LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Home Forums Tutorials Articles Register
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
Reload this Page have I jumped the slackware ship by installing BlueWhite-64
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-20-2008, 08:17 PM   #1
rob.rice
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 1,076

Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
have I jumped the slackware ship by installing BlueWhite-64

bluewhite-64 is a 64 bit build of slackware
it is the exact same in every thing as slack
the /etc files are the same
slackbuild scripts work almost the same execpt the output
packages run on 64 bit computers insted of 32 bit computers
the same nonstandard file placements for mozilla
even down to the X server bug when coming back to X after a terminal with ncurses on it like midnight commander
BUT
it makes this computer 2 to 3 times faster

So have I jumped the slackware ship ?
 
Old 08-20-2008, 09:43 PM   #2
MS3FGX
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852

Rep: Reputation: 361Reputation: 361Reputation: 361Reputation: 361
Is there a question here?

BW64 is just Slackware compiled for 64 bit processors, a function which is supported in the official Slackbuilds used to compile the standard 32 bit version of Slackware. So it isn't really any different.
 
Old 08-21-2008, 02:00 AM   #3
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: McCalla, AL, USA
Distribution: Arch, Gentoo
Posts: 6,940

Rep: Reputation: 129Reputation: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob.rice View Post
bluewhite-64 is a 64 bit build of slackware
So have I jumped the slackware ship ?
You are on a cheap copy of the Slackware ship.

Slamd64 took the Slackware sources and ported it to x86_64. The files
even say Slackware rather than Slamd64 in many places.

Bluewhite64 took the sources of Slamd64, removed multilib support and
released the resulting packages as Bluewhite64.

So what are you running? It's been called a parasite in another LQ thread.
Neither are true forks of Slackware, such as SuSE, because they just
rebrand Slackware as it's released.

Pat Volkerding and the core team at Slackware do the hard work on the distro,
and these other fellows take that work and modify it to make "their distro."

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob.rice View Post
it makes this computer 2 to 3 times faster
Okay, then you're obligated to post some benchmarks to prove this. Or else,
we'll think you're just silly and confused.
 
Old 08-21-2008, 04:15 AM   #4
samac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Kirkwall, Orkney
Distribution: Linux Mint 20.3 - Cinnamon
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 139Reputation: 139
I tried BlueWhite64, but it lacked certain 32 bit add ins that I needed, so I tried Slamd64 with multilib support, and found it better but still hard work (try getting java support in firefox) and security updates are sloooooowww. Finally I am back with good old 32 bit Slackware 12.1.

So you haven't jumped ship, you have just fallen overboard for a while, we look forward to helping you climb back on soon.

On a more serious note, we do need an official 64 bit Slackware, because most hardware being made now is 64 bit and that will only increase in the future.

samac
 
Old 08-21-2008, 06:23 AM   #5
rvdboom
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 235

Rep: Reputation: 30
For the record, Fred Emmmott, the maintainer of Slamd64 at least considered with friendliness by the Slackware team, or at least, they seem to get along well at the KDE release event.
So even if Slamd64 is not an official Slackware version, I tend to believe it's going to be the basis for an official port in the future.
As for the 2 or 3 times, faster, well..... I mean do we look that stupid around here?
 
Old 08-21-2008, 07:20 AM   #6
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Void, Debian, Slackware, VMs
Posts: 7,342

Rep: Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746
Smile
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob.rice View Post
it makes this computer 2 to 3 times faster
Proof of this claim would be nice.
 
Old 08-21-2008, 09:00 AM   #7
deadbeat
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2007
Distribution: Slamd64
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: 0
Just read http://www.linux.com/feature/132875 , the Bluewhite64 creators interview.
Although it was meant to promote "his" distro, it had the exact opposite effect on me.
Even though i dont need multilib i stick with Slamd64.
 
Old 08-21-2008, 10:32 AM   #8
netcrawl
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: British Columbia
Distribution: Slackware64-current, aarch64
Posts: 220

Rep: Reputation: 141Reputation: 141
I use Slackware and Slamd64. Won't touch BlueBlack.
 
