From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Sep 19 13:52:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07495
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07486
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [204.141.95.138]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA14881; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 17:02:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970919165229.00b3f2a8@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:52:29 -0400
To: jbryant@tfs.net
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: PcWeek Review
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 02:24 PM 9/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In reply:
>> Another (good) review about FreeBSD, this one by PcWeek:
>> 
>> http://www8.zdnet.com/pcweek/reviews/0908/08free.html
>
>it's good to see good press for FreeBSD, but I must admit, this
>article left me wondering how to get to the next page of it...
>
>kind of abrupt ending, with absolutely no performance reviewing, also
>the article was kind of dry reading.

Sometimes, no information with a positive tone is better than an analysis. The
focus of the article was that FreeBSD was a viable option to use as an
internet
server...he wasnt saying it was "better" or "the best". Thinking people
dont believe
that benchmark crap anyway...

Dennis