With the upcoming release of Ubuntu known, now arrived at version 8.10, it starts the "usual" dance of the impressions of who swear it's all beautiful to those who really judge 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, although frankly no evidence that the time you are leaving, I mean Ubuntu has never, and never said, was a distribution which targeted performance, but rather has always focused on factors such as ease of use, stability (it is very conservative, you will never see the latest version of any program in Ubuntu!) and all the aspects that have helped make this distribution, the most popular.
Of course, that in doing so has always had to sacrifice something, in this case the performances.
If we make the comparison with other distributions on, just talking about performance, the Ubuntu does not come out very well. On my eeepc to boot Mandriva 2009 has only 30 seconds, while the remix of ubuntu than 80 seconds.
And speaking of performances on Phoronix there is also a good test where they 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 an eeepc ( the 901 in this case).
Here are some graphs of some tests:
I personally choose a distribution, rather than another, by factors that go beyond pure performance numbers, but look at the ease of use, as recognized by hw and sull'eeepc is not a factor recently, for the purpose with which the computer and especially those born 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 in the world of Linux distributions to get groped a benchmark goal is extremely difficult.
As you say rightly, the tests found that leaving the time, not only because Ubuntu has never turned 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 can lead to improvement or deterioration in one or more tests than previous versions, but overall are usually a step forward in terms of stability and functionality.
Performance and complete functions are not often agree, give something to the detriment of the other one o'clock, but in the end 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 which targeted performance, but rather has always focused on factors such as ease of use, stability (it is very conservative, you will never see the latest version of any program in a Ubuntu!) and all the aspects that have helped make this distribution, the most popular. "
I do not think it is true, in fact I had firefox 4.8 and I crashed so often .. usarew flash websites and it was impossible
In short a thing to be a LTS delunte.
hope in this version have done things so,
a.. I forgot today with the 8.04-1 if I install streamtuner tossing it does not feel anything and inquanto 'still attached to the player xemms thing that Ubuntu has no more', it uses audiocious prefernze forcing me to change .. but they could not package it better?
@ Tanismezz
to err is human, even for those who work at Canonical!
you always hope to improve and learn from their mistakes!
"Is very conservative, you will never see the latest version of any program in a ubuntu!"
Eh? Did you mean ... I would say that debian ubuntu does not follow exactly this way! out a release every 6 months just to get the latest version of the software (ok maybe there's the latest on the arch or gentoo).
CONSERVATIVE I do not think its an apt term
David share, 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 a lot of recent decisions of ubuntu to say the least risky.
Distributions such as Mandriva or PCLinuxOS are no less easy to use ubuntu (imho, and indeed according to many users are more!) But the author states that on a EEPC mandriva not start in 30 seconds vs. 80 remix of ubuntu (which should be optimized for netbooks!). Imho not a sign of quality ...
I was a Ubuntu enthusiast but I'm think again, too many flopped shots in the last period, so many little things that put together make it clear that stability is not the primary objective of ubuntu. And for the ambitions that he (imposed as a desktop system) this is very bad. Not to mention the mantaining of kubuntu, I think it's the worst ... I use KDE distribution for various machines installed with 8.04, I think that 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, which is only some and not all networks.
Unfortunately, I have not yet figured out why but it seems a problem with wpa_supplicant, this problem suggests its own with my home network!
I think the ubuntu remix is one of the worst for eeepc: I find it very slow and heavy, unresponsive. For a more fluid use always have to get up the clock at the most.
I'm curious to see if things improve with the 8.10 (not believe) and then I see that happening with mandriva 2009. If you do not come to head up the Mandriva 2008.1 where everything was "perfect"
But 'those 30 seconds to boot I do too much throat!
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 little from centos.
I agree with david, the development cycle is much too fast. in practice it forces all users to constantly update every 6 months, since then the majority of third-party software vendors always support only the latest version (eg getdeb.net).
I think a good compromise would be a cycle of one year.