I basicly agree with you, I didn't expect 2.6 to skyrocket at first, but lately, its speed has been bragged about on this and other lists, so it was a disappointment to see about everything slightly slower, but desktop response down a lot...
I was just wondering if I missed a step in the process that explains the difference in my experience to that of other users. On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 03:18, Ian Truelsen wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:05:09 -0600 > TriKster Abacus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This just goes to prove that I am not the only one seeing this > > bullsh*ty "ooohooohoooohhh ... 2.6.X is so great!" crap > > > Excuse me for interrupting, but does it make a lot of sense to be > benchmarking what is essentially a development kernel? I would think > that when they are in the single digits in releases, they are simply > trying to make sure that everything works. Once the 2.6 tree has been > around for a while they will work on speed tweaks. > > For the record, I have seen a slight downgrade in X performance with > 2.6, but not much of one. However, I am not running 2.6 for speed, but > to help in the development in whatever small way that I can. > > I am giving them a good 10 releases before I expect to see the same or > better performance. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Guy Van Sanden http://unixmafia.port5.com Registered Linux user #249404 - September 1997 ______________________________________________________________________ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
