Re: http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> 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 It's out of date (the obvious).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.
>
> Tiny nit on that:  The linux community has made it clear (see GregKH's many
> statements), that they will forever refuse to create a stable ABI, for the
> express purpose of forcing hardware manufacturers to submit to their will.

    Good point (forgot that essay) :). Seems like that would be a good
reference for that claim.
Thanks,
-Garrett