W dniu 2016-08-30 o 11:35, Fernando Herrero Carrón pisze: > 2016-08-30 9:04 GMT+02:00 Andrea Brancatelli <abrancate...@schema31.it>: > >> >> >> Il 2016-08-30 05:51 K. Macy ha scritto: >> >> I can't speak for the whole universe of users, but I think it's safe >> to say that most users are not power users who individually configure >> ports tailored to their needs. I think my experiences on Ubuntu, where >> I'm definitely not a power user, are illustrative. I never compile >> *anything* that has a package in an ubuntu repo and I assume that the >> packages are configured when built to enable any performance options >> that don't potentially cause stability issues. Similarly, on FreeBSD >> most users are going to be using packages and they're going to assume >> that the packages are configured to "provide the best user >> experience". Consequently anyone using a package that could use OpenMP >> is going to legitimately just assume that "X" is slower on FreeBSD. >> And for all intents and purposes "X" _is_ slower. >> >> >> I second this 100%. >> >> If anyone thinks that this is not the "correct" approach then I don't see >> the point of the PKG project as a whole. >> > > I would also vote for "best performance per default". On a second thought, > this would actually mean "average performance per default", because we > should be conservative as to what optimizations are enabled that still work > on older CPUs. I would say enabling all those compiler optimizations would > be a safe bet (simply going from -O to -O2).
+1 to that. I'd love to see FreeBSD performance superior to Linux, but even a little worse than Linux would still be ok. Unfortunatelly that "little worse" gap is growing. -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
