From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Received: by 10.43.60.131 with SMTP id ws3mr17058127icb.13.1427081426969; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:30:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: voidlinux@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.88.200 with SMTP id bi8ls28275obb.28.gmail; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:30:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.137.195 with SMTP id qk3mr773533obb.38.1427081426722; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:30:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Logen Kain To: voidlinux@googlegroups.com Cc: walach.o...@gmail.com Message-Id: <3b8920b2-49e1-4be5-a8d1-949ae4f25657@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <87mw356s7x.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87mw356s7x.fsf@gmail.com> Subject: Re: What's a complete "just works" distro? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_16_8903062.1427081426171" ------=_Part_16_8903062.1427081426171 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17_1457391391.1427081426171" ------=_Part_17_1457391391.1427081426171 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>TBH, I never understood this argument. All Linux distros compile >>roughly the same sources... why would one be faster than another? I think runit has a lot to do with it. Even compared to Arch which I've also streamlined... Had I never saw Void before I would think that the computer must have an SSD in it. It's some times quicker for me to "git clone" and compile packages on void than it is to download something from apt. Seriously, Ubuntu competes with windows now for slow updating. Before using Void, I have never seen firefox open this fast, again I used to be a fan of Arch Linux and openbox combo. On an R61 Laptop I used to use, windows 7 (came with it refurb) ran pretty ok. I didn't use it more than a day before I started installing Linux distros. All Ubuntu derived distros were horribly slow to install, boot, and open aplications. Arch was pretty fast, but nothing compared to void. Sabayon felt a little quicker than arch. I typically used MATE at the time, or KDE. Thinking of KDE. When I install and start up KDE for the first time, it has always been stupid slow. Decent boot up times after the first boot. With Void, it was way faster than I've ever seen it boot. Even for a first boot. I don't know what kind of black magic Void weilds, but if it wasn't for Void, I'd agree with the idea that all distros are pretty much the same. Perhaps I wouldn't notice much of a difference if I used SSD. ------=_Part_17_1457391391.1427081426171 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>TBH, I never understood this argument.  All L= inux distros compile
>>roughly the same sources... why would one be faster than anothe= r?

I think runit has a lot to do with it.  Even compared to Arc= h which I've also streamlined... Had I never saw Void before I would think = that the computer must have an SSD in it.

It's some times quicker fo= r me to "git clone" and compile packages on void than it is to download som= ething from apt.  Seriously, Ubuntu competes with windows now for slow= updating.

Before using Void, I have never seen firefox open this fa= st, again I used to be a fan of Arch Linux and openbox combo.

On an = R61 Laptop I used to use, windows 7 (came with it refurb) ran pretty ok. I = didn't use it more than a day before I started installing Linux distros.All Ubuntu derived distros were horribly slow to install, boot, and open a= plications.
Arch was pretty fast, but nothing compared to void.  Sa= bayon felt a little quicker than arch.

I typically used MATE at the = time, or KDE.

Thinking of KDE.  When I install and start up KDE= for the first time, it has always been stupid slow.  Decent boot up t= imes after the first boot.

With Void, it was way faster than I've ev= er seen it boot.  Even for a first boot.

I don't know what kind= of black magic Void weilds, but if it wasn't for Void, I'd agree with the = idea that all distros are pretty much the same.


Perhaps I wouldn= 't notice much of a difference if I used SSD.
------=_Part_17_1457391391.1427081426171-- ------=_Part_16_8903062.1427081426171--