, drivers, codecs, compilers, libraries, DM, which are not under the direct control of who does the distribution.
So a comparison between different versions of the same distro does not make much sense.
In fact each of these components may lead to improvement or deterioration in one or more tests than previous versions, but overall are usually one step ahead in terms of stability and functionality.
Performance and complete functions are not often agree, give something one at the expense of the other, but basically those who need high speed certainly does not choose a distribution like Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva or openSUSE.
"Has never, and never said, was a distribution that focuses on performance, but rather has always focused on such factors as ease of use, stability (is very conservative, you will never see the latest version of any program in ubuntu!) and all aspects that have helped make this distribution, among the most prevalent. "
I do not think is true, in fact, I had Firefox 4.8 crashed and I very often .. usarew and flash sites was impossible
delunte something short to be a LTS.
hope in this release have done things in a way,
a.. I forgot again today if I install the 8.04-1 streamtuner not throwing anything makes me feel Asthe and 'still attached to the player xemms which ubuntu has no more', it uses audiocious forcing me to change prefernze .. potevono but not package it better?
@ Tanismezz
to err is human, even if you work at Canonical!
you always hope to improve and learn from your mistakes!
Is very conservative, you will never see the latest version of any program in Ubuntu! "
Huh? Did you mean ... I'd say ubuntu debian does not follow precisely this road! out a release every six months just to get the latest versions of software (ok maybe there's the latest on arch or gentoo).
CONSERVATIVE I do not think its an appropriate term
I quote David ubuntu define "conservative" seems almost a joke, yet I find it hard to digest that they put on a LTS firefox3 beta 5 (not an RC!), I find many choices of recent ubuntu to say the least risky.
Distributions like Mandriva or PCLinuxOS are no less easy to use Ubuntu (actually IMHO and according to many users are more!) But the author himself states that on a eepc mandriva not start in 30 seconds against 80 remix of ubuntu (which should be optimized for netbooks!). Imho not a sign of quality ...
I'm an Ubuntu enthusiast but I think again, too many messed the last period, many small things put together make it clear that stability is not the primary objective of ubuntu. And the ambitions that (observed as the desktop system) this is very bad. Not to mention mantaining of kubuntu, I think the worst ... I use KDE distribution for various machines installed with the 8.04, I think I will never upgrade to 8.10
Unfortunately, Mandriva 2009 is not fully compatible with the eeepc, I have a big problem with the wifi, going only by some networks and not all.
Unfortunately, I have not yet figured out why but it seems a problem with wpa_supplicant, this problem is proposed in my own home network!
I think the ubuntu remix is one of the worst for eeepc: I find it very slow and cumbersome, unresponsive. For a more fluid use must always lift up the clock.
I'm curious to see if things improve with 8.10 (not believe) and then I realize that happens with mandriva 2009. If you do not come to head to step mandriva 2008.1 where everything was "perfect"
But 'those 30 seconds to boot throat make me too!
I think six months and forced the exit of ubuntu does not make sense for a desktop OS. Ihmo should do as arch or debian sid, up to date.
All this useless hype every 6 months is frustrating.
Unlike server-side instead of the speech, but they should learn a bit from centos.
I agree with David, the development cycle is much too fast. in practice, forcing all users to constantly update every six months, since then most third-party software vendors still only support the latest version (eg getdeb.net).
I think a good compromise would be a cycle of one year.