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 :::

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Jesus

    Installation size:

    Fedora  - 7.7 GB

    Arch (actually EndeavourOS) - 45 GB

    Ubuntu - 49.2 GB

    Windows - 72 GB

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

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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

        • saigot@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t think we know how performance and stability behave when the disk gets full. You can’t really use that space if it would cause your system to crash because it can’t create a hibernate file for instance. It also will vary by system configuration a lot (you need way less swap with 8Gb of swap than 64gb of ram) which makes the comparison only valid for the creators specific configuration.

    • nous@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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)

  • scratchandgame@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    Tiếng Việt
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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 :) )