Big thanks to Checkout my VPN alternative Twingate for sponsoring this video! Checkout the Zero Trust Network Access solution here: https://bit.ly/feb24-twin...

Even though different Linux distros are often fairly close in terms of real-life performance and all of them have a clear advantage over Windows in many use cases, we can’t reject the fact that Arch Linux has undoubtedly won the competition. And now I’m so glad to have another reason to proudly say “I use Arch btw”

::: It was a joke of course :::

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 months ago

    Does anyone have a similar video but only for graphics. I want to know more about the floating point ops, OpenGL and DirectX with Wine compared across those 4.

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      9 months ago

      I don’t remember such videos. Though there should be Windows vs Linux benckmarks for popular games that support both operating systems (natively or with Wine)

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    Jesus

    Installation size:

    Fedora  - 7.7 GB

    Arch - 45 GB

    Ubuntu - 49.2 GB

    Windows - 72 GB

    How the hell is Fedora so small? That’s insane.

    • lazynooblet@lazysoci.alEnglish
      0·
      9 months ago

      What are these sizes from? All my Linux installs start with <20G root disks and end up with some spare.

      And Windows at 72G? Whilst it’s more than Linux it’s not that much.

      • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        9 months ago

        I think the videomaker may be failing to account for swap space. The latest Fedora releases use zram (swap that lives in memory instead of hard disk) by default, while the rest do not. Windows in particular does not take 72G and tends to be aggressive in swap allocation. The fact that he presents this data as “free space available” adds confusions while seemingly burying the simplest answer.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      0·
      9 months ago

      He just look at how much empty space the file explorer showed… I don’t know how good of an indication that it is. The OS may choose to conserve a decent amount of space for things like swap, hibernation file etc.

      Also, preinstalled apps.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        9 months ago

        I mean, I think it’s fair to lump that all together as space taken by the system, no?

        It’s not like you can use that space for storing files

    • nous@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      9 months ago

      How the hell is arch so large? My laptop is only 27GB and that includes all user data and several years of crap being installed as well as several docker images. A fresh install should rival that fedora install.

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      0·
      9 months ago

      Ya, I am not going to trust anything coming out of a post that cites that numbers for install size. As others have said, even the Windows one is bonkers.

      As an EOS user myself, I love the conclusion but have no faith at all in the methodology.

      If you want an article to make Linux look good, a test of the new Damn Small Linux would be interesting. It fits a basic version of practically every program you need into a 700 MB system. It also includes the APT package manager and full access to the Debian 12 stable repos so you can easily add anything you want on top of that.

      It would be interesting to know what footprint it would require to run the “tests” he runs here.

  • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
    0·
    9 months ago

    FreeBSD’s boot speed is just behind arch a little bit (on HDD).

    But Windows 8 (with fast startup) on an core 2 duo machine with 1G of RAM boot faster than any debian, ubuntu. (the boot speed decrease when you upgrade hardware lol :) )

  • 0nekoneko7@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 months ago

    You know Arch users can just tattoo it on their forehead. That way they don’t even have to say ‘btw, I use arch’. People can read it on their face.