which distro should i use if i wish to have the highest performance for a 64 bit computer?

i would like, for performance reasons/personal choice, a distro that is absolutely minimalist, containing only the latest stable VANILLA linux kernel, GNU tools/libraries, X, a DE, and a very small number of programs

would this only be only achievable through linux from scratch, or would this be possible with gentoo or arch?
if so, how stable is the average LFS system, if done correctly?

(this may be the wrong place to ask this, but i'll try)
would it be possible to upgrade a LFS ("rolling release" style) or would you have to reinstall every time you wished to incorporate an update?
(i ask because the package management of gentoo/arch, while attractive, may not suit my needs as i wish to optimize the install of every program myself and i am weary of pre-compiled binaries)

For the amount of control you are looking for, I would recommend gentoo. You can build what you want with the USE flags you want them built against.

i have, in the past, had problems with distros that mess with this basic formula, including their own tweaked kernel, or non-GNU tools (i also prefer GNU only for the free status) and i would like, if possible, to stick to this basic set up (if possible)
also, i believe this basic system would allow for better performance (less bloat)

i would think that it would be possible to install updated programs in a LFS but i have heard from a few people that LFS must be reinstalled often to keep up to date (i dont think it should be true though)

maybe im not understanding how their package management works, but i have read that Arch's pacman uses binaries (and i have also read a few instances that pacman uses source and compiles on the fly, but only according to someone else's generic configuration, is this true, or am i wrong?)

after some research, i think gentoo may be the right choice

how exactly do USE flags differ from Makefiles?

does gentoo, by default install with any tools other than GNU?

does gentoo, by default, include any branding (like ubuntu)?
if so, is this easily removed?
(note: this is just a personal preference question)

will hardened gentoo (SSP, SaX, etc) work with X window system (i have read accounts that suggest it will and i have also read some accounts that suggest that it will not)?

i may have been too quick to dismiss arch though (the use of binaries frightened me off).
but someone has explained to me that with the use of Makepkg, pacman achieves the same end as Makefiles or USE flags, but Makepkg and pacman are much quicker (is this because pre-compiled binaries are used and the binaries are only modified in part to suit your needs? is it possible to alter compiled binaries, i thought that way the advantage of compiling from source or using portage?)


what is that advantage/exact difference between- compiling from source (and using Makefile), using portage/emerge (and USE flags/CFLAGS), and using pacman (and Makepkg)???
(i could would really appreciate advice on this subject please!)



would it be simpler to install the vanilla linux kernel and only the basic GNU tools in the gentoo install or in the arch install (i realize that this can be changed later but i am asking about the first install)?

NOTE: having read both arch and gentoo install guides/wikis i have noticed that by default both use their own version of the linux kernel (common with a distro, and thus what was initially attractive about LFS) and their own select (seamingly non-negotiable) core packages (also common) but my question is, using which distro (or must i use LFS?) would it be easier to change this and install my chosen kernel/my own chosen core packages (the ability to choose which kernel and which core packages to install is very important to me, especially with supposedly highly customizable distros)??

I vote ARCH or Slackware
I've compiled/installed various kernels in each no issues

However; both arch and slackware kinda depend on make, etc so it wouldn't be too minimal.
because you have AUR for arch and SlackBuilds for slackware....

what about the core packages/programs/tools/utilities and libraries?
what is the absolute minimum that i could run a system with? and how does that list compare with the list of packages installed with arch (or any other distro)? how can this be changed in arch (or any other distro)?
(sorry to ask, but i really couldn't find a list of either)


also,



and

ok
err..
this is an ongoing subject here at LQ
ie minimal installs of slack/arch

in arch just install "base", not "base-develop"

in slackware it's a little trickier because no dependency checking
heres a good thread on that

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-for-x-822466/

I then made a minimal slackware-based livecd for that purpose here
http://multidistro.com/NFLUXNEW/SQ4/slack.html
the Mini

both are easy to install whatever you want
though in my opinion Slackware's makepkg is much easier than Arch's
example make a slackware .txz package from source

tar -xvzf source.tar.gz
cd source
./configure --prefix=/usr
make
make DESTDIR=/root/PKG install
cd /root/PKG
makepkg /root/mynew-package-version-arch-build.txz

EDIT: you should also make a install/slack-desc file,etc too
see my homemade packages here for reference
http://multidistro.com/downloads/Apps/slackpkgs.html

on any slackware'ish pkg, just do
explodepkg /path/to/package
or
tar xJvf name-of-pkg.txz

whereas in ARCH you gotta create a PKGBUILD,etc,etc
its a little more complicated than above but thats the meat of it with slack

both arch and slack are vanilla, no branding

1 members found this post helpful.