Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 21st Mar 2005 11:22 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Debian doesn't come with any inherent performance/boot-time penalty, but this is probably a nice alternative for those not liking/caring to learn Debian's way of doing things.
I've had well-configured Debian and Gentoo setups, and there's no perceivable difference in performance in general. Gentoo actually turned out to use more memory whith customized USE-flags and CFLAGS="-march='my-cpu' -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer". It's true though that Debian (annoyingly for power users) does a few things by default that needs to be adjusted by the user (something which should be quite simple if you read some docs) if you want Gentoo-like behaviour.
Anyway it's always cool to have alternatives, and if Arch has done some kind of magic tricks to get notably higher performance (which I seriously doubt), that's just great. I'd love to see some "scientific" performance analyses, but I'm way too much in love with Debian to care to do those myself.