Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks

[Scotty]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1

I find this article extremely interesting due to the TREMENDOUS benefits of running 64-bit Ubuntu over 32-bit Ubuntu.  I know our Linux fan base isn't incredibly large, but if you are like me and went with 32-bit over 64 for whatever bad experiences you had of "This is not compatible with 64-bit...."  This might change your mind!  I know it has for me, I'm currently burning a 64-bit edition and plan to install it shortly!

EDIT: What I'd REALLY like to see is a benchmark test in performance for Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Karmic Koala.  I already can say that the boot/start-up times are FAR better on Ubuntu than Windows 7 (and 7 isn't bad at all mind you), but I'd be interested to run some tests on both operating systems to solidify my theory that Ubuntu will always run faster than Windows!

EDIT 2: Found one!: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7  I know that this was done half a year before Windows 7 was released, but even still, it still blows Vista out of the water!

[ARTgames]

I know our Linux fan base isn't incredibly large,

I think its just me.

What I'd REALLY like to see is a benchmark test in performance for Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Karmic Koala.

My video drives are old and not too good on Ubuntu. And i can never seem to get wine to work well so i can play mwah games. Like stick online for example. I did get stick online running its just nothing else really worked.

A lot of stuff they show i believe but its not anything that will make me switch 100%. Software and hardware support not there for what i need.

[Scotty]

I know our Linux fan base isn't incredibly large,

I think its just me.

I know of one other person that regulars these forums, but yeah, not many

What I'd REALLY like to see is a benchmark test in performance for Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Karmic Koala.

My video drives are old and not too good on Ubuntu. And i can never seem to get wine to work well so i can play mwah games. Like stick online for example. I did get stick online running its just nothing else really worked.

A lot of stuff they show i believe but its not anything that will make me switch 100%. Software and hardware support not there for what i need.

What chipset are using?  If it's an ATI, it's not surprising.  I have an ATI in my laptop, and hate the thing.  Ubuntu has a hard time releasing ATI drivers, something to do with ATI not releasing the source of their drivers.  NVIDIA on the other hand run beautifully on Ubuntu.

I don't really have a need to run WINE on my Ubuntu, I've learned many of the open source alternative software packages.  I do remember in the past though trying to use it to play Stick Online and was never successful though.  Something with the DirectX, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Doesn't effect me now since I don't play Stick Online, or any GM game, and there isn't any other software out there that I need it for.  The world is coming round and understanding that Linux user group is growing quite a bit, therefor they should consider opening up their software to the linux side of the house!

I think the hardware support is one of the greatest things about Ubuntu.  It took Microsoft years to realize the efficiency of Linux's hardware support.  Windows 7 is the first Microsoft OS that would attempt to install the drivers for your hardware upon install.  Linux has been doing that since Vista's release.  Again though, the only problems that I've encountered is when the hardware doesn't have open source drivers, which is really just ATI, and there are still plenty of work arounds to get it working.

[Mr Pwnage]

Linux is for homeless penguins.

[ARTgames]

What chipset are using?  If it's an ATI, it's not surprising.  I have an ATI in my laptop, and hate the thing.  Ubuntu has a hard time releasing ATI drivers, something to do with ATI not releasing the source of their drivers.  NVIDIA on the other hand run beautifully on Ubuntu.

Im using NVIDIA. And its ok. But on my netbook intel's crap its not so well. For well known reasons.

I don't really have a need to run WINE on my Ubuntu, I've learned many of the open source alternative software packages. 

There no good open source alternative to my cod mw2. :P i used many open source software and its ok. But the problem i have is there no open source video editor that's really good.

[Scotty]

But the problem i have is there no open source video editor that's really good.

http://vlmc.org/

Oh... And...

Linux is for homeless penguins.

It's a well known fact that Rednecks kill homeless penguins... And fluffy kittens... And Baby Jesus...
Go make out with your cousin...

[ARTgames]

But the problem i have is there no open source video editor that's really good.

http://vlmc.org/

thank you. ill take a look when it comes out.

[JollyRoger]

If I had a 64-bit processor, I would most definitely opt to get the 64-bit version.  Unfortunately though, I do not.

[Mr Pwnage]

Linux is for homeless penguins.

It's a well known fact that Rednecks kill homeless penguins... And fluffy kittens... And Baby Jesus...
Go make out with your cousin...
[/quote]

I love you Scott.

And just for clarification. Uubooboonako is the linux OS? And are you hinting this uaobookaokao is better than Windows 7? And what exactly do you smoke to come up with this shit?

[Scotty]

And are you hinting this uaobookaokao is better than Windows 7? And what exactly do you smoke to come up with this shit?

I've ALWAYS preferred Linux to Windows, ever since I started using it.  It's free, it's faster, it's more efficient in every way.  The only reason Linux will never be adopted as the primary OS over Windows, is because people are greedy.  Everyone develops for windows, and might develop for Linux.  It will never be vice versa, because in order for them to develop for Linux, they wouldn't make a profit.  Linux goes by the term "Open Source", while Windows goes by the term "Proprietary".

[Mr Pwnage]

And are you hinting this uaobookaokao is better than Windows 7? And what exactly do you smoke to come up with this shit?

I've ALWAYS preferred Linux to Windows, ever since I started using it.  It's free, it's faster, it's more efficient in every way.  The only reason Linux will never be adopted as the primary OS over Windows, is because people are greedy.  Everyone develops for windows, and might develop for Linux.  It will never be vice versa, because in order for them to develop for Linux, they wouldn't make a profit.  Linux goes by the term "Open Source", while Windows goes by the term "Proprietary".

