Which sources to choose for a desktop?

[jsosic]

I'm totally confused

There's lots of unofficial sources out there...
1. moprheus
2. no2
3. beyond
4. emission


So guys, which one do you use and why? I need a stable and fast sources for my workstation, and I want low lattencies compared to vanilla sources.

Emission doesn't include CK afaik? That means it's not using staircase... Is that a big drawback? What are the most important patches for a low latency desktop?

I don't need Reiser4, suspend2... only thing that bothers me are patches for speedy system, I can live without that Reiser garbage

[Belliash]

I know, that my opinion isn't enought objective, but... i have occasion to test morph-sources
and what i can say...

transfers on my hdds are 2-3MB/s faster than on my previous kernel (2.6.17-morph8). I was and i'm still using libata pata driver (nForce 4).
it includes emission tune so its speed should be comparable (emission-morph-viper)
As i wrote it doesn't stop on libata, devices detection as it was in 2.6.17
It's the newest kernel version...
Alsa doesn't work for me... but i'm working on this...

beyond-sources includes CK patches and some other like reiser4 or suspend2
morph-sources is based on emission (like viper)
viper-sources are really fast
morph-sources uses the newest kernel (2.6.19) and updates it to the newest stable snapshot (git7)


I think the best way is to try yourself...

[yoshi314]

beyond sources are most reliable for me.

i had at least one mysterious lockup or kernel panic on other patchsets, which i could not fix.

but that's just my opinion. i used the old morph- patchset before beyond.

[energyman76b]

I'm totally confused



So guys, which one do you use and why? I need a stable and fast sources for my workstation, and I want low lattencies compared to vanilla sources.

vanilla

vanilla is stable
no funky patches
problems can be solved by the experts. You are not dependent on some hobbyist.

vanilla is low latency, if you choose the right options.

Oh, and I hope, that you know, that low latency = less performance.

[Enverex]

What the above poster said, I'd stick with something sane like Vanilla (normal, untouched kernel) or CK-Sources if you wanted a little lower latency for audio editing or something.

The other patchsets are normally unstable due to something not liking something else (emission, viper, etc, can cause issues and you won't get official help when using them) and others (like Morph as the author pimped in this thread) don't actually even compile for most people according to its own thread.

Morph: "newest stable snapshot (git7)" is an oxymoron.

[zxy]

Morph: "newest stable snapshot (git7)" is an oxymoron.

morph-sources uses the newest kernel (2.6.19) and updates it to the newest stable snapshot (git7)

I guess it is obvious that morph ment that the stable vanilla version is updated to the latest git. So it is not an oxymoron.

[Enverex]

Actually it is, the patch he applies just brings up to a point in the GIT tree, so it's basically .19 vanilla with a GIT version applied to it, meaning it's still just a GIT snapshot, meaning it's experimental and unchecked (GIT is the development tree, it's not a good kernel to use). Hence "stable git" is an oxymoron.

[masterdriverz]

Hence "stable git" is an oxymoron.

Actually its what upstream refer to those releases as
Stable -> compiles, should boot normally for average users. Don't expect wonders though....

[Dominique_71]

What do you want to do with your desktop?

If you want a fast desktop for general use, a vanilla kernel is very good with the right configuration for the preemption (desktop preemption). You can try to play with the Hz value. Something as 500 or 1000 will be good for a desktop. 500 will give you a more responsive desktop when 1000 will be better for the multimedia.

It is a few patches as Ingo Molnar's patch (rt-sources in the audio-pro overlay) where you can have full preemption (or realtime preemption) and choose the priorities both at the hardware and software levels. But it will be an overkill for a desktop because it will slow down the desktop in order to get better performances from the multimedia parts of the system. With high processor use, you can even get the desktop that is freezing 1 or 2 seconds, but you will get no xruns in jack at the same time.

So, the right solution depend on what you want to do with your desktop.

Another issue is which desktop you are using. Kde is fast, but only if you have enough system ressources (a decent processor and a lot of ram). You can give a try with other wm as fluxbox, xfwm, fvwm or fvwm-crystal. Crystal is my favorite at that time. It can be used from the first time and it is easier as fvwm to get in touch with the configuration, and it is as fast as fvwm, it mean faster as any other wm.

Compiz is interresting to if you are using a lot of 3D. It give a real boost to all the 3D programs and can be used with kde, gnome and other wms.

[energyman76b]

So, the right solution depend on what you want to do with your desktop.

Another issue is which desktop you are using. Kde is fast, but only if you have enough system ressources (a decent processor and a lot of ram). You can give a try with other wm as fluxbox, xfwm, fvwm or fvwm-crystal. Crystal is my favorite at that time. It can be used from the first time and it is easier as fvwm to get in touch with the configuration, and it is as fast as fvwm, it mean faster as any other wm.

KDE does not need so much ram. If you use KDE and KDE components, Kparts and its modular concept saves a lot of ram.

