Sorry, no offense, but you don't understand enough of the basics of this topic for a productive discussion.

Oh well I find yourself to be lost as well even though you seem so technical about it. It's actually just simple but you try to complicate or deviate it. It's not about the defaults or necessity. It's just a question about the efficiency or speed (or performance if you want to call it another way) and nothing more than that. Well I don't mind really.

konsolebox, i was just too lazy to explain you what jtsn tried to explain to you. And now I don't regret to be honest. You are very aggressive and you don't even read what other writes, so just stay with your mind and live happy but don't blame us please.

Problem is you guys assume that someone knows nothing based from a simple reply. It's not my problem that you estimate people quickly. I know what you guys meant even before I made my first post. Such topics about necessities, availability, stability, etc. have been around way too long already. But what does that have to do with actual performance of Slackware and that only?

Btw, I think it is jtsn that can't get the meaning of my post in #90. All because I don't elaborate doesn't mean I know nothing. I just give allowance and it's not worth much the effort.

I think it's time to say this topic is going nowhere and needs to just be locked. The facts are in and as it stands Slackware simply works out of the box without too many special cflags to rev it's engine that much faster than necessary. Everyone who has used Slackware all feel the same way about benchmarks against other big brand distributions, and we know they are pointless in real-life situations where a benchmark isn't going to show if A is faster than B. You can't type, web surf, host files, or play games that much faster on system A any better than system B in real-time and real life situations.

So without any further useful input I'm going to ask for a lock on this as clearly the answers are in and the points have been made.

2 members found this post helpful.

I read what people write. And my first post was a general observation and you see it more as an added idea or direct reply to the topic so it doesn't really make conflict with previous posts. My first post wasn't aggressive. It was just frank and honest; scientific-like if you know what I mean. It's not meant to attack the principles of users, but it would depend on the reader.

1 members found this post helpful.

The name of that website already made me crack up.

Since none of you here can see if additional input will be forthcoming, since this topic so far lacks the derailment that characterized previous "discussions", since it has been discussed in a more amiable way than ever before and since the atmosphere is still good I see no reason to close it. Should you or anyone else wish to let this thread die in peace then please do not post any follow-ups.

Since you are right much has been said we all may expect from anyone posting any follow-ups below this post
0) they have read the whole thread,
1) their post addresses the main topic and
2) has something substantial to add.

2 members found this post helpful.

Sorry, mate, you do absolutely not speak for me with that statement, so it clearly does not apply to "everyone who has used Slackware". The reason I have not opened up that discussion so far is that I see no gain. Only that much:

Benchmarking when done properly is a valuable tool to identify problems or the influence of single parameters, or the absence of such. Even in the case of identical results, this is valuable information. To give you an example of a "real-life situation": I maintain a small web server, and I found out that it has 4 times more throughput under BFS than under CFS (these are cpu schedulers) - an unexpected result at the time. So this is of immediate practical relevance. You gain additional insight by measuring other web servers (apache, lighttpd) which allows you to make better predictions about other software products.