View Poll Results: Which Linux Distribution Should Be Benchmarked Most On Phoronix?

Voters
807. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ubuntu Linux

    173 21.44%
  • Sabayon / Gentoo-based

    36 4.46%
  • Manjaro / Arch-based

    234 29.00%
  • Xubuntu

    21 2.60%
  • openSUSE

    86 10.66%
  • Fedora

    162 20.07%
  • Mint

    23 2.85%
  • Debian Sid

    54 6.69%
  • "Something Else"

    18 2.23%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 504

Thread: Vote On A Distribution For Linux Benchmarking

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Vote On A Distribution For Linux Benchmarking

    In continuation of the discussion started yesterday about which Linux distribution to benchmark on Phoronix in place (or complement) Mir-based Ubuntu for graphics testing, etc... Here's a poll. Pick your preferred Linux distribution to see benchmarks of on Phoronix.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    I personally don't get the point of the poll. Shouldn't the distro chosen be the one most technically suited to testing?

  3. #3

    Default

    Where is Linux Deepin in this poll?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    716

    Default

    OpenSuSE.
    They support all the DE's out there (that can be "easily" packaged into OpenSuSE) so less likely occurence of DE being configured in less then optimal way.
    There is corporate equivalent (so work on enchancing those test would help other phoronix clients?).
    OpenSuSE is supported by AMD and Nvidia (through SLED but ..), so bugs specific to it should get a bit more attention.
    EXTENSIVE 3rd party repos. (More stuff can be downloaded via binary packages)
    OpenSuSE Build Service. (Could be used to spin off, custom linux distro for PTS , but its not OpenSuSE specific..)
    Kernel git repo with .specs files so one can get daily builds of supported kernel.
    Its green colored. (Though others may not share my favourite color. Shame on them :P )

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    395

    Default I voted for Fedora.

    I never really understood the fascination with Ubuntu. I alway saw it as a crap botch job of a distro.

    Beyond that does it make a big difference. I mean really if you compile a new kernel for testing or new graphics drivers aren't you in the custom distro zone. In fact with all the testing you do I would imagine you wold have to do a lot of clean installs to keep the data rational.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    637

    Default Voted for Ubuntu and Kubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    I never really understood the fascination with Ubuntu. I alway saw it as a crap botch job of a distro.
    You've got to be kidding. If something is crap it's definitely Fedora. It has messed up installer and bugs which make it unusable for typical users. For example:

    - it doesn't install language pack
    - it cannot be upgraded with graphical package manager
    - it doesn't reboot after manual upgrade
    - it doesn't allow to easily install codecs and proprietary drivers

    All of these I've experienced in Fedora KDE spin and gnome version is probably even worse, because it has much different UI and doesn't even provide basic configuration options.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    41

    Default

    I'm still interested in Ubuntu benchmarks, with Mir, because it is very large and my software needs to perform well on it. I think OpenSuSE or Fedora would be a better platform for general benchmarks though.

    (Also an Arch user here, Arch is entirely unsuitable for this purpose, without significant bespoke infrastructure)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    You've got to be kidding. If something is crap it's definitely Fedora. It has messed up installer and bugs which make it unusable for typical users. For example:

    - it doesn't install language pack
    - it cannot be upgraded with graphical package manager
    - it doesn't reboot after manual upgrade
    - it doesn't allow to easily install codecs and proprietary drivers

    All of these I've experienced in Fedora KDE spin and gnome version is probably even worse, because it has much different UI and doesn't even provide basic configuration options.
    hmm lets see

    - it doesn't install language pack
    hmm http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/...e_Support.html
    - it cannot be upgraded with graphical package manager
    Really? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PreUpgrade
    - it doesn't reboot after manual upgrade
    that can be any OS
    - it doesn't allow to easily install codecs and proprietary drivers
    Same for most any Linux Even Ubuntu thats why i install the Drivers using the Terminal..
    Last edited by LinuxGamer; 07-27-2013 at 12:08 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    You've got to be kidding. If something is crap it's definitely Fedora. It has messed up installer and bugs which make it unusable for typical users. For example:

    - it doesn't install language pack
    - it cannot be upgraded with graphical package manager
    - it doesn't reboot after manual upgrade
    - it doesn't allow to easily install codecs and proprietary drivers

    All of these I've experienced in Fedora KDE spin and gnome version is probably even worse, because it has much different UI and doesn't even provide basic configuration options.
    Fedora doesn't care about typical users, it targeted at developer, administrator and open source enthusiast.

  10. #10

    Default

    fedora gets my vote.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •