Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 13th May 2009 01:18 UTC
Benchmarks Phoronix, known for their various speed tests and reviews, compared the latest in Ubuntu and what, until recently, used to be the lastest in Mac OS X with 29 different benchmarking tests. Some of the results were rather interesting.
Thread beginning with comment 363220
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Auzy
Member since:
2008-01-20

That might be true, but I have yet to have seen any graphics card which runs faster on Ubuntu (even the Nvidia ones in the past at least seemed to be quite consistently slower on linux).

There are two problems here:
1) Having a kernel that forces people to provide open source drivers. Whilst linus tolerates closed source drivers, its a risk creating them. And companies aren't going to pour all their optimisations into open drivers which any other company can just steal the optimisations. Otherwise its like handing over money to the competition.

There is no good justification for this. If Open source is that great, then such drivers will succeed regardless.


2) Ubuntu doesn't develop linux, it just grabs a bunch of packages which other distro's have worked on. Canonical seems to only concentrate on their own projects.

Whilst the foundation of Ubuntu is shaky, Canonical is off spreading their resources further and starting other projects like the netbook remix, which has a shaking foundation too because barely any drivers on either are complete. And I have seen NO evidence of Ubuntu trying to collaborate with other companies either, to determine their needs. Everything seems based on assumptions.


3) The community. I've learnt from the Ubuntu brainstorm community that frankly, the most vocal Linux users are idiots. That's the biggest problem. I've argued with Linux users who believed that time shouldn't be wasted on wysiwyg editors because grandma should learn mockup languages / CSS instead for her site. And I've argued against many users who were totally convinced that DEB's/RPM's are more secure then shell scripts. Ubuntu's vocal population I think has turned too much into politicians who care more about spreading OSS then aiming to make the best software.

Compare QT/Cocoa to GTK for instance. GTK obviously gets dominated in general cases, yet, plenty of people seem to be on a crusade against C++. Its rediculous.

And because of the community, the end result is that Linux is still too risky to develop for.


I wouldn't blame the xorgintel team for this. If the community gave up their holy war and started once again writing the best software they can, because they want to (not because of politics). You'd end up with an MIT kernel which was completely open in all ways, and software which was developed with users in mind.

Reply Parent Score: 8

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Having a kernel that forces people to provide open source drivers. Whilst linus tolerates closed source drivers, its a risk creating them. And companies aren't going to pour all their optimisations into open drivers which any other company can just steal the optimisations. Otherwise its like handing over money to the competition.


Assumes that only companies can write optimised software. Not a valid assumption at all. The one and only advantage that companies have in writing software is that companies have access to secret information held by ... companies.

Duh.

OK, so ATI have been good enough to release documentation recently, and even some code and a programming guide.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600_700_gui...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r700_oss_3d&...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzAxNg
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzE3Nw


Expect the decent, open-source, 3D drvier for ATI chips to follow within a month or so.

http://wiki.x.org/wiki/radeon
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/radeonhd%3Aexperimental_3D

Clearly not ready yet, but definitely on its way. Enjoy (when ready).

So ATI have released documentation (specifications) of their chips to open source programmers, open source programmers are busily writing an open-source driver for Linux for ATI chips, so that ATI chips will soon become the most powerful graphics chips available with a decent (non-binary-blob) 3D driver for Linux, which will no doubt be supported directly within the kernel, and hence Linux buying public will tend to buy ATI chips.

This is giving money away ... how exactly?

Edited 2009-05-13 02:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//3D drvier for ATI chips to follow within a month or so. //

Sure. A month or so. Just wait, it's right around the corner.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Take a look at the sheer AMOUNT of documentation released, and the complexity of such a graphics processor.

Now try to tell me that the open source community can write as good a driver as ATI's for Windows in 1 month's time.

Reply Parent Score: 3

alias Member since:
2007-02-11

Expect the decent, open-source, 3D drvier for ATI chips to follow within a month or so.


Intel had open specs and open drivers for far longer than ATI, the chip is simpler AND they actually have paid developers for the xorg driver. The intel driver is probably the best maintained driver for xorg right now.

The result?

The benchmark here clearly shows that the result is not what you would expect, the performance is awful. Comparing my hp box at work, the graphics performance are actually better in vista than linux with the xorg-intel driver, even after tuning the driver parameter for migration heuristics (which did a HUGE difference).

