Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Oct 2008 10:51 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu With the release of Ubuntu 8.10 only a few days away, Phoronix decided to take a look at the performance figures over the past releases - from Ubuntu 7.04 to Ubuntu 8.10. Phoronix used its own extensive test suite on fresh installations, with the same parameters, on the identical hardware. The results are rather surprising. Update: I've added some more information about this, gathered from the Ubuntu mailing list. You can find it in the 'read more'.
Thread beginning with comment 335244
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Unfair review
by segedunum on Tue 28th Oct 2008 12:39 UTC in reply to "Unfair review"
Member since:

While many of the graphical regressions could be attributed to ATI driver changes (they should have used the shipped drivers for all releases if they don't need that driver), I don't see what invalidates some of the other benchmarks such as Lame encoding and compilation. Many people even confirm those observations in the thread.

As for not blaming this on Ubuntu or other distributors, why on Earth don't they have their own regression tests to help them? That's their job, not that of individual projects. After all, they're the ones packaging the whole, they only have six months between releases and fixes for LTS will not be backported.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Unfair review
by sanctus on Tue 28th Oct 2008 14:34 in reply to "RE: Unfair review"
sanctus Member since:

This behavior is described in the social judgment theory (psychology).
And it's called an auto-reference judgment error.

One will attribute it's own success (internal factors), but attributes to others their failure (external factors).

Ubuntu is faster: This is a clear advantage of open-source and Linux
Ubuntu is slower: The test is wrong, the author is bias or/and it wasn't configured properly

Reply Parent Score: 17

RE[2]: Unfair review
by huwnet on Tue 28th Oct 2008 23:17 in reply to "RE: Unfair review"
huwnet Member since:

Well there is also the fact that they only tested ubuntu. Users who don't know better will blame Ubuntu when the fault could lie with GCC, or the kernel itself.

Phoronix says they will be testing other distros, but really they should've done this before publishing the article.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Unfair review
by cyclops on Tue 28th Oct 2008 23:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Unfair review"
cyclops Member since:

To be fair on the benchmarks I would be more interested in how the 64bit version would compare.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Unfair review
by segedunum on Wed 29th Oct 2008 16:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Unfair review"
segedunum Member since:

Th fault is still with Ubuntu, and I don't think you got that. They package the whole.

Reply Parent Score: 2