chmeeedalf at gmail.com
Sun Aug 28 19:48:46 UTC 2011
On Aug 28, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Garrett Cooper
> <yanegomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthias Apitz <guru at unixarea.de>
>>> El día Sunday, August 28, 2011 a las 07:27:49PM +0100, Chris Rees
>>>> On 27 August 2011 20:32, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Hartmann, O.
>>>>> <ohartman at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>>> This website should be brushed up or taken offline!
>>>>>> It seems full of vintage stuff from glory days.
>>>>> 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
>>> "full of
>>> vintage stuff", "agreed", "rather FUD", but without concrete
>>> 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 It's out of date (the obvious).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
>> 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
>> 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.
Tiny nit on that: The linux community has made it clear (see GregKH's
many statements), that they will forever refuse to create a stable
ABI, for the express purpose of forcing hardware manufacturers to
submit to their will.
More information about the freebsd-current