The worst RAM hog is gnome. Compared with gnome, KDE does not need any ram at all.

http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/

[ThomasAdam]

Crystal is my favorite at that time. It can be used from the first time and it is easier as fvwm to get in touch with the configuration, and it is as fast as fvwm, it mean faster as any other wm.

Careful with your wording -- it's something that's becoming all too complacent, which is a shame because it's not true. Here:

FVWM_CRYSTAL *IS* FVWM.

It's not a separate program; it doesn't patch FVWM; it doesn't fork FVWM into some uber-super application. All it does is provide a configuration framework around FVWM, like fvwm-themes does. So to say it's "as fast as FVWM" is silly.

-- Thomas Adam

[gimpel]

<OT>

So, the right solution depend on what you want to do with your desktop.

Another issue is which desktop you are using. Kde is fast, but only if you have enough system ressources (a decent processor and a lot of ram). You can give a try with other wm as fluxbox, xfwm, fvwm or fvwm-crystal. Crystal is my favorite at that time. It can be used from the first time and it is easier as fvwm to get in touch with the configuration, and it is as fast as fvwm, it mean faster as any other wm.

KDE does not need so much ram. If you use KDE and KDE components, Kparts and its modular concept saves a lot of ram.

The worst RAM hog is gnome. Compared with gnome, KDE does not need any ram at all.

http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/

ah lol.. that was a good one
sounds like you wanna say KDE uses less ressources than fvwm.. lmao..

Also the tests are mostly stupid.. e.g. GNOME + KWord means GNOME+half of KDE+KWord, as KWord fires up the whole kde core.. and the plain tests are useless as nobody uses a plain desktop like described there..
And he didn't mention if he runs GNOME with our without evolution data server and more things like that.. so all in all what the test says is: they are both a mem hog.. those +-20mb are not worth talking of, are they?

And no, gnome does really not use more RAM .. just tested yesterday. fresh kde install, today fresh gnome install, and they both bloat goats compared to *box or Enlightenment et al. - blame beryl for making me doing such things as an enlightenment user..
</OT>

<@T>
use -ck, it's stable, it's resonable snappy, and it's in portage.
</@T>

[energyman76b]

<OT>

So, the right solution depend on what you want to do with your desktop.

Another issue is which desktop you are using. Kde is fast, but only if you have enough system ressources (a decent processor and a lot of ram). You can give a try with other wm as fluxbox, xfwm, fvwm or fvwm-crystal. Crystal is my favorite at that time. It can be used from the first time and it is easier as fvwm to get in touch with the configuration, and it is as fast as fvwm, it mean faster as any other wm.

KDE does not need so much ram. If you use KDE and KDE components, Kparts and its modular concept saves a lot of ram.

The worst RAM hog is gnome. Compared with gnome, KDE does not need any ram at all.

http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/

ah lol.. that was a good one
sounds like you wanna say KDE uses less ressources than fvwm.. lmao..

I haven't said that. But if you run fvwm, you need a browser, file manager, shell, picture viewer, mail client. And each of them brings its own libs, sharing nothing.

KDE on the other hand, shares a lot of code between the different apps.

And gnome? It hardly shares anything. Which makes gnome a lot more bloated.

Btw, KDE uses less ram with firefox than gnome.

Also the tests are mostly stupid.. e.g. GNOME + KWord means GNOME+half of KDE+KWord, as KWord fires up the whole kde core.. and the plain tests are useless as nobody uses a plain desktop like described there..

you haven't read the text. Obviously reading is not your strong point.

But hey, gnome with kword needs less ram than KDE+ooo or gnome with ooo

And he didn't mention if he runs GNOME with our without evolution data server and more things like that.. so all in all what the test says is: they are both a mem hog.. those +-20mb are not woth talking of, are they?

well, if that 20mb are not important, than there is no reason to use fvwm, xfce or any other 'löightweight' environment.

But if we talk about a memory constraint environment, KDE is a much better choice than gnome.

And no, gnome does really not use more RAM .. just tested yesterday. fresh kde install, today fresh gnome install, and they both bloat goats compared to *box or Enlightenment et al. - blame beryl for making me doing such things as an enlightenment user..
</OT>

yes, it does. The numbers show it. Gnome uses A LOT more ram than KDE. Even a naked gnome without everything uses less than KDE.

And how did you measure? With ps aux?

[gimpel]

And no, gnome does really not use more RAM .. just tested yesterday. fresh kde install, today fresh gnome install, and they both bloat goats compared to *box or Enlightenment et al. - blame beryl for making me doing such things as an enlightenment user..
</OT>

yes, it does. The numbers show it. Gnome uses A LOT more ram than KDE. Even a naked gnome without everything uses less than KDE.

And how did you measure? With ps aux?

"even naked gnome uses less than KDE"? well.. you're getting confused, eh? keep ps aux'ing your RAM yourself

But no need to argue.. looking at my all in all (firefox, audacious, sylpheed, some term-emus, rox-filer etc) 110 MB consuming e17, i don't care much about KDE using some MB less than GNOME, if i run all that in one of those, I'm far behind the 200MB..

End of OT.

