How Linux Performance Changed In 2017 With Clear Linux & Ubuntu

[phoronix]

Phoronix: How Linux Performance Changed In 2017 With Clear Linux & Ubuntu

The latest in our streak of year-end benchmarking is seeing how Linux performance has evolved over the course of 2017. For that we tested Intel's performance-optimized Clear Linux distribution as well as Ubuntu using releases from the start of the year to their current state for seeing how the performance compares using the same system.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=25744

[caligula]

The Ubuntu boot time is pathetic. It's even worse on old hardware. 2 to 3 minutes..

[Michael]

The Ubuntu boot time is pathetic. It's even worse on old hardware. 2 to 3 minutes..

A larger Linux boot speed comparison for those interested @ https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...nux-boot&num=1

[oooverclocker]

The performance improvements of Ubuntu in the last two years are amazing. Clear Linux might have been helpful to optimize Linux distributions. I hope that the boot time will improve before release date.

[andre30correia]

The Ubuntu boot time is pathetic. It's even worse on old hardware. 2 to 3 minutes..

using gdm and gnome comes to this, a garbage desktop and slow boot time

[starshipeleven]

using gdm and gnome comes to this, a garbage desktop and slow boot time

To be fair, Ubuntu had shitty boot times also with KDE.

[DIRT]

In before debianxfce commenting on ubuntu/gnome startup times.

I was running kubuntu. I always had unreasonably slow cold login speeds.
Default Xubuntu on my 10 year old pc boots to the desktop in under 10 seconds. Amazing how fast 10 year old hardware is these days.

Now I'm curious how fast windows 98 boots on modern hardware.

[caligula]

using gdm and gnome comes to this, a garbage desktop and slow boot time

Not only that, Ubuntu starts tons of services by default. Even stuff no noob needs like fonts in framebuffer console. Many users also don't want obligatory modem software and firmware updater processes on every boot. I mean come on Canonical. So full of crap. How about executing 80% of that bloat only once on first boot, then configuring the system with sane defaults for that particular machine.

[leipero]

Man, I have to say that boot time gradually increased in last few years on same hardware. I remember when I installed 14.04 (first Ubuntu release I've actually used as main OS) I was really suprized how fast it boots compared to Windows at the time, before I did try 13.04 and it was just terrible, and way back in 00's Mandrake..., but never really used it as main OS, and Ubuntu 14.04 and Linux Mint 17 changed that. So Windows 7 needed ~10 seconds to boot, Ubuntu was actually faster, but now even on Arch that was even faster to boot it takes about ~15 secs.

TL;DR: In short, in last few years boot time did go up (on same hardware) for about ~5 seconds.

Not all bad tho, generally system works far better most of the time, and when it doesn't it is often the fault of software other than Linux kernel (GDM, Shell or KDE equvivalent, other DE's usually go really fast, especially LXDE).

[Spooktra]

The Ubuntu boot time is pathetic. It's even worse on old hardware. 2 to 3 minutes..

Do people still get worked up about boot and shutdown times? Who cares if it's 1 minute, 2 minutes or 3 minutes, once the system is up chances are you will leave it running for hours at a time, if not days. Boot time is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.