Dustin Oakley wrote:
> There is a story on ZD-net (
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,387766,00.html ) about
<rest snipped>
Pretty much anything about Linux you see on ZDNet should be taken with a
*large* grain of salt. Rarely are they accurate - and after reading the
article you mentioned I see no change in that trend. ZDNet is very
heavily Windoze biased, and as a result they don't seem to present the
whole picture. They seemed to harp on SMP throughout that entire
article. Tested Linux on a quad Xeon, eh? And they say NT performed
similarly on similar equipment? Last I heard the stock NT can't even
*use* all four CPU's - need to get a specially patched version from
elsewhere (hardware manufacturer IIRC) to use 'em all.
I find it incredible irony that the "Lab's Eye View" - written by a
Senior Technical Analyst at the lab that did these benchmarks - has to
say "However, I find it difficult to applaud a product for mimicking the
capabilities of its competitors--and a couple of years later, at that."
And these are the same people that regularly applaud Microsoft?
I've seen so many of this type of article come out of ZDNet that now, if
I'm looking through various headlines and I see that a story came out of
ZDNet I usually don't even bother. If I want accuracy in information
I've learned to look elsewhere. If I want a decent laugh, I'll go to
ZDNet.
--
Mike Werner KA8YSD | "Where do you want to go today?"
ICQ# 12934898 | "As far from Redmond as possible!"
'91 GS500E |
Morgantown WV |
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU d-@ s:+ a- C++>$ UL++ P+ L+++ E W++ N++ !o w--- O- !M V-- PS+ PE+
Y+ R+ !tv b+++(++++) DI+ D--- G e*>++ h! r++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