Old 08-21-2008, 10:45 AM   #9
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Void, Debian, Slackware, VMs
Posts: 7,342

Rep: Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746
Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by netcrawl View Post
Won't touch BlueBlack.
Interesting. Why? Have you experienced some show-stopping bugs with BlueWhite-64?
 
Old 08-21-2008, 11:22 AM   #10
netcrawl
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: British Columbia
Distribution: Slackware64-current, aarch64
Posts: 220

Rep: Reputation: 141Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest View Post
Interesting. Why? Have you experienced some show-stopping bugs with BlueWhite-64?
Never used it due to 'historical' reasons.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ckware-573930/
 
Old 08-21-2008, 08:35 PM   #11
rob.rice
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 1,076

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest View Post
Proof of this claim would be nice.
I think a detailed look at just what CPU is envloved in these bench marks
is in order

I got this from a program called hard info

Code:
-------

-Computer-
Processor		: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU          540  @ 1.86GHz
Memory		: 2045MB (393MB used)

Processor
---------

-Processor-
Name		: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU          540  @ 1.86GHz
Family, model, stepping		: 6, 22, 1 (Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron)
Vendor		: Intel Corp.
-Configuration-
Cache Size		: 1024kb
Frequency		: 1862.00MHz
BogoMIPS		: 3728.26
Byte Order		: Little Endian
-Features-
FDIV Bug		: yes
HLT Bug		: yes
F00F Bug		: yes
Coma Bug		: yes
Has FPU		: yes
-Capabilities-
fpu		: Floating Point Unit
vme		: Virtual 86 Mode Extension
de		: Debug Extensions - I/O breakpoints
pse		: Page Size Extensions (4MB pages)
tsc		: Time Stamp Counter and RDTSC instruction
msr		: Model Specific Registers
pae		: Physical Address Extensions
mce		: Machine Check Architeture
cx8		: CMPXCHG8 instruction
apic		: Advanced Programmable Interrupt Controller
sep		: Fast System Call (SYSENTER/SYSEXIT)
mtrr		: Memory Type Range Registers
pge		: Page Global Enable
mca		: Machine Check Architecture
cmov		: Conditional Move instruction
pat		: Page Attribute Table
pse36		: 36bit Page Size Extensions
clflush		: Cache Line Flush instruction
dts		: Debug Store
acpi		: Thermal Monitor and Software Controlled Clock
mmx		: MMX technology
fxsr		: FXSAVE and FXRSTOR instructions
sse		: SSE instructions
sse2		: SSE2 (WNI) instructions
ss		: Self Snoop
tm		: Thermal Monitor
pbe		: Pending Break Enable
syscall		: SYSCALL and SYSEXIT instructions
nx		: No-execute Page Protection
lm
constant_tsc
up
arch_perfmon
pebs
bts
rep_good
pni
monitor
ds_cpl
tm2
ssse3
cx16
xtpr
lahf_lm

Memory
------

-Memory-
Total Memory		: 2045840 kB
Free Memory		: 1070572 kB
now lets see how this compares to other CPUs higher is better

Code:
CPU ZLib
--------
Results in Kilo bytes per second 
-CPU ZLib-
<i>This Machine</i>		                       : 20326.961

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz		       : 19484.083
4x Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 280	       : 20027.592
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+	       : 19212.346
2x Genuine Intel(R) CPU2160@ 1.80GHz		       : 17054.428
4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460@ 3.16GHz		       : 26655.132
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz		       : 13155.217
4x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz	       : 25252.858
4x Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.40GHz		       : 19034.155
AMD Athlon(tm) XP Processor 2800+		       : 8628.198
AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+		                       : 13126.564
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU550@ 2.00GHz		       : 12805.577
2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 FX-62 Dual Core Processor	       : 21273.469
If you will look it's running a little faster than a Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.60GHz witch is running at almost twice as fast
dude this is a cellron
Code:
CPU Fibonacci
-------------
Results in seconds lower is better 
-CPU Fibonacci-
<i>This Machine</i>		                             : 4.764

Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1700MHz		             : 6.432
2x Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz		     : 4.294
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300@ 2.50GHz		     : 3.013
2x Intel(R) Pentium(R) DualCPUE2160@ 1.80GHz		     : 4.785
2x Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz		             : 9.185
2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5400+	     : 3.487
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5450@ 1.66GHz		     : 5.871
Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+		     : 6.953
2x Genuine Intel(R) CPU 3.20GHz		                     : 3.661
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M CPU530@ 1.73GHz		             : 5.923
2x AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-66		     : 3.115
AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1500+		                             : 8.562
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7700@ 2.40GHz		     : 3.770
CPU MD5
-------
Results in mega bytes per second higher is better 
-CPU MD5-
<i>This Machine</i>		                            : 45.180

2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400@ 3.00GHz		    : 83.362
AMD Sempron(TM) 3000+		                            : 52.535
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1500MHz		            : 15.242
Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 2.50GHz		    : 30.793
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz		            : 46.570
Mobile AMD Athlon 64 Processor 2800+		            : 35.241
PowerPC PPC970MP, altivec supported (1150,00MHz)	    : 26.893
Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.33GHz		    : 169.693
Intel(R) Pentium(R) III Mobile CPU 933MHz		    : 26.059
2x AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-66		    : 51.541
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU4400@ 2.00GHz		            : 63.955
mobile AMD Athlon(tm) XP-M 2800+		            : 64.836
Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+		    : 47.188
4x Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.40GHz		            : 48.058
CPU SHA1
--------
Results in mega bytes per second
-CPU SHA1-
<i>This Machine</i>		                            : 68.837

4x Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz		            : 48.430
Genuine Intel(R) CPU U1400@ 1.20GHz		            : 44.534
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.13GHz		                    : 40.776
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU4300@ 1.80GHz		            : 67.076
8x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405@ 2.00GHz		            : 75.800
Unknown CPU Type		                            : 48.095
2x AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual Core Processor BE-2300	    : 62.872
2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+	    : 71.479
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 4000+		            : 72.481
2x AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-52		    : 49.208
AMD Athlon(tm)2600+		                            : 57.528
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500@ 2.20GHz		    : 80.867
Mobile Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.70GHz		            : 26.480
8x Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2356		    : 90.014

CPU Blowfish
------------
Results in seconds lower is better
-CPU Blowfish-
<i>This Machine</i>		                            : 18.378

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+		    : 15.651
AMD Athlon(TM) XP 1700+		                            : 22.819
2x AMD Athlon(tm) MP 2000+		                    : 21.203
2x Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2080@ 1.73GHz		            : 20.591
4x Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2214		    : 17.316
PowerPC 7447A, altivec supported (1249,00MHz)		    : 51.567
2x Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.60GHz		            : 21.955
AMD K7 processor		                            : 37.476
mobile AMD Duron(tm) Processor		                    : 37.390
AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 148		                    : 25.783
2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+	    : 16.848
Mobile AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3000+		            : 23.176
I'm tiered of cleaning up the out put so the next bench mark is raw output from the program

