Even though different Linux distros are often fairly close in terms of real-life performance and all of them have a clear advantage over Windows in many use cases, we can’t reject the fact that Arch Linux has undoubtedly won the competition. And now I’m so glad to have another reason to proudly say “I use Arch btw”

::: It was a joke of course :::

  • morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    He just look at how much empty space the file explorer showed… I don’t know how good of an indication that it is. The OS may choose to conserve a decent amount of space for things like swap, hibernation file etc.

    Also, preinstalled apps.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I mean, I think it’s fair to lump that all together as space taken by the system, no?

      It’s not like you can use that space for storing files

      • saigot@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I don’t think we know how performance and stability behave when the disk gets full. You can’t really use that space if it would cause your system to crash because it can’t create a hibernate file for instance. It also will vary by system configuration a lot (you need way less swap with 8Gb of swap than 64gb of ram) which makes the comparison only valid for the creators specific configuration.