Compare this to the nvidia binary blob, which gives me the opposite result on another box. ATI is in an unusable state at the moment (I'm not taking sides with any graphic vendor, that's just a fact).

Reply Parent Score: 3

averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

This whole issue has nothing to do with having an open source kernel or gtk vs. cocoa or whatever.

It has everything to do with market share. Linux will get great desktop hardware support (3d graphics, wireless, acpi) when it has decent desktop market share. Look at the server market right now. You don't have to buy a server that's supported in linux. Every server product is well supported in linux. A manufacturer that put out a server product that wasn't supported in linux would be laughed at. All of that is because linux is installed on a good portion of servers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This whole issue has nothing to do with having an open source kernel or gtk vs. cocoa or whatever.

It has everything to do with market share. Linux will get great desktop hardware support (3d graphics, wireless, acpi) when it has decent desktop market share. Look at the server market right now. You don't have to buy a server that's supported in linux. Every server product is well supported in linux. A manufacturer that put out a server product that wasn't supported in linux would be laughed at. All of that is because linux is installed on a good portion of servers.


There is a lot of misinformation being spread right now about Linux having only a small market share. They are actually talking ONLY about the desktop market.

If we are talking about the entire market wherein the devices you mentioned (3d graphics, wireless, acpi) are used, Linux would have a very decent market share of that entire market. Perhaps 20% or so.

http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/04/windows-owns-96.html
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=151
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3818696/Linux-Des...

The ONLY viable reason why a device maker would refuse to support Linux would be if they had been paid not to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

This whole issue has nothing to do with having an open source kernel or gtk vs. cocoa or whatever.

It has everything to do with market share. Linux will get great desktop hardware support (3d graphics, wireless, acpi) when it has decent desktop market share.


The problem is it seems it is never going to happen until Linux gets its act together. I have heard : this is the year of the desktop Linux for the last 10 years.

Why? My guess too many options, too many opinions, to much liberties, too much configuration.

Have you ever try to teach a "normal user" the difference among RGB-BGR sub pixel rendering with hinting or no hinting in the Ubuntu Window configuration? People just look at your face an ask you: How does it look nice? How do I make it look like Mac or Windows?

Edited 2009-05-13 16:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

Its been awhile since seriously posting on osnews but this requires a response. In my professional opinion over the internet, you sir have no clue what you are talking about.

Hmmm lets see what does Ubuntu develop? How about notify-osd, the new growl-like notification system which is controversial but very pretty? How about usplash, the userspace bootsplash (soon to be replaced however). How about upstart, the new event based init replacement good enough for Fedora AND Debian to both adopt in the default installs? Granted, it is (IMO) crap, but how about the python ORM storm? Do you even know what an ORM is used for?

How about patches.ubuntu.com? Yeah they've written a good bit of code. How many patches you ask?
jeff@desktopmonster:~$ wget -qO - http://patches.ubuntu.com/PATCHES | wc -l
2632
jeff@desktopmonster:~$


Seriously how can you say, "Whilst the foundation of Ubuntu is shaky..." when it is based off of Debian? Are you saying there is a lack of Debian developers or packages? Sure a lot of them are not friendly to people like yourself but they aren't ghosts. Frankly, you are talking out of your fourth point of contact. Call your proctologist and ask him to find your head, then take a shower and come back to play.

If you get the "deb/rpm" from a reputable source like oh your distribution's package repository it will be GPG signed. Yes my friend, that is more secure than a shell script.

Really I shouldn't have bitten as you obviously troll. The only argument I totally agree with you on is QT/Cocoa vs GTK. GTK is crap compared to either of those but is being worked on. Until next time kids...

Reply Parent Score: 5

fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

I have to agree with you on Ubuntu grabbing packages. Moreover at least for me the Intel performance of Linux is not that good. Why? On my AMD systems I see great improvements. Moreover the quality of packages has degraded but not due to their development, but due to packaging. A comparison with Gentoo would be more fair if Linux was the target. If GFX is the target, Ubuntu is fine.

Reply Parent Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, in a perfect world everybody sings Kumbayaa.

In the real world we really need the GPL for all those individuals who'd like to take for themselves and shove the rest in the dirt.

Reply Parent Score: 3