[energyman76b]

Well, it is 1:30 am

But hey, you are attacking some solid numbers. So how did YOU get your ram numbers?

Hm?

[jsosic]

I don't believe this question went onto Gnome vs KDE wars... BTW, another FVWM zealot here.

Till now, I used archck sources, then followed developer to beyond series, and last two months I'm using emissions sources, and I'm pretty happy with it. I'm running BOINC (www.worldcommunitygrid.org) 24/7, so sometimes when I'm emerging lots of stuff, and xsaver goes on, computer knows to hang for second-two when I resume using it. No other major nor minor complaints on emission sources on my part. So I'll be staying with it....

Only thing I hate is sata_sil HDD activity led patch... I have to apply it manually, and there's no version for 2.6.18/19 yet...

[zerojay]

I used to play with all the alternative kernels, but I find none of them were very stable and the change in speed was really a placebo effect. Nothing really to change kernels for unless they have some features you need. I just stick with gentoo-sources now, which has a few low latency/desktop patches on top of vanilla sources.

[spb]

I went through the ricer kernel phase quite a while back. The answer is that unless you know exactly why you need something different, you should be using either vanilla or your distribution's patchset.

[jsosic]

I forgot to mention one thing I like about emission - it integrates grsec with fbsplash... I do that manually on my home server box... And don't want to do it for desktop because I upgrade kernels on regular basis.

So, I'll be stickin' with emission for now...

[davascript]

Rice your kernel and go zoom! I use gentoo-sources for my desktops and the suspend2-sources for my laptop. I was debating trying the ck-sources but I never found any proof that they work better/faster than the gentoo-sources. My biggest concern is what added or extra functionality do they offer?

[devsk]

gentoo-sources are the best and provide the most predictable stable environment to work in. Anything else, and you are just wasting too much time for very little gain.

Only patches worth considering over the gentoo-sources are the suspend2 and reiser4, and both of them on top of 2.6.19, apply cleanly and are very stable currently.

[iphitus]

gentoo-sources are the best and provide the most predictable stable environment to work in. Anything else, and you are just wasting too much time for very little gain.

Only patches worth considering over the gentoo-sources are the suspend2 and reiser4, and both of them on top of 2.6.19, apply cleanly and are very stable currently.

I'll agree there' some of the patchsets out there are a waste of time.

I'll pop in here and defend beyond a little bit -- it's aim isnt to rice things up and go omgfast. Personally, I see no difference between it and vanilla now. It aims to just make readily available a collection of popular features that have yet to be merged to vanilla.

James

[Gentree]

going back a while there were some patch sets that offered a serious gain in responciveness and speed.

When lovechild was providing love-sources (c. 2.6.4 IIRC) they offered great improvements. That's history now but I just insert that in his honour , he descerves a medal.

around 2.6.11 I had the fastest and most responsive system ever. I could build KDE , ftp a large file and listen to mp3 without even a glitch in the sound. Sadly I have never been able to reproduce this since (close, but always some glitches in sound).

Since that time gentoo-sources seem to have picked up on some of this pinoneering work and the std gentoo kernel is a lot faster than it used to be, negating some of the advantages of custom kernels.

Like iphitus says , features is probably the main reason now.

I can live without that Reiser garbage

Well I'm sure Reiser4 can live without you too , so no harm done. I've been using it for about 3yrs for the majority of my partitions and swear by it. YMMV.

R4 is my main reason to use a patchset because I cant be arsed to patch it myself, plus there are generally a couple of features like ck patches that I find useful.

If ck included R4 I would have been using it for a long time.

Currently on no-sources but since Conrad has had to put his family above messing with patchsets it looks like time for a new choice. (Many thanks to Conrad for his excellent work in the past good health to his mom).

Finally most recent instability and breakages seem to come the state of the kernel releases more than the patchsets. There has been some clumbsy hacking in inode structures and fundemental changes in pata/sata drivers so anything beyond early 2.6.18* and you are likely to have several things not working , depending on what you need and use.

vanilla is stable
no funky patches
problems can be solved by the experts. You are not dependent on some hobbyist.

No need to be disparaging about maintainers of patchsets. Looking at the recent flux in the inode-diet fiacso, stable is not the first adjective that springs to mind for vanilla. Most of your "hobbyists" are pretty competant and you'll have a good chance of getting a quick fix if you highlight an issue.

Just look at the support threads to see likely issues and to judge the competance of the maintainers.

[depontius]

gentoo-sources are the best and provide the most predictable stable environment to work in. Anything else, and you are just wasting too much time for very little gain.

Only patches worth considering over the gentoo-sources are the suspend2 and reiser4, and both of them on top of 2.6.19, apply cleanly and are very stable currently.

Just out of curiosity, what does gentoo patch, over vanilla?
Where have these patches come from, etc?

[devsk]

Just out of curiosity, what does gentoo patch, over vanilla?
Where have these patches come from, etc?

Its just a collection of patches which are tested by someone who is maintaining gentoo-sources package.

have a look at:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/genpatches

and

http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/li ... nk/2.6.19/

should give you idea about the actual patches.