So why can't Linux make a proprietary version? If it is efficient as you say it is, I am sure it will have some takers. Open source is never a good idea if they are actually trying to become popular...which I don't know that are trying to do. Either way, I wouldn't use Linux no matter how efficient if nobody develops for it, they should try to get more popular.

[Scotty]

And are you hinting this uaobookaokao is better than Windows 7? And what exactly do you smoke to come up with this shit?

I've ALWAYS preferred Linux to Windows, ever since I started using it.  It's free, it's faster, it's more efficient in every way.  The only reason Linux will never be adopted as the primary OS over Windows, is because people are greedy.  Everyone develops for windows, and might develop for Linux.  It will never be vice versa, because in order for them to develop for Linux, they wouldn't make a profit.  Linux goes by the term "Open Source", while Windows goes by the term "Proprietary".

So why can't Linux make a proprietary version? If it is efficient as you say it is, I am sure it will have some takers. Open source is never a good idea if they are actually trying to become popular...which I don't know that are trying to do. Either way, I wouldn't use Linux no matter how efficient if nobody develops for it, they should try to get more popular.

That's the thing, they ARE very popular.  I guarantee that the web server that is hosting Stick Online is using Apache on a FreeBSD server, which is all open source.  Over 70% of all web servers today are using Apache.  How many times have you gone to download software and see the downloads page split up into three categories (or more): Windows, Mac, Linux.  People are slowly starting to develop for it more and more.  There are those that will not want to release their source code though, so those greedy bastards will never migrate (case in point: Ventrilo).  As for why Linux will never go proprietary, it defeats the purpose of Linux.  Linux was built upon the open source fundamentals (they are the leading pioneer in it), and even Microsoft has viewed it as a threat (hence the many years of law-suits they've had against them in the past, they were scared that Linux was going to be a big competitor).  If Linux was to go proprietary, no one would bother using it, and the ENTIRE community would leave, because every person who uses Linux contributes to their distribution in one way or another.  They wouldn't be able to contribute if it is proprietary (legality issues).

Open Source is built upon the fundamentals that everyone helps each other out.  Some people are greedy, and don't feel comfortable exposing their work for others to help out with.  They'd rather horde it all and keep it to themselves, for fear of someone taking what they consider to be great work, and manipulating it *cough*Stick Online*cough*.  I've seen GREAT success with Open Source software packages.  Case in point there would be Open Office.  Open Office is the leading competitor to Microsoft Office, and Microsoft threw a shit fit when Open Office entered the scene.  They tried to sue sue sue, and lost.  And rightfully so, because now, you can own an entire office suite for FREE, and now, after the trial ended, Microsoft agreed to allow Office to read and modify their documents.  So really, who needs Microsoft Office anymore?  There are a group of individuals who are willing to spend their time benefiting the project by contributing to it however they can.  Open Source is the opposite of selfishness.  Go read the wikipedia or Ubuntu, and see if you can find the article that defines the meaning of the word Ubuntu, it's a perfect explanation for what Linux stands for as a whole.

EDIT: Also, Pwnage, I challenge you to try it.  For trial purposes, it's incredibly easy to set up a free virtual machine (try virtualbox) and use that to install Ubuntu as a virtual machine on your Windows box.  This is me assuming that you have sufficient memory (4 gigs minimum is ideal).  At least try it to see what you think of it.  I know you'll never want to migrate completely (I haven't even, I still keep a partition of Windows 7 on my laptop) because gaming isn't as good on Linux, but for everything else, surfing the web, music, anything else, you may find yourself liking its efficiency.  If you want, hit me up on Teamspeak and I can walk you through it.  Same goes for everyone else who's curious!

[Lingus]

I agree that open source has its benefits. But, from the consumer's standpoint, it also has its downsides. Essentially, what it comes down to is that, yes, you have a ton of material created by the community, but you also have to go through a ton of crap to find the good quality additions. In some people's case, it is a hindrance to the point of not being able to use the product. I personally have dealt with an open source community (Joomla) and decided against using it because of how difficult it was to find and install good quality additions to the core software. I'm sure it's the same with Linux.

With that said, if you have the time and the knowledge (and patience) it is definitely beneficial to have MORE options rather than less. The only time more options is bad is when you can't deal with all of them.

[Scotty]

I agree that open source has its benefits. But, from the consumer's standpoint, it also has its downsides. Essentially, what it comes down to is that, yes, you have a ton of material created by the community, but you also have to go through a ton of crap to find the good quality additions. In some people's case, it is a hindrance to the point of not being able to use the product. I personally have dealt with an open source community (Joomla) and decided against using it because of how difficult it was to find and install good quality additions to the core software. I'm sure it's the same with Linux.

With that said, if you have the time and the knowledge (and patience) it is definitely beneficial to have MORE options rather than less. The only time more options is bad is when you can't deal with all of them.

I can't disagree.  When it comes to using open source applications with an active community that contribute modifications, additions, so on and so forth, if you are looking for a very specific functionality to supplement your application, it may be slim pickings.  On a broader scope, there are lots of contributions being made by a large entity, ensuring quality.
Application development aside, the general concept of what you are saying may hold some water, but not the same.  For instance, media.  Let's say I want a media player for my Ubuntu box.  I pull up the package manager to browse what media players come standard with Ubuntu for install.  Initially, it will come with an annoying program called Rhythmbox, which does not blow my hair back.  I do a search for what other media players might provide a more pleasurable experience, and a list is provided to me, with user reviews, descriptions, etc.. etc.. all I have to do is one-click and whamo, it's downloaded and installed for me to try.  The concept of searching through all these options is still there, but it is far from annoying and doesn't seem as annoying, because package selection is filtered through a team of MOTU's (Masters of the Universe) before being added to the Universe repositories.

[Lingus]

I see. So it sounds like there's a lot in place that eliminates those issues. Good deal.