On 9/8/2011 2:41 PM, Michael Torrie wrote: > No you completely missed the point of the article. Actually, I don't believe I missed it. I was pointing out, perhaps poorly, what Paul noted: the article is an unfair statement with little "point" other than to brag about FreeBSD in ways that don't actually matter. (I should point out my bias in that I am a gamer, which is largely why I have Windows on my desktop at home, and unfortunately I am experienced enough to care about more than just FPS when talking about game performance. I imagine everyone reading this would be as well, actually.)
I would again point out that FreeBSD's ability to put out more frames per second would depend on a mountain of variables both not addressed in the article nor comparable between the two operating systems. This is a lot like when people talk about Windows performance vs Linux performance. They tend to not factor in the myriad of variables that make it apples and oranges, and reduce performance to a number they can put on a chart that doesn't represent much (think how many times we have to tell people how system "load" is not a performance indicator, it's just there to give a bit of a sense of health of the overall system, so you know if you have to look into what's running amok.) I may not be saying this very well, and I apologize, my thoughts are a bit scattered today. That doesn't make the article any less erroneous in its statements just because I can't point out it's mistakes in language everyone else can accurately understand. It just makes me poor at writing about their erroneous statements (assuming they're erroneous, which is my belief). Cheers, -Tod Hansmann /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
