On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi_at_gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthias Apitz <guru_at_unixarea.de> wrote: >> El día Sunday, August 28, 2011 a las 07:27:49PM +0100, Chris Rees escribió: >> >>> On 27 August 2011 20:32, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi_at_gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Hartmann, O. >>> > <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>> >> This website should be brushed up or taken offline! >>> >> It seems full of vintage stuff from glory days. >>> >> >>> >> http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html >>> > >>> > Agreed. Things have changed quite a bit in the last decade. >>> >>> It reads rather FUD-like too. >> >> It's a pitty that the comments until now are only general like "full of >> vintage stuff", "agreed", "rather FUD", but without concrete critics or >> proposals of changes of wrong data. > > Ok then: > > 1. It's out of date (the obvious). This comes down to some of the > information being completely incorrect as far as featuresets, and just > looks embarrassing in other respects because it's using Windows 2000 > as a comparison (it's a 10 year old OS). > 2. Broken links. > 3. The smiley icons are very unprofessional. > 4. There's a lot of wasted horizontal space on the webpage. > 5. There's no data to back up some of the claimed observations (what > version of FreeBSD, Linux, Windows were used; what performance metrics > were obtained; how things were tuned; etc). > 6. Some of the data (example: the SQL error text under "Performance" > in the Windows column) is in the wrong spot, s.t. it distracts > readers. If anything it belongs in the footnotes. > 7. The breakdown is too terse. Execs and business types like looking > at bullet points; the technical folks like looking at things in more > gross detail. One more: 8. Text like "The Linux community intentionally makes it difficult for hardware manufacturers to release binary-only drivers." is confrontational and unprofessional. It's the GPL license more than the community that forces vendors to opensource proprietary code because that's the primary goal of the license -- to keep the source free and open -- whereas BSD allows the developer to do whatever they want with the source. Thanks, -GarrettReceived on Sun Aug 28 2011 - 17:15:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:17 UTC