Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:35:03 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Jonathan Walther <krooger@debian.org>, advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Linux vs. NT, take 2.] Message-ID: <3778E7A7.1F548BE@newsguy.com> References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990628194210.32578A-100000@lambdamoo.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Walther wrote: > > The only damage was to Redhat. None of the Linux bigwigs participated. > Linus, Alan Cox, Jeremy Alison... none of them participated or endorsed the > benchmarks. Linux is pulling through this one pretty well. And the fact > that Mindcraft is still involved taints all results in the eyes of the > journalistic community. As well as the fact that Apache was what was > tested, not the faster web servers. Err... you should take a few pills of reality. The distinction between RedHat and linux distributions in general, the lack of "Linux bigwigs", the fact that Apache was used instead of other servers only affects the Linux community, which is not likely to change it's mind in first place. And the fact that Mindcraft is still involved doesn't taint the results anymore than the fact that Microsoft is involved, giving the steps taken to insure a fair process (quote me one non-Linux source saying the results a dubious!). This has a HUGE impact against Linux. And even an impact against other open source operating systems. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org Given infinite time, 100 monkeys could type out the complete works of Shakespeare. Win 98 source code? Eight monkeys, five minutes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3778E7A7.1F548BE>