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 :::

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    491·
    10 months 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
      552·
      10 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
        161·
        10 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

        • saigot@lemmy.ca
          16·
          10 months 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.

    • lazynooblet@lazysoci.alEnglish
      40·
      10 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
        343·
        10 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.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          412·
          10 months ago

          “Swap space that lives in RAM” No… just … no. Swap is for when RAM runs out/low. It literally cannot live in RAM…

              • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
                103·
                10 months ago

                Zram is swap in ram. It uses fast compression to quickly compress memory instead of moving it to disk.

                • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                  51·
                  10 months ago

                  The disagreement here might be a semantic one. When people say “swap” they’re usually referring to the swap partition on disk, not just any memory that can be used to “spill” to.

                  What you are describing with zram serves a fundamentally different function from swap space. If the OS dumps its memory to swap, the PC can lose power and still recover. If it compresses LRU memory to zram, and loses power, it cannot recover.

                  Both are useful in low memory situations, but swap covers more than that. Most familiar with swap space would agree that its location on a nonvolatile disk rather than in volatile memory is critical to what makes it “swap” space.

    • nous@programming.devEnglish
      35·
      10 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.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      17·
      10 months ago

      7GB is a reasonable size for a Linux install with a GUI and some software. The rest are excessively large. I’ve never gone over 30GB of disk usage in my root partition, even with a large number of programs installed.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        7·
        10 months ago

        It seems quite likely that, in the Arch ( EOS ) system at least, a tonne of that space is being used up by the package cache. By default, the system keeps copies of the packages for all software you install. This can indeed take gigs of space but it has nothing to do with your running system. A simple command purges them all and reclaims the space. You would obviously want to do this before reporting installation size. I bet he did not.

        • gnumdk@lemmy.ml
          3·
          10 months ago

          Arch package spliting is not as hard as Debian/Fedora.

          But IMO, it’s because Fedora uses BTRFS with compression enabled.

      • rotopenguin@infosec.pubEnglish
        92·
        10 months ago

        If Windows 10 immediately destroys itself while trying to do its first update, you didn’t actually fit it in 16gb. It hasn’t fit inside of 32GB for several years now.

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      131·
      10 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.

    • roadkill@kbin.social
      9·
      10 months ago

      My guess will be hibernation file and swap. If any of those had suspend to disk enabled, the hibernation file will be the same size as installed Ram… which can take up a good percentage of that used space. I have a pretty bloated xUbuntu install on my system right now and it’s sitting at 10.6GB. Including swap and /home, but no hibernation file.

      • jelloeater - Ops Mgr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        Hibernation I’ve found handy on my laptop, but I wish there was like a fastboot option with Ubuntu. I know windows 11 does it to boot faster.

      • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
        18·
        10 months ago

        Where’d you get that image? I made that 7 or 8 years ago. Has it been making the rounds? It’s weird to see it in the wild lol

      • sachamato@lemmy.world
        2·
        10 months ago

        AW man, my first choice back in the days was Debian. Seeing now your map made me remember the pain of learning along the way while solving nuclear bomb events and configurations that I had no idea even existed. Still, it was a great experience! Nowadays I just use win 11.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        10 months ago

        Windows wouldn’t be too terrible if it wasn’t for all the pop ups all the time.

        I need to work with it because I need to create a WPF app with Visual Studio, and when I switch from Windows to my personal computer, the difference is mind blowing.

        Windows push you fucking add with a notification sound. It’s probably on me that I didn’t disable yet, but I don’t have to do that on any Linux distro.

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      4·
      10 months ago
      • Edge Flatpak: unofficial, using zypak, same app on every Distro. Also launch times are damn irrelevant
      • “storage used” is likely just the DEs filesystem abstraction

      I was very very surprised about Ubuntu starting so fast. Afaik they preload Snaps now, which should increase that startup time.

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    13·
    10 months ago

    How is fedora 2x faster in video rendering? I don’t get the huge gaps between the Linux distros in general. Like arch being 20% slower in php and Ubuntu 20% faster in kernel compilation

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mlOP
      6·
      10 months ago

      I think it depends on kernel/software/driver versions and will vary when these change. Also bloatware is a thing, even though it doesn’t affect the results very significantly

    • tiny@midwest.socialEnglish
      6·
      10 months ago

      Different distros build their packages with different options and have different versions of those packages so the Ubuntu and fedora php packages might have an optimization the arch one didn’t

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      Could be the memory performance if it’s light GPU usage and memory is the bottleneck.

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    3·
    10 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
      2·
      10 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)

  • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
    1·
    10 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
    12·
    10 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.