2009/12/2 Atte André Jensen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atte.jensen@gmail.com">atte.jensen@gmail.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">For my needs it seems ubuntu performs just as well as arch</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correct, because if there were any "performance" differences between distributions in the first place, I swear I'll start using one of the BSDs full-time =p</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">and running the more</div>
non-standard selection of software I had going under arch means little<br>
strange things keeps poping up.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Also correct; for some users and their habits, workflow, arsenal of software, it may or may not be worth the time investment. In this case, for "control", one might want to take a look at Sabayon (since they also manage binaries alongside portage).</div>
<div><br></div><div>In short, the benefits have nothing to do with real-world system performance. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if things ran slower since we don't add any kind of optimisation that bigger distros might. Our thinkers and hackers contribute to upstream directly, we don't have our own "patches" or "hacks" unless functionality is compromised.</div>
<div><br></div></div><br>-- <br>GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD<br>