Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 76.64.77.243]
on September 19, 2008 04:33 AM
>>> That's a _hardware_ review site. Most, if not all hardware review sites (the one geared towards Windows usersn since Phoronics is the only hw review site to cater to Linux users you can only compare to how things are done in the Windows hw review world) draw conclusions based on a 2 or 3 frame reference...
You think that comparing Phoronix to a windows review website that draws shotty conclusions makes it a good website? Anyone who thinks video card driver A is definitively better then B is based on a 0.2% difference is an idiot, present company included.
>>> Again, Phoronics is a _hardware_ review site.
Phoronix is an _OPEN_SOURCE_ _hardware_ review site.
>>> When Windows review sites compare the performances of a meaningless title like Crisis between 2 different .01 driver releases,
Again, that kind of review is pointless... the change log for the patch already tells you what was fixed/improved... there is no point to publish a "review" about two things that are essentially the same.
>>> or between SP1 beta 0.3 and SP2 RC, they don't explain anything about what could have caused the performance difference. At all.
Because unless they work for MS they don't _know_ what is different between SP1 and SP2, because closed source development is... well... closed.
>>> For the difference between distributions, it would involve the distributions developers to try to figure themselves what could cause the performance difference (and it's no easy task).
How hard could it be? This is _OPEN_SOURCE_, I bet if I went onto IRC or shot an email on to the Fedora-devel mailing list and said "Hey guys, does anyone know why compiling is now twice as fast on Fedora as any other distro?", I'd get some info I could've included in the article.
You want to know why Ubuntu boots faster on the eeePC then the other distros? Well it could have something to do with a fellow named Adam @ http://array.org who has been feeding eeePC specific patches into the Ubuntu kernel team.
>>> With the Phoronics test suite they can now try to attempt understanding it (if they really want to spend the time building the distro after each tiny patch and try to figure what could be the problem). Don't ask one man to do what none of the 50+ developer distros is doing.
A bunch of different performance numbers that will help us understand what? Distro X is faster at video, Distro Y is faster at SQL... So what, who cares? How do I make the distro I'm on faster at SQL?
>>> Once you understand what Phoronics is about, it's actually a really good site. Even though it's a hw review site, some of the article they run on graphic drivers and Xorg are really insightful (and remember, they're a bonus - and even though Phoronics is a hw site their "software" articles are some of the best).
I understand what Phoronix is about and I hope and wish it gets better because it's really not as good as you think it is.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re: Michael Larabel talks about Phoronix
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.64.77.243] on September 19, 2008 04:33 AMYou think that comparing Phoronix to a windows review website that draws shotty conclusions makes it a good website? Anyone who thinks video card driver A is definitively better then B is based on a 0.2% difference is an idiot, present company included.
>>> Again, Phoronics is a _hardware_ review site.
Phoronix is an _OPEN_SOURCE_ _hardware_ review site.
>>> When Windows review sites compare the performances of a meaningless title like Crisis between 2 different .01 driver releases,
Again, that kind of review is pointless... the change log for the patch already tells you what was fixed/improved... there is no point to publish a "review" about two things that are essentially the same.
>>> or between SP1 beta 0.3 and SP2 RC, they don't explain anything about what could have caused the performance difference. At all.
Because unless they work for MS they don't _know_ what is different between SP1 and SP2, because closed source development is... well... closed.
>>> For the difference between distributions, it would involve the distributions developers to try to figure themselves what could cause the performance difference (and it's no easy task).
How hard could it be? This is _OPEN_SOURCE_, I bet if I went onto IRC or shot an email on to the Fedora-devel mailing list and said "Hey guys, does anyone know why compiling is now twice as fast on Fedora as any other distro?", I'd get some info I could've included in the article.
You want to know why Ubuntu boots faster on the eeePC then the other distros? Well it could have something to do with a fellow named Adam @ http://array.org who has been feeding eeePC specific patches into the Ubuntu kernel team.
>>> With the Phoronics test suite they can now try to attempt understanding it (if they really want to spend the time building the distro after each tiny patch and try to figure what could be the problem). Don't ask one man to do what none of the 50+ developer distros is doing.
A bunch of different performance numbers that will help us understand what? Distro X is faster at video, Distro Y is faster at SQL... So what, who cares? How do I make the distro I'm on faster at SQL?
>>> Once you understand what Phoronics is about, it's actually a really good site. Even though it's a hw review site, some of the article they run on graphic drivers and Xorg are really insightful (and remember, they're a bonus - and even though Phoronics is a hw site their "software" articles are some of the best).
I understand what Phoronix is about and I hope and wish it gets better because it's really not as good as you think it is.
#