Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:25:06 -0400 From: Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>, Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de>, "Hartmann, O." <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, freebsd Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html Message-ID: <9202191F-FCF4-481C-8B8E-8870DB7AB31B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGH67wROuEr13zRaii_954Ksa8OvmQ0D2kh5%2Bfd%2BwBS4oRHywg@mail.gmail.com> References: <4E5941D6.9090106@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAGH67wSVX=31t9rAUk1bkJUytYEdCHfsPuHMajBqAKJDnN=U1g@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83-jUTfNNc_gqGfkXy4=e6ojRKrHmnctQ7N1cyRkoETqBg@mail.gmail.com> <20110828184758.GA1189@tiny> <CAGH67wRsn4=cP1%2Be5d4h75%2Bv_%2B-tKR-EZZKaF2eGLNyWgSDhzg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGH67wROuEr13zRaii_954Ksa8OvmQ0D2kh5%2Bfd%2BwBS4oRHywg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 28, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Garrett Cooper =20 > <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de> =20= >> wrote: >>> El d=EDa Sunday, August 28, 2011 a las 07:27:49PM +0100, Chris Rees =20= >>> escribi=F3: >>> >>>> On 27 August 2011 20:32, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Hartmann, O. >>>>> <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>>>>> This website should be brushed up or taken offline! >>>>>> It seems full of vintage stuff from glory days. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. Things have changed quite a bit in the last decade. >>>> >>>> It reads rather FUD-like too. >>> >>> It's a pitty that the comments until now are only general like =20 >>> "full of >>> vintage stuff", "agreed", "rather FUD", but without concrete =20 >>> critics or >>> proposals of changes of wrong data. >> >> Ok then: >> >> 1. It's out of date (the obvious). This comes down to some of the >> information being completely incorrect as far as featuresets, and =20 >> just >> looks embarrassing in other respects because it's using Windows 2000 >> as a comparison (it's a 10 year old OS). >> 2. Broken links. >> 3. The smiley icons are very unprofessional. >> 4. There's a lot of wasted horizontal space on the webpage. >> 5. There's no data to back up some of the claimed observations (what >> version of FreeBSD, Linux, Windows were used; what performance =20 >> metrics >> were obtained; how things were tuned; etc). >> 6. Some of the data (example: the SQL error text under "Performance" >> in the Windows column) is in the wrong spot, s.t. it distracts >> readers. If anything it belongs in the footnotes. >> 7. The breakdown is too terse. Execs and business types like looking >> at bullet points; the technical folks like looking at things in more >> gross detail. > > One more: > > 8. Text like "The Linux community intentionally makes it difficult for > hardware manufacturers to release binary-only drivers." is > confrontational and unprofessional. It's the GPL license more than the > community that forces vendors to opensource proprietary code because > that's the primary goal of the license -- to keep the source free and > open -- whereas BSD allows the developer to do whatever they want with > the source. > > Thanks, > -Garrett Tiny nit on that: The linux community has made it clear (see GregKH's =20= many statements), that they will forever refuse to create a stable =20 ABI, for the express purpose of forcing hardware manufacturers to =20 submit to their will. - Justin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9202191F-FCF4-481C-8B8E-8870DB7AB31B>