Results in seconds lower is better
Code:
FPU Raytracing
--------------

-FPU Raytracing-
<i>This Machine</i>		: 12.518
Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 1.90GHz		: 61.293
Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.06GHz		: 73.816
2x Genuine Intel(R) CPU2160@ 1.80GHz		: 21.871
Mobile Pentium II		: 152.734
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU6420@ 2.13GHz		: 28.373
2x Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2250@ 1.73GHz		: 29.255
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+		: 18.501
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5500@ 1.66GHz		: 25.798
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1400MHz		: 50.022
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5250@ 1.50GHz		: 27.839
AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2500+		: 29.268
4x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.66GHz		: 14.445
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU6700@ 2.66GHz		: 14.818
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 Mobile CPU 2.00GHz		: 68.209
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5750@ 2.00GHz		: 22.858
2x AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 TL-62		: 12.859
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1600MHz		: 32.536
2x Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2216		: 14.353
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.26GHz		: 38.946
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4700@ 2.60GHz		: 15.557
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5600@ 1.83GHz		: 26.520
2x Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 180		: 12.432
AMD Athlon(tm) XP processor 1600+		: 40.435
2x Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU230 @ 1.60GHz		: 68.252
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU E6600@ 2.40GHz		: 18.456
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M CPU530@ 1.73GHz		: 27.435
2x Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz		: 27.700
2x AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-60		: 19.485
2x AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 TL-64		: 12.259
Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU1133MHz		: 52.961
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.50GHz		: 35.639
AMD Athlon XP_M		: 23.210
mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 4		: 42.352
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.86GHz		: 29.558
2x Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz		: 20.803
4x AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 852		: 10.092
2x Intel(R) Pentium(R) DualCPUE2180@ 2.00GHz		: 16.918
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.70GHz		: 46.349
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.20GHz		: 32.404
AMD Sempron(tm) Processor LE-1200		: 16.474
Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) III CPU - M1000MHz		: 48.059
4x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz		: 12.508
2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9500@ 2.60GHz		: 7.079
Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 280		: 18.500
Intel(R) Pentium(R) DualCPUE2140@ 1.60GHz		: 29.824
2x Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 1212		: 16.847
AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 144		: 46.384
AMD Sempron(tm) Processor LE-1150		: 22.613
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7300@ 2.00GHz		: 30.078
PowerPC 740/750 (231.00MHz)		: 200.286
this CPU should not be able to out perform the CPUs that it has out performed
the only way I can explain it's performance is that the better CPUs running at twice it's speed that It out performed were running in 32bit mode this one was running in 64bit mode

I Mucked up during the install and wiped out my official slackware install so the numbers I had on it were destroyed along with the file system
 
Old 08-21-2008, 09:35 PM   #12
rob.rice
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 1,076

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
the forum hick-uped and I double posted this so I did a drastic edit
Last edited by rob.rice; 08-21-2008 at 09:39 PM. Reason: double post due to a web site hick-up
 
Old 08-22-2008, 05:00 AM   #13
GazL
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 6,897

Rep: Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob.rice View Post

this CPU should not be able to out perform the CPUs that it has out performed
the only way I can explain it's performance is that the better CPUs running at twice it's speed that It out performed were running in 32bit mode this one was running in 64bit mode
The more likely explanation is that the benchmark results are just broken. Benchmarks are pretty tricky even under controlled circumstances. You have to be very careful not to contaminate the results.


What would have been interesting to see would have been:
32bit Slackware, running benchmark on your machine after a clean boot
V
64bit BW, running benchmark on the same machine after a clean boot.

I'm afraid all the other results you posted are just noise.
 
Old 08-22-2008, 08:56 AM   #14
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 11,222

Rep: Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320Reputation: 5320
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
What would have been interesting to see would have been:
32bit Slackware, running benchmark on your machine after a clean boot V64bit BW, running benchmark on the same machine after a clean boot.
And in both cases, CPU frequency scaling should be either turned off, or set to the "performance" governor.
 
Old 08-22-2008, 06:00 PM   #15
rob.rice
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 1,076

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
it's a laptop the CPU has clock cycle dropping built in to it
the bench marks very according to the temperature the the warmer it gets the slower it runs
the times posted were the slowest I have seen so far I was setting in a hot car in the sun when I ran those bench marks
running the computer on an inverter I think APCI slows the computer down when on the battery so I use the inverter when I can
 
  


Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slackware 12 & Click n Ship slackass Slackware 6 03-17-2008 11:02 PM
Slackware 10.1 Why not Ship Firefox 1.0? rovitotv Slackware 41 03-03-2006 04:05 PM
Another new jumped in linux poll yyang LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 2 09-02-2005 05:31 PM
Mandrake 10, ehh jumped to conclusions :( silentwhispers Mandriva 3 09-04-2004 04:44 PM
Sounds Stupid But I Kinda Just Jumped In........... uncledave Linux - Newbie 2 05-08-2001 05:22 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM.

Contact Us - Advertising Info - Rules - Privacy - LQ Merchandise - Donations - Contributing Member - LQ Sitemap -
Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration