Nexenta 3.0 Benchmarked Against PC-BSD, OpenSolaris, Ubuntu

[yotambien]

And calling Ubuntu an OS is also a bit of a stretch I guess, it's distro. Shuttleworth hasn't so far as I know created anything on the OS level, just modified packaging and UI

A distro...and what do they distribute, candy? Or perhaps an operative system?

From their respective web sites:

Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.

openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system for your PC, Laptop or Server.

Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software.

Gentoo is a free operating system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically optimized and customized for just about any application or need.

Given this, I guess Canonical is not stretching anything when they say:

Super-fast and great-looking, Ubuntu is a secure, intuitive operating system that powers desktops, servers, netbooks and laptops.

And neither Michael, of course.

[andrnils]

A distro...and what do they distribute, candy? Or perhaps an operative system?

And neither Michael, of course.

GNU/Linux constitutes an OS.

The different ways it comes packaged does not in itself constitute an OS in my book. If it does in yours, good for you.

[Shining Arcanine]

Ubuntu seemed to win this convincingly. Who would have known 'the most user-friendly distro' also had some mean grunt under the hood?

Benchmark it against Gentoo Linux and it will not do quite as well. It is fast in terms of non-Linux-based operating systems, but as far as Linux-based operating systems are concerned, it is not quite as fast. The main reason for that is its generic kernel. Alternative, but lesser performance penalties include its high memory usage from having bloated binaries, the version of GCC that is used for compilation and the flags used to compile various packages, although on a system with sufficient memory, bloated binaries probably are not much of an issue in the sorts of tests Phoronix is doing (i.e. things that are not load time tests will not show any difference) provided sufficient memory and GCC performance is fairly uniform across both recent versions and common compilation flags.

[yotambien]

GNU/Linux constitutes an OS.

The different ways it comes packaged does not in itself constitute an OS in my book. If it does in yours, good for you.

I use the same book that Debian, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, Fedora and Gentoo use. Apparently you are not. And apparently you are using a different logic too. I was under the distinct impression that all those distributions included what for you constitutes an OS. At which point and by which mechanism the 'OS part' disappears from their essence remains a mistery to me.

[V!NCENT]

Hey guys, I'm running "Guhnuh slash Linux slash ex dot org slash kay dee e slash Wine slash cute slash gee tee kay slash FireFox", an you?

Stop fscking whining.

[andrnils]

I use the same book that Debian, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, Fedora and Gentoo use. Apparently you are not. And apparently you are using a different logic too. I was under the distinct impression that all those distributions included what for you constitutes an OS. At which point and by which mechanism the 'OS part' disappears from their essence remains a mistery to me.

They package an OS, yes. They have not made that OS. They package something which already exists, so what makes Debian a different OS from Fedora? Nothing, in my book ( sure, versions may differ slightly ) . It's the same OS packaged a bit differently. What in that packaging makes worthy to be considered a new OS?

Mr Shuttleworth should be proud of what he and his Canonical has achieved with their packaging of the GNU/Linux OS.

[yotambien]

They package an OS, yes. They have not made that OS. They package something which already exists, so what makes Debian a different OS from Fedora? Nothing, in my book ( sure, versions may differ slightly ) . It's the same OS packaged a bit differently. What in that packaging makes worthy to be considered a new OS?

What Ubuntu is or is not has nothing to do with a question of worthiness. The nature of something doesn't depend on whatever process brought it to existence or by whom. If I give you a copy of Hamlet, it doesn't magically cease to be a play just because I don't happen to be Shakespeare. Whatever the input of Canonical is in the production of Ubuntu, it still is a "software, consisting of programs and data, that runs on computers and manages the computer hardware and provides common services for efficient execution of various application software". Actually, it can be argued that what you understand as the OS serves little purpose until somebody puts the pieces together such as Ubuntu and all the others do. What is more of an OS, the individual pieces or the packaged set I can actually use to do what it's meant to do?

[andrnils]

If I give you a copy of Hamlet, it doesn't magically cease to be a play just because I don't happen to be Shakespeare.

Now you're just saying what I tried to say: A play by either Shakespear or Wilde is still a play, as a GNU/Linux OS packaged by Fedora or Canonical is still a GNU/Linux OS... Good, that wasn't so hard, was it?

I don't consider the difference in packing enough for them to constitue different OS, is that so hard for you to understand?

[bridgman]

Hey guys, I'm running "Guhnuh slash Linux slash ex dot org slash kay dee e slash Wine slash cute slash gee tee kay slash FireFox", an you?

You forgot Mesa/DRI

[yotambien]

Now you're just saying what I tried to say: A play by either Shakespear or Wilde is still a play, as a GNU/Linux OS packaged by Fedora or Canonical is still a GNU/Linux OS... Good, that wasn't so hard, was it?

I don't consider the difference in packing enough for them to constitue different OS, is that so hard for you to understand?

I think we finally have it. Yes, Fedora or Canonical are still Linux OSs, which by definition means that Fedora or Canonical are OSs. You can stress that they are just different flavours of a particular OS, but that's tangent to the question of what they ultimately are. I remind you of your words:

calling Ubuntu an OS is also a bit of a stretch I guess, it's distro. Shuttleworth hasn't so far as I know created anything on the OS level, just modified packaging and UI

See, no matter how much Shuttleworth has contributed "at the OS level" (a matter of discussion I guess), Ubuntu still is and OS, as opposed to, say, a table, an island or a refugee camp. I suppose your distintion would make sense if the article were a comparison between different linux distributions, where referring to them as different OSs could be considered as "stretching" it a bit. But in this case I think it's perfectly legit.