As evidence goes, I don't have any either,
but I Think the issue is
related to the modularization of the kernel. all I really have are my
own observations as I search for the perfect linux desktop for my
What I do know is that on 3 machine the Boot time from power up to KDE
desktop and then to open open office between Yoper i686 optimized, and
CollegeLinux 2.5 with the same test (i486 optimized) is virtually
identical. (feather linux was faster again, but its not really a full
linux.) Mind you the hardware is not exactly cutting edge. PIII 700. a
Duron 1100 and a AMD 2600+ (laptop) - There is also a p1 233, but
you'll see why when I finish the shootout.
Slack, fedora and mandrake and even SUSE were all slower, but due to
more servers running and other basic Speed Tweaks rather than the
settings the compiler used.
That said, I think Yoper is an awesome desktop, CollegeLinux is also
doing a lot of similar things, and other than perhaps mepis (debian
based) these are what I tend to choose for a desktop distro.
Its a real pity as I think Gnome 2.6 would be a brilliant desktop
addition, but we will see.
The shootout continues, and Yoper is getting put through its paces at
But Servers are a different beast, and should be more concerned with
stability over performance IMHO.
> Anyway, I've seen it suggested that compiling the kernel and the c
> for your particular machine and leaving all the other
> as generic i386 will make a small amount of difference, and optimising
> everything else won't make that much difference on top of that.
> Don't have any links or proof to back that up though :p
> Just 'cos a distro is labelled as
'i386' doesn't mean it doesn't have
> optimisations for more recent processors in it, just that only
> use machine instructions that the i386 has.