5 ms·
> basically way more functional and has way more features than linux Uh, I don't think it works that way. If your features get in the way of your performance,
by rhn_mk1 5y ago
> basically way more functional and has way more features than linux
Uh, I don't think it works that way. If your features get in the way of your performance, you're doing it wrong.
In addition, Fedora is not optimized for a particular CPU microarchitecture.
- runjake 5y agoIt does work that way. Otherwise, we’d all be running a stripped down Clear Linux kernel, BusyBox, and a few tool chains.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoI'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If performance was strictly dependent on features, as you say, then we would be running an extremely stripped down OS. But it's otherwise, and no one does it, even those who care about performance (removing excessive services notwithstanding).
- runjake 5y agoThe point is people take trade-offs for performance vs. features. Features take up some measurable amount of performance. It's a sliding scale, but everyone sits on that scale nonetheless.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- marcosdumay 5y agoLast time I checked, performance was one of the benefits of the GNU environment over BusyBox. Also, a lot of the features on the Linux kernel are there specifically to improve performance.
- IshKebab 5y agoPlenty of features get in the way of performance. Or are you suggesting we should ditch animation, modern font rendering, file metadata, all permissions checks, most low level security features (ASLR, stack protection etc.), Spectre protection, high resolution displays, USB, frequency stepping, etc. etc. etc.