| 1 |
> Proper testing would have yielded different results. Also, there is no |
| 2 |
> way to duplicate the results since there is zero information on the |
| 3 |
> setup. In any scientific circle, this data would IMMEDIATELY be thrown |
| 4 |
> out since it cannot be reproduced. They also had no "control" group. |
| 5 |
> It would also have been nice to have seen them test Gentoo (optimized) |
| 6 |
> against Gentoo (non-optimized). Testing should have also been done on |
| 7 |
> the SAME machine. Not "identical" machines, but the exact same one. |
| 8 |
> The reason for this is there is the possibility that hardware could be |
| 9 |
> causing a discrepancy in the results. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The "Gentoo Approach" also is not limited to simply optimization, but |
| 12 |
> also to the customization and control over your system that a Gentoo |
| 13 |
> user gets. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I have found that most Gentoo converts don't even bother to use much |
| 16 |
> optimization, but rather enjoy the ease of use and control much more. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
totally agree ! Btw, gnumeric speed is related to version apparently, |
| 19 |
and they didn't use the official gentoo (patched) kernel ("The same |
| 20 |
2.4.21 source was copied to all machines"). This sux !! |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't use gentoo for optimization, but ease of use and management :) |
| 23 |
I've tried to install a red hat 9. It's pretty fast for a i386 distro ! |
| 24 |
More faster to start openoffice for exemple. But redhat network updates |
| 25 |
killed my nerves ! |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Gentoo roxor :) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives