Now on ScienceBlogs: Hacked emails, tree-ring proxies and blogospheric confusion

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Greg Laden's Blog

Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff

Recent Comments

Profile


Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.




Nature Blog Network



Search

Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

Archives

Recent Posts

« Get your science news in 3D | Main | The video about the prop 8 video meme. Pass it on. »

Ubuntu 8.10 and Fedora 10 Compared

Category: Linux
Posted on: December 7, 2008 10:16 PM, by Greg Laden

And the results are at the same time boring and astonishing. I mean, look at this graph:

boring_benchmark.jpg

Never mind the details of the graph. The point is that the two distros, running on an almost identical Linux kernel and using identical desktops and an almost identical X system, are almost identical when run on an identical computer.

Details here if you must know.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/87331

Comments

1

How would a Windows machine fare in the same test? Both right after build and after 6 months of use?

Posted by: george.w | December 7, 2008 11:25 PM

2

I would have expected significant differences depending on the configuration of Compiz and the desktop environment. Sometimes it even matters if you configure the clock in the task bar to have a blinking colon or display seconds; or to scan for online updates, hotspots, Bluetooth devices; or to double-buffer window updates; or to have an xeyes/xsnow clone running; or to tweak power mgmt; sound effects; desktop search; or to have compiled one of the tweaks listed on lesswatts.org (xterm polling, tickless idling etc).

I am honestly surprised that the two distros are that on par with each other.

Posted by: marko | December 8, 2008 9:52 AM

3
I am honestly surprised that the two distros are that on par with each other.

So am I.But I reckon Fedora would cark it on older systems,or slower processors.

Posted by: clinteas | December 8, 2008 10:12 AM

4

When you try to do apples to apples testing, then you'd have them configured as near the same as possible, otherwise the results are irrelevant. Since the hardware pushing pixels is the same, and they're using the same driver, and very nearly the same kernel, I'd be more surprised if there was any meaningful variance.

Posted by: Fargo | December 8, 2008 12:06 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM