Some packages, drivers are experimental, but entire distribution isn't using the newest software. Kernel isn't the newest. Call it what you like, but reality doesn't change.
Originally Posted by yotambien
The question is to do what is faster then slower?
The benchmarks. Maybe they are not real life situations, as in they're not measuring the cpu load while watching a youtube video and opening this particular pdf file I've been sent today; however, they put numbers to pretty reproducible computing tasks that stress different parts of the system. So, I don't spend the day signing 4096-bit RSA keys, but I surely know I prefer my computer to doing it faster rather than slower.
Do the same. One car is a jeep and second car is a passenger car. Don't forget to complain, because passenger car is adapted for different tasks then the jeep.
As for the 'proper' kernel config...next time you take a look at a car magazine and see a comparison between two cars, don't forget to complain because they didn't tweak the suspensions or added nitrous oxide to the engine.
It actually has. That's why there's server and desktop (however it has a different approach then Windows or OS X and when compared to them it's more server then desktop system) version of Ubuntu etc.
PS. In any case, no, I don't think that the kernel configuration has a critical effect in anything regarding performance.
There's no optimization needed for Linux to perform ways better in those tests (oh, maybe it's actually performing very well). Numbers are just not enough in this case to make clear judgment. An only area where Linux is loosing is graphics (and marketshare ;))
if you start working on optimization (which has already been done on the Mac side) then you would get even better results than what is posted here. Nothing embarrassing about that.