[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NT vs. Linux



Hi.

(last one from me on this thread. I promise.)

----- Original Message -----
From: <roih@altavista.net>
To: <aviram@jenik.com>
Cc: <linux-il@linux.org.il>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: NT vs. Linux

[snip]
> My suggestion to journalists
> like Mr. Thurrott is to read carefully these emails rather than sneer
> at them. They may not be as slick as advertising copy or invited
> reports, on the other hand they might be true.
>
>  It is tempting to publish a Linux versus NT benchmark
>  on 8Mb 486's. Except of course NT won't install too
>  well on it, and the world has enough fishy pseudo
>  benchmarks already. Why not do your own benchmark
>

If you would even *bother* to read my mail you'd see that:

a. You're doing exactly what you say Paul Thurrott shouldn't do. You (and
most of the comments in slashdot) are sneering at opinions and benchmarks
you don't agree with.

b. I wasn't saying anything about a 486 (and neither did mindcraft). The
fact that Linux runs better on low-scale computers is indisputable and
irrelevant for this discussion. The discussion is how well does Linux run on
a high-scale multi processor machine, and instead of answering to the point,
the Linux advocates are arguing with hollow and irrelevant comments (I'm
personally getting sick of this).

Linux used to be about computer professionals. Now it seems more like a
bunch of cheerleaders and fans that shout "M-A-K-A-B-I" whether or not their
team is really playing well.

(and I think this thread will be nothing but junk mail to most people on the
list so the rest of my comments will be off the list)

-------------------------
Aviram Jenik

"Addicted to Chaos"

-------------------------
Today's quote:

Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with something bigger and
     heavier.
 -